Jody was driving down Main Street in Honesdale in the left hand lane when Felix abruptly came around the corner from 9^th Street. Felix did not realize that Main Street was one way. Jody tried to turn to the right, but did not have enough time and a violent impact took place. Jody suffered several broken ribs and punctured one of her lungs. After about six months though, Jody had made a good recovery. Jody was told by an attorney that she could not bring an action against Felix because she had selected the limited tort option. Felix was a New Jersey resident driving a vehicle registered in New Jersey.

ISSUE:            Was Jody given sound legal advice?

ANSWER:            No. Because of the fact that Felix is licensed in New Jersey and a resident of New Jersey, Jody is allowed to proceed with a civil action regardless of the severity of her injuries. One of the exceptions to the Automobile Act regarding limited tort is that if the negligent party is from out of state, one could pursue action regardless of the extent of her injuries. As a general rule, in other words, general tort does not apply when there is an out of state licensed driver.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive.  Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column. 

By Robert Swift (Harrisburg Bureau Chief)
Published: August 10, 2010

HARRISBURG – The natural gas industry is lobbying lawmakers to tax natural gas production at a lower rate during a well’s early years of production.

Proposals for a three-tiered well tax, requiring pooling together land parcels for drilling operations and making drilling a permitted use for local zoning are being advanced by the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry trade group. A copy of the coalition’s legislative agenda is circulating at the Capitol.

“Together, these policies will help ensure that Marcellus development remains competitive with other shale gas producing states and that critical capital investment will continue to flow into the region,” coalition president Kathryn Klaber said Monday.

Tax deadline Oct. 1

The coalition’s proposal surfaces with leaders of the House and Senate declaring their intent to pass a state severance tax by Oct. 1 and have it go into effect Jan. 1, 2011. The declaration is part of a state budget package enacted last month. Lawmakers return to session in mid-September with the Marcellus Shale and transportation funding issues competing for attention.

The newest details in the proposal focus on what production would be taxed at lower rates or exempt, an already contentious issue in Harrisburg.

Under the proposal, “high cost” Marcellus Shale wells that go to 5,000 feet or more below the surface to reach deep gas pockets would be taxed at 1.5 percent of market value of gas produced for the first five years, with a five percent tax rate kicking in after that.

So-called marginal Marcellus wells would be taxed at one percent of market value. These are described as wells not capable of producing more than 150,000 cubic feet of gas per day in a month. Wells not capable of producing more than 90,000 cubic feet of gas per day in a month would be exempt from taxes under the proposal.

Shallow gas wells would be exempt from taxes.

Market value would be defined as the amount generated through cash receipts less the cost of dehydrating, treating, compressing and delivering the gas.

As an example of high costs, the coalition cites a provision in state law that requires Marcellus producers to drill down into the Onondaga Layer which underlies the Marcellus Shale formation if the drilling takes place in a coal region. The added cost can amount to $200,000 per well, it states.

The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center issued a report recently criticizing tax breaks on new wells as depriving the state of tax revenue during a well’s greatest years of production.

“It would be a severance tax in name only,” said center executive director Sharon Ward.

The industry is seeking a two-sided exemption, with the reduced tax rate at the start and exemption for wells it considers low-producing, said Michael Wood, center research director. A 150,000-cubic-feet threshold is high, he said.

‘Use by right’

In addition, the coalition wants lawmakers to declare drilling a “use by right” in local zoning ordinances. That means drilling would be allowed, without the need for a major review by a local government, as long as it meets the standards specified in an ordinance. A local zoning permit would still be needed, but that would be issued relatively quickly.

This would provide for gas development in an orderly way while allowing municipalities to impose reasonable conditions on land used such as lot size and landscaping and safety features, the coalition said.

“We have problems with that,” said Elam Herr, an official with the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors. A township can’t exclude drilling under zoning laws, but local officials should be able to say where it takes place and keep it out of areas zoned for residential use, he said.

Other proposals call for providing incentives to convert state and local government and transit vehicles to natural gas fueling and giving priority to tax revenue distribution to host municipalities and counties.

