This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In 2006, Flint Hills received information that PMI/Pemex had been experiencing thefts of condensate. Two days later, Flint Hills clarified that it was suspending payments until JAG could provide evidence that the condensate was purchased from PMI/Pemex at some downstream point.
In 2006, however, BlueStone acquired the lease and became responsible for paying royalties on production thereunder. Meanwhile, an associated addendum—which the lease clarified would supersede in situations of conflict—stated that royalty payments were based on “the gross value received.” Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co.,
In 2006, however, BlueStone acquired the lease and became responsible for paying royalties on production thereunder. Meanwhile, an associated addendum—which the lease clarified would supersede in situations of conflict—stated that royalty payments were based on “the gross value received.” Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co.,
715 (2006), the scope of regulatory jurisdiction in the proposed rule is narrower than under the existing regulations. The agencies claim that, as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. It appears, however, that the proposed rule actually expands the scope of the waters regulated by the Act.
In 2006, however, BlueStone acquired the lease and became responsible for paying royalties on production thereunder. Meanwhile, an associated addendum—which the lease clarified would supersede in situations of conflict—stated that royalty payments were based on “the gross value received.” Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co.,
715 (2006). In this vein, non-navigable tributaries are subject to CWA jurisdiction, if the tributary is connected to a downstream traditional navigable water, and flow in the tributary is at least seasonal. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (SWANCC) and Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. Guidance at 13.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content