FAYETTE MARCELLUS WATCH
Information • Education • Accountability
For Fayette County, PA, and SW PA


Happening       Documents        Resources       About       Contact        News

The Harmed      Success Stories        Concepts      How To      What Is     Commentary




Pennsylvania’s First Case of Unconventional Gas Forced Pooling

Commonwealth Court Docket # 266 MD 2014

Matteo et al vs. Hilcorp Energy et al


Below are links to the documents in the Commonwealth Court case related to Pennsylvania’s first case of Forced Pooling for Unconventional Oil & Gas under the Oil & Gas Conservation Law (originally passed in 1961). NOTE: This is an entirely unofficial repository. I am making every effort to keep it up to date and complete, but there are likely to be some delays in the appearance here of some documents.

This is the 3rd “branch” of this case. Hilcorp’s original application for Well Spacing Units under the Oil & Gas Conservation Law was submitted to the DEP. The application was returned by DEP with the claim that DEP lacked jurisdiction and the application should be filed with the Environmental Hearing Board, where the 1st “branch” of this case was captioned Environmental Hearing Board Docket 2013155. That docket has been closed, and in its concluding order the EHB directed that DEP does indeed have jurisdiction, and the case should be refiled with DEP. Hilcorp refiled with the DEP, where the case is being heard as DEP Docket # 2013-1; that proceeding is the 2nd “branch” of this case. The petitioners in the case below seek to stay the DEP proceedings and have the Oil & Gas Conservation Law declared unconstitutional.

DOCKET SHEET: The current version of the Docket Sheet for this case is available here:

<http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/DocketSheets/AppellateCourtReport.ashx?docketNumber=266+MD+2014>

(Note that this link causes a “live reprint” of the docket sheet which is date and time stamped based on when you click the link. That means you are likely to get a “different” version of the docket sheet every time you click the link, even if there have been no real changes since your previous click.)

For Commonwealth Court, the docket sheet does seem to contain the judge’s orders, but not links to actual filings.

DOCUMENTS:

<2014_05_02_Petition for Review-Email.pdf> Petition for Review in the Nature of a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief
This is the original lawsuit. Note this document is superseded by the amended petition below. Note the attachments are in the document immediately below.

<2014_05_02_Petition%20Exhibits-Email.pdf> Exhibits for the filing above.

<2014_05_20_Preliminary%20Objections.pdf> Preliminary Objections to Petition for Review in the Nature of a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief
This is Hilcorp’s first answer to the lawsuit. Note this document has been superseded by the refiled Preliminary Objections below, filed in response to the amended petition.

<2014_06_05_Amended%20Petition.pdf> Amended Petition for Review in the Nature of a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief
This is the amended version of the lawsuit, which completely replaces the original version.

<2014_06_06_Order%20Filed.pdf> Order
The judge struck Hilcorp’s Preliminary Objections due to the amended complaint, and struck petitioners’ Count VI for refiling. (Note this order also appears within the Docket Sheet.)

<2014_06_18_Preliminary%20Objections.pdf> Preliminary Objections to Amended Petition for Review in the Nature of a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief
This is Hilcorp’s refiled preliminary objections in response to the amended petition. Note an attached memorandum of law is in the document immediately below.

<2014_06_18_Memorandum%20of%20Law%20Filed.pdf> Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Objections to Amended Petition for Review in the Nature of a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief
This is Hilcorp’s memorandum of law supporting their refiled preliminary objections.

<2014_07_08_Application%20for%20Extension%20of%20Time%20to%20File.pdf> Application in the Form of a Motion for an Enlargement of Time to File Responsive Pleading
The state agencies named in the lawsuit appeal for more time to file a response.

The judge issued an order granting the extension of time to file. (Note this order appears within the Docket Sheet.)

<2014_07_18_Answer%20to%20Preliminary%20Objections.pdf> Answer to Preliminary Objections
This is the petitioners’ response to Hilcorp’s refiled preliminary objections.

<2014_07_18_Amicus%20Curiae%20Brief.pdf> Brief of Amici Curiae Delaware Riverkeeper, Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Mountain Watershed Association, in Opposition to Respondents’ Preliminary Objections
Environmental groups file a friend of the court brief opposing Hilcorp’s preliminary objections.

<2014_08_13_Commonwealth%20Preliminary%20Objections.pdf> Commonwealth Respondents’ Preliminary Objections to the Amended Petition for Review
This is the state’s preliminary objections in response to the amended petition. Note an attached memorandum of law is in the document immediately below.

<2014_08_13_Commonwealth%20Brief%20in%20support%20of%20POs.pdf> Brief in Support of Commonwealth Respondents’ Preliminary Objections to the Amended Petition for Review
This is the state’s memorandum of law supporting their preliminary objections.

Order (from the Docket Sheet)
August 18, 2014      Order Filed                                                                        08/19/2014
                     Per Curiam
    Document Name: petitioner shall file a single brief (4 copies) in opposition to the
            Comment: preliminary objections of Hilcorp Energy Company
                     and the Commonwealth respondents on or before September 15, 2014. Argument
                     on respondents' preliminary objections is set for September 24, 2014 at 10:00 a.m.
                     The argument shall be conducted by telephone call to offices of counsel of record,
                     and shall originate from the chambers of a designated judge of the Commonwealth
                     Court sitting in Harrisburg. CELL PHONES MAY NOT BE USED.