Contact the writer: rswift@timesshamrock.com

View article here.

Copyright:  The Daily Review

By Elizabeth Skrapits (Staff Writer)
Published: August 9, 2010

When it comes to regulating natural gas drilling, the state Oil and Gas Act trumps local ordinances – mostly.

As is the case with methadone clinics and adult entertainment venues, municipalities and counties can’t keep natural gas wells out altogether. But local officials do have some power, such as the ability to limit wells to agricultural, manufacturing or industrial zones and bar them in residential districts.

“We – local land use authorities – can regulate the ‘where;’ we cannot regulate the ‘how.’ That power, to regulate the ‘how’ of natural gas drilling, rests entirely with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,” Luzerne County Zoning Hearing Board Chairman Larry Newman said after last week’s hearing on granting Encana Oil & Gas USA Inc. conditional use to drill 10 natural gas wells in Lake and Fairmount townships.

Municipal and county planning and zoning authorities do have some say in the matter of natural gas drilling in their communities, state officials say.

“They’re not completely pre-empted by any means under state law,” Department of Environmental Protection Secretary John Hanger said. “They do have a role.”

Drilling processes, techniques and materials are beyond the power of local zoning authorities, Hanger said. For example, a zoning hearing board cannot tell a natural gas company what kind of cement can be used in a well casing, he said. Instead, the Oil and Gas Act gives DEP the authority to set drilling standards.

Denny Puko of the state Department of Community and Economic Development said the Oil and Gas Act generally not only pre-empts local regulations of any type except for the Municipalities Planning Code and the Flood Plain Act, but goes a step further: although municipalities and counties can do things under those two statutes, they can’t regulate what the Oil and Gas Act regulates.

“They’re limited,” he said. “You can see there’s not a whole lot of room.”

But legal precedents are being set which can change that.

Puko cited three state court cases that clarified what counties and municipalities can and can’t do when it comes to natural gas drilling: Huntley & Huntley vs. Oakmont Borough; Penneco Oil Co. and Range Resources vs. the County of Fayette; and Range Resources vs. Salem Township (Westmoreland County).

In the often-cited 2007 Huntley vs. Oakmont case, Huntley & Huntley sought to drill a natural gas well in a residential subdivision in Oakmont Borough. Borough council denied the company.

The upshot of the case was the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that while the conditional use permit had been improperly denied, companies cannot drill in areas where zoning ordinances do not allow them. The more recent Penneco case is similar in nature.

In the Range Resources vs. Salem Township decision, the court ruled that the township’s ordinance overlapped and in some cases was more stringent than the Oil and Gas Act, making it “an attempt by the Township to enact a comprehensive regulatory scheme relative to oil and gas development within the municipality.”

Unlike in Huntley vs. Oakmont, which was about the “where” of natural gas drilling, Salem Township was trying to regulate the “how.” The court ruled against the township.

“It’s kind of narrow what a municipality can do, according to the court precedent,” Puko said. “I guess at this point, municipalities are left to interpret the law with their municipal solicitors, and act accordingly.”

The court cases are leading zoning officials and solicitors through what Attorney Jeffrey Malak calls “new, uncharted waters.”

Malak, who not only works with property on natural gas leases but also serves as the solicitor for several entities including the Back Mountain Community Partnership, has been researching the subject on behalf of the six member municipalities.

According to Malak, there are numerous provisions municipalities can try to get into their zoning ordinances, including:

> Locating wells in certain zoning districts with permission (conditional use).

> Keeping wells certain distances from occupied structures, public streets, roadways or lot lines.

> Screening, buffering and fencing requirements.

> Bonding the natural gas company to ensure responsibility for road maintenance and repair.

Ordinances to regulate dust, noise and light pollution are also possibilities.

However, Malak noted, “Just because we put it in the zoning ordinance doesn’t mean that it’s valid.”

