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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its final Subpart W rule to cover petroleum and naturalgas facilities under the agency’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program. The original Subpart W rule for petroleum and naturalgas facilities was proposed in March 2010.
The Landowners sought to distinguish Hlavinka arguing that the PGP in Hlavinka which was derived from the catalytic fracturing and distillation of oil, whereas the PGP that STX would transport “might” come from the dehydrogenation of propane from a gas well rather than from crude petroleum or oil.
By Lesley Foxhall Pietras On August 7, 2012, in a 2-1 decision in Summit Petroleum Corp. In Summit , the court concluded that the regulatory term “adjacent” is unambiguous and implies only physical proximity, citing the dictionary definition of “adjacent,” the term’s etymological history, and caselaw. See Summit Petroleum Corp.
However, HB 537 provides an exception for those “adversary” entities who have already been conducting oil and gas operations in the state. The bill ties the definition of “foreign adversaries” to 15 CFR 7.4(a),
The companies have entered into a definitive business combination agreement (the “Agreement”) to combine in an all-share transaction valued at approximately $15 billion , inclusive of net debt 1. Under the terms of the Agreement, Veren shareholders will receive 1.05 common shares of Whitecap for each Veren common share held.
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