|
would impact the oil and gas exploration and production
business. However, future federal laws and regulations, if enacted,
could result in increased compliance costs or additional operating
restrictions and adversely affect our business and prospects.
Federal regulations require certain owners
or operators of facilities that store or otherwise handle oil, such
as us, to prepare and implement spill prevention, control, countermeasure
(“SPCC”) and response plans relating to the possible discharge of
oil into surface waters. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”) contains
numerous requirements relating to the prevention of and response
to oil spills into waters of the United States. The OPA subjects
owners of facilities to strict joint and several liability for all
containment and cleanup costs and certain other damages arising
from a spill, including, but not limited to, the costs of responding
to a release of oil to surface waters. The OPA also requires owners
and operators of offshore facilities that could be the source of
an oil spill into federal or state waters, including wetlands, to
post a bond, letter of credit or other form of financial assurance
in amounts ranging from $10 million in specified state waters to
$35 million in federal outer continental shelf waters to cover costs
that could be incurred by governmental authorities in responding
to an oil spill. These financial assurances may be increased by
as much as $150 million if a formal risk assessment indicates that
the increase is warranted. Noncompliance with OPA may result in
varying civil and criminal penalties and liabilities. Our operations
are also subject to the federal Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and analogous
state laws. In accordance with the CWA, the State of Louisiana issued
regulations prohibiting discharges of produced water in state coastal
waters effective July 1, 1997. Pursuant to other requirements of
the CWA, the EPA has adopted regulations concerning discharges of
storm water runoff. This program requires covered facilities to
obtain individual permits or seek coverage under an EPA general
permit. Like OPA, the CWA and analogous state laws relating to the
control of water pollution provide varying civil and criminal penalties
and liabilities for releases of petroleum or its derivatives into
surface waters or into the ground.
We also are subject to a variety of federal,
state and local permitting and registration requirements relating
to protection of the environment. We believe we are in substantial
compliance with current applicable environmental laws and regulations
and that continued compliance with existing requirements will not
have a material adverse effect on us.
As further described in “—Significant Areas—Other
Areas of Interest—Rocky Mountain Region,” the issuance of new coalbed
methane drilling permits and the continued viability of existing
permits in Montana have been challenged in lawsuits filed in state
and federal court.
Coalbed Methane Proceedings in Montana
The issuance of new coalbed methane drilling
permits in Montana was halted temporarily pending the Federal Bureau
of Land Management’s (“BLM”) approval of a final record of decision
on Montana’s Resource Management Plan environmental impact statement
and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s approval of
a statewide oil and gas environmental impact statement. These two
program approvals were obtained in April and August of 2003, respectively.
Environmental groups initiated six lawsuits, challenging these program
approvals. On February 25, 2005, the Federal District Court for
the District of Montana issued an opinion in Northern Plains
Resource Council v. BLM and a companion case vacating BLM’s
approval of the state plan and remanding the plan to BLM for further
consideration. The Court further entered an order limiting the issuance
of federal drilling permits to 500 per year and placed additional
restrictions on certain operations. Various parties appealed these
orders to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On May 31, 2005, the
Ninth Circuit entered an order halting the issuance of any new permits
pending their review of the parties’ various appeals. Oral argument
was held in the case on September 15, 2005, and no decision has
yet been issued. On February 2, 2007, in response to the orders
issued by the Federal District Court for the District of Montana,
BLM published the Draft Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil
and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment to the Powder
River and Billings Resource Management Plan (“SEIS”). The draft
SEIS attempts to address the Federal District Court’s concerns.
Public comments on the draft SEIS are due on May 2, 2007.
Although this decision could result in a
continued suspension of the state’s authority to issue new drilling
permits or could effect the continued viability of existing permits
in Montana, we believe that the decisions by the Federal Bureau
of Land Management and the State of Montana ultimately will be upheld
on appeal and/or BLM’s reconsideration will address the Federal
District Court’s concerns and new coalbed methane development will
continue to be authorized in Montana. There can be no assurance
that any new permits will be obtained in a given time period or
at all.
Operating Hazards and Insurance
The natural gas and oil business involves
a variety of operating hazards and risks that could result in substantial
losses to us from, among other things, injury or loss of life, severe
damage to or destruction of property, natural resources and equipment,
pollution or other environmental damage, cleanup responsibilities,
regulatory investigation and penalties and suspension of operations.
|
|