In one of the municipalities where Malak serves as solicitor, Dallas Borough, the zoning ordinance – which is available at www.dallasborough.org – restricts natural gas well drilling to industrial zones and highway business districts. It has requirements including that drilling cannot take place within 200 feet of any occupied structure or 100 feet of any stream, spring or wetland.

The 100-foot setback from water is a DEP regulation, but municipalities can include that and other state requirements in their zoning ordinances, Malak said.

“It’s a lot of referencing state laws: ‘Hey, the state has this, we’re going to put this in too,’” he said.

As more cases and appeals make it through the state courts, they will give further guidance to municipalities, landowners and gas companies on what is permissible and what isn’t, Malak said.

“It’s an evolving field of law,” he said.

eskrapits@citizensvoice.com , 570-821-2072

View article here.

Copyright:  Citizens Voice

BY JAMES LOEWENSTEIN (STAFF WRITER)
Published: August 6, 2010

TOWANDA – The environmental effects of gas drilling was one of the topics discussed at Thursday’s meeting of the Bradford County commissioners, where an Ulster resident said the county is being “raped” by the gas industry.

Ulster resident Betty Snyder told the commissioners she is concerned about waste materials leaking from “ponds” that are created by gas drilling companies at well sites in the area.

“We have talked to several people who have them (the ponds),” Snyder said. “They are leaking, but it’s never reported to the DEP.”

“There are so many people who are afraid of what’s going on,” she said. “The county is being raped” by the gas companies, she said.

Bradford County Commissioner Doug McLinko said he has not heard of cases where “ponds” or impoundment sites at gas well sites are leaking in Bradford County.

Dan Spadoni, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, said in a telephone interview that there are two types of ponds or impoundment areas at natural gas well sites.

The first is a centralized impoundment area that contains fresh water that is used for hydraulic fracturing at a number of well sites in the area, he said.

The second type is known as a “drill pit” or a “reserve pit” which contain mainly drill cuttings, drilling mud, and oil and grease, he said.

Waste water from hydraulic fracturing, which flows back out a gas well, is not normally stored in a drill pit, Spadoni said.

Instead, the waste water is normally stored in tanks that are located on the well pad, he said.

The waste water from hydraulic fracturing that flows back out of a well can be mixed with fresh water and used for a future hydraulic fracturing of a well, or it can be pumped into a tanker truck and taken to a treatment facility, he said.

State regulations require that the drill pits be lined, Spadoni said. The pits are lined with a material that is similar to the material used to line landfills, he said.

While municipal waste landfills are required to be double-lined, drill pits are only required to have a singe layer of lining, he said.

Spadoni said there have been “some” leaks and spills from pits and impoundments at natural gas well sites in Bradford County.

However, he said he was not able to obtain more specific information Thursday on the number and location of such spills and leaks.

At the commissioners’ meeting, McLinko also said that the DEP is understaffed.

When asked for comment, Spadoni provided a written statement from the DEP which states: “For more than two years Pennsylvania has been pro-actively increasing its oversight of gas drilling. No other state has added more staff, done a more comprehensive strengthening of its rules or more aggressively enforced its rules than Pennsylvania has.”

“In 2009, Governor Edward G. Rendell directed the hiring of 37 additional employees for oil and gas staff,” according to the DEP’s written statement. “In 2010, the Governor directed the hiring of an additional 68 oil and gas employees. The 2009 and 2010 hiring will more than double the number of state employees regulating Pennsylvania’s gas industry.”

James Loewenstein can be reached at (570) 265-1633; or email: jloewenstein@thedailyreview.com

View article here.

Copyright:  The Daily Review

Published: August 6, 2010

By Laura Legere

Staff Writer

When the New York State Senate passed a nine-month moratorium on a crucial natural gas drilling technique late Tuesday, legislators there held up Pennsylvania, state regulators and a small Susquehanna County community as models for how not to drill for gas in the Marcellus Shale.

The senators’ criticism raised the ire of Pennsylvania Environmental Protection Secretary John Hanger, who defended the state’s environmental regulations on Thursday and criticized New York for riding the moral “high horse while consuming Pennsylvania gas.”

“If they are so ashamed of what’s gone on here perhaps they should stop buying Pennsylvania gas,” Hanger said.

The sponsor of the New York legislation barring hydraulic fracking, Senator Antoine Thompson, twice visited Dimock Township, in Susquehanna County, and Bradford County in the last eight months to learn from citizens and gas companies about the positive and negative effects of drilling – experiences he cited when he introduced the bill for a vote.

“I think because the state of Pennsylvania was so thirsty to get this development opportunity they did not have enough infrastructure in place, making sure they were inspecting the wells properly, making sure that landowners were protected,” Thompson, D-Buffalo, said Tuesday night.

Despite his opposition to the moratorium, New York State Senator Tom Libous, R-Binghamton, spoke even more critically of Pennsylvania.

“Shame on the state of Pennsylvania,” Libous said. “Shame on their Department of Environmental Protection … because they screwed up badly. They didn’t keep an eye on those who were drilling. They didn’t keep an eye on environmental factors on behalf of the citizens of that state.”

Hanger agreed the experience in Dimock was “unacceptable” – the department found that faulty Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. natural gas wells caused methane to contaminate residents’ drinking water there. But he described two years of work the department has dedicated to strengthening Pennsylvania’s drilling standards and enforcement, including doubling the size of its gas enforcement staff while “New York has added nobody.”

“If New York demands to have no impacts from drilling, then they better have a moratorium that extends not just through May 2011, but forever,” he said. “You cannot have drilling, even done well, and get zero impact.”

When companies have “screwed up, like Cabot screwed up in Dimock,” he said, “we’ve come down on them very, very hard.”

Marcellus Shale drilling has been on hold in New York since 2008 when the state’s environmental regulatory agency began reviewing the environmental impact of the deep well drilling and updating its permitting requirements. That review is expected to be completed later this year.

When asked if he wished he had the opportunity to watch a neighboring state learn through trial and error – as the New York State Senate’s vote positions the Empire State to continue to do – Hanger said, “There are pluses and minuses to each state’s approach.”

llegere@timesshamrock.com

View article here.

Copyright:  The Citizens Voice 

By Elizabeth Skrapits (Staff Writer)
Published: August 4, 2010

WILKES-BARRE – The Luzerne County Zoning Hearing Board on Tuesday night approved new natural gas wells and a facility for processing the gas, but added safety conditions.

Zoning hearing board members William Harris, Anthony Palischak and Chairman Lawrence Newman unanimously granted Encana Oil & Gas USA Inc. conditional use to drill five natural gas wells in an agricultural zone on the 4-P Realty property on Loyalville Road in Lake Township, as well as a natural gas processing facility that would include a compressor station and a radio tower.

Among the conditions the board imposed, Encana will have to determine whether the county’s emergency responders will be able to handle problems at the site, and to draw up a contingency plan to share with all concerned.

Encana will have to mitigate noise, light and dust at the site, as well as provide a traffic control plan, bond all county and municipal roads, and consider safety measures for school buses, such as having flagmen at bus stops.

The board also granted conditional approval on Encana’s request to drill three wells on the Kent North site at 208 State Route 118 in Fairmount Township, and two wells on the Kent South site at 27 State Route 487 in Fairmount Township.

The commissioners’ meeting room at the courthouse was jammed with people, many of whom expressed opposition to natural gas drilling.

Zoning hearing board Solicitor Stephen A. Menn repeatedly stressed that the state Oil and Gas Act does not allow local officials to regulate most aspects of natural gas well drilling, including how it is done and water use and protection.

“In what ways has the Oil and Gas Act tied your hands?” Factoryville resident Patrick Walker asked.

“Health, safety and welfare issues,” Menn said.

Like with methadone clinics and adult entertainment, zoning cannot exclude natural gas drilling, according to Menn.

“Drilling is a legal use. You have to put it somewhere,” Menn said.

The place people should seek change is Harrisburg, in laws passed by the General Assembly.

“I think it is an absolute horror, I think this is a version of fascism, that this power has been taken away from you,” Walker said.

Several residents questioned safety issues, such as the 6,800 additional trucks on the road throughout the well drilling process.

Lake-Lehman Transportation Coordinator Sandy Dobrowolski, speaking on her own behalf, expressed concern about the school buses being on the roads at the same time as the heavy traffic at the site.

Paul Ungvarsky, who lives on Loyalville Road about a mile from the 4-P property, asked if something could be done to ensure trucks don’t speed on the road. Encana Community Relations Adviser Wendy Wiedenbeck said it seemed like a reasonable request.

Ungvarsky also wanted to know what would happen if a property isn’t leased. He said his isn’t.

“If it’s unleased, we cannot drill under it,” Encana Operations Engineer Joel Fox said.

Linster added that Encana has “quite a bit of room to work with” on the 4-P site.

Mike Patrician of Clarks Summit, one of the 4-P property owners, spoke on Encana’s behalf, saying he had talked to five different companies at length about leasing.

“People are not all the same, gas companies are not all the same,” he said. “Encana has a stellar reputation in the industry.”

Gary Ide, who has leased his Lehman Township property, also defended Encana, stating that leaseholders were “extraordinarily impressed” with the company.

But Gene Stilp of Dauphin County, in referencing Patrician’s comment, said: “People are different, companies are different – frack water is pretty much the same.”

eskrapits@citizensvoice.com , 570-821-2072

View article here.

Copyright:  The Citizens Voice 

BY STEVE McCONNELL (STAFF WRITER)
Published: August 4, 2010

HONESDALE – A natural gas drilling company with extensive landholdings throughout the region has filed a civil complaint in Wayne County Court against the county recorder of deeds office claiming it has encumbered land leasing there.

The complaint, filed in June by Oklahoma-based Chesapeake Appalachia, a subsidiary of Chesapeake Energy, alleges the head of the county recorder of deeds office, Ginger Golden, has instituted “blanket” policies outside the scope of state laws governing her office that have prevented the “immediate” recording of natural gas leases.

The complaint comes amid other legal action filed by natural gas drilling companies in county, state and federal courts, including a federal lawsuit last month by Houston-based Newfield Exploration Co. against Damascus Twp., Wayne County over a zoning dispute.

Energy companies operating in the state must secure exploration and development rights on private properties by first attaining the consent of the landowners and developing a natural gas lease agreement, and then submitting it to county recorder of deeds offices for final, binding confirmation of the agreement.

Mrs. Golden, whose office has traditionally recorded property deeds and transactions until the influx of at least 8,100 natural gas leases submitted over the past four years in Wayne County, declined to comment on the complaint citing the “ongoing case.”

Her office has recorded about 5,100 Chesapeake Appalachia natural gas lease agreements, according to courthouse records.

“She has been doing everything properly,” said attorney Ronald M. Bugaj, who is representing the county recorder of deeds office. “We think they’re wrong.”

Efforts to reach Louis W. Schack, an attorney with international law firm Reed Smith LLP representing Chesapeake Appalachia, were unsuccessful.

Brian Grove, a Bradford County-based company executive and spokesman, did not return an e-mail or message asking whether Chesapeake Appalachia has experienced similar issues alleged in the complaint in other counties where it operates.

Mr. Bugaj said a hearing scheduled Monday was canceled by company attorneys, who are still seeking a judgment on it.

The complaint specifically alleges Mrs. Golden’s office has denied the company’s request to lump 713 natural gas leases into a single document that contains only the property owner’s name and basic parcel identification numbers.

A typical lease agreement for one property, which the office is seeking, generally contains detailed information including the length of the lease term, the names of neighboring property owners, the amount of acreage leased, signatures and a notary stamp, according to courthouse records.

Some lease agreements only have barebones information, however, but still include signature lines.

The complaint also claims the county recorder of deeds office refused to document leases where the signature of a landowner did not include the landowner’s printed middle initial, or where a notary’s stamp is not “in the location desired by the recorder,” among other grievances.

Citing cost and time prohibitive burdens, the complaint also states that “the recorder is designed to be a purely ministerial position. … She has no such legal power; if the documents are properly acknowledged, she must record them.”

The complaint asks Wayne County Court to determine if these practices are in compliance with state laws, and if not, to prevent the county recorder of deeds office from enforcing its policies.

Contact the writer: smcconnell@timesshamrock.com

View article here.

Copyright:  The Scranton Times

By Steve McConnell (STAFF WRITER)
Published: August 3, 2010

HONESDALE – A major player in the Marcellus Shale drilling boom is pulling out of Wayne County, placing an estimated 9,200 acres secured for development on the block, with final bids due today.

Faced with a moratorium on natural gas exploration and development in Wayne County enacted by the Delaware River Basin Commission, Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. is selling all of its natural gas leasehold in the county and also a small section that extends into Pike County.

Cabot spokesman George Stark said the company is focusing its efforts in Susquehanna County, where its has drilled 101 natural gas wells. Cabot has gained some notoriety there for several environmental incidents centered in Dimock Twp.

“That’s truly where we are planning on doing our drilling in the future,” said Mr. Stark, who declined to say whether the now two-month moratorium had any impact on the company’s decision. Natural gas companies sell their stakes in different energy plays throughout the country for a variety of reasons, including regulatory issues and as a way to shore up unexpected shortfalls in revenue.

Cabot reported a 15 percent drop in second-quarter net income this year. Mr. Stark attributed that to lower natural gas prices on the market, along with increased production.

The river basin commission, which has jurisdiction over water resources and natural gas drilling in nearly all of Wayne County and the Delaware River watershed, is developing its own set of regulations for the burgeoning industry that may exceed requirements set by the state Department of Environmental Protection.

Commission spokesman Clarke Rupert said draft regulations are expected to be published by the end of summer, which may be followed by a series of public hearings before the commission considers it for approval.

Cabot is also unloading 4,707 acres in Sullivan County, N.Y., which is part of the watershed, and 12,845 acres in West Virginia – all Marcellus Shale holdings.

Meanwhile, Houston-based Newfield Exploration Co. drilled its first natural gas exploratory well last month in Manchester Twp., Wayne County, one of only 10 exploratory wells that were allowed to proceed before the drilling ban took effect in June. Wayne County has no producing natural gas wells, unlike the large-scale production Cabot and other companies have under way in Susquehanna and Bradford counties.

Cabot’s natural gas leasehold in Wayne County, which was put up for sale Sunday through a Houston-based oil and gas lease exchange for a potential “negotiated transaction,” consists of 82 properties centered in the greater Honesdale area and surrounding rural municipalities.

Leased properties are as large as 2,452 acres in Berlin and Palmyra townships, and as small as one acre, according to court records.

Contact the writer: smcconnell@timesshamrock.com

View article here.

Copyright:  The Scranton Times 

By Laura Legere (Staff Writer)
Published: August 3, 2010

Marcellus Shale natural gas drillers have been cited nearly 1,500 times in the past 2½ years for violating the state’s oil and gas laws, according to a report released Monday by the Pennsylvania Land Trust Association.

Two-thirds of the 1,435 violations were identified by the report’s authors as likely to harm or pose a threat to the environment, while the other third were identified as administrative or safety violations.

The violations were issued by the state Department of Environmental Protection, the agency that regulates gas drilling in Pennsylvania, which released the records to the association in response to a Right to Know Law request.

Elana Richman, projects coordinator for the Pennsylvania Land Trust Association, said the organization sought the records to measure the gas extraction industry’s environmental record as Marcellus Shale drilling expands in the state.

“We had the feeling that there was a lot out there that we weren’t seeing,” she said.

The association found that of the 952 violations with environmental implications, 277 were for improper erosion and sedimentation plans or controls, 268 were for faulty wastewater pits, 100 were violations of the state’s Clean Streams Law and 154 were spills of brine, oil, drill cuttings or other waste to the ground or streams.

DEP released the details of one such spill Monday, when it announced that it had fined Talisman Energy USA $15,506 for a spill of gas drilling wastewater at a Bradford County well site in November.

The spill of between 4,200 and 6,300 gallons polluted a small unnamed tributary to Webier Creek, DEP said. The company has since completed the state’s cleanup requirements.

Violations associated with recent high-profile environmental accidents, like well blowouts and gas contamination of water supplies, occurred in smaller numbers during the report’s study period, between Jan. 1, 2008, and June 25, 2010.

There were 10 violations for improper construction of the cement and steel casings used to isolate drinking water aquifers from Marcellus Shale wells, a problem that DEP found was to blame for gas contamination of 14 drinking water supplies in Dimock Twp. DEP issued 16 violations for improper blowout-prevention measures, lapses like those that led to the blowout of an EOG Resources well in Clearfield County on June 3, when wastewater and gas erupted uncontrolled for 17 hours.

The report also lists the 25 Marcellus Shale drillers with the most violations, beginning with East Resources Inc., a Warrendale, Pa.-based company that was recently bought by Royal Dutch Shell, which recorded 138 violations. Chesapeake Appalachia, Chief Oil and Gas, Cabot Oil and Gas, and Talisman Energy USA rounded out the top five.

Stephen Rhoads, director of external affairs for East Resources, said the company is “painfully aware” of the violations and has changed its practices to avoid them, including no longer using earthen pits to handle well wastes.

“Obviously we need to do some work, and we are,” he said, noting that the company is close to the bottom of the report’s list of 25 drillers with the highest average number of violations per well drilled.

Proponents and critics of Marcellus Shale drilling interpreted the report differently on Monday as evidence of either strict or insufficient regulatory oversight.

“Clearly our industry is tightly regulated, and arguably under more scrutiny than any other operating in the commonwealth,” said Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, a cooperative of the state’s Marcellus drillers.

Environmental groups used the report to call for more drilling regulations and enforcement.

“DEP inspectors do not visit these sites frequently enough,” said Jeff Schmidt, director of the Sierra Club Pennsylvania Chapter. “With the thousands of permits issued, DEP does not make necessary inspections to protect the public from environmental harm.”

DEP released a fact sheet about its oversight of Marcellus Shale drilling on Monday that countered Mr. Schmidt’s criticism.

“No other state has added more staff, done a more comprehensive strengthening of its rules or more aggressively enforced its rules than Pennsylvania has,” it said.

DEP Secretary John Hanger said the report proves the industry is actively regulated, that companies “can do a better job of operating their drill sites,” and that the drillers should pay a severance tax on the gas they produce.

“Even with strong oversight there are going to be impacts,” he said. “This industry must pay a tax in order to compensate the state, the local community and the environment for some of the costs associated with drilling.”

Contact the writer: llegere@timesshamrock.com

View article here.

Copyright:  The Scranton Times

Carolyn worked at a local fast-food restaurant. Carolyn had recently broken up with her boyfriend and her boyfriend was not taking it very well. Carolyn’s boyfriend started stalking her as well as calling her at all hours of the night. Carolyn was working a night shift and after she punched out and was on her way to her car in the employer’s parking lot, her boyfriend drove his car into her causing her serious injury.

ISSUE: Is Carolyn entitled to Workers’ Compensation benefits?

ANSWER: No. Normally injuries incurred while one is on an employer’s premises, including parking lots, are compensable. In this case though, Carolyn’s injuries were caused by her boyfriend and his personal animosity towards her and thus did not in any way arise out of her scope of course of employment.

Carolyn will obviously have a law suit against her boyfriend, although the insurance coverage on her boyfriend’s car will be denied since her injuries were caused by an intentional act. Carolyn may have a cause of action against her employer for failure to provide a safe work place, although this would be a difficult theory to prove, unless the employer was aware of her boyfriend’s dangerous propensities and likelihood that he would strike out at her on the work premises.

Disclaimer: The above article is for instructive purposes only and each case is fact sensitive. Consultation with an attorney should be obtained instead of reliance upon the legal issues discussed in this column.