Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons^™

Mechanisms For Consultation And Free, Prior And Informed Consent In The Negotiation Of Investment Contracts, Sam Szoke-Burke, Kaitlin Y. Cordes

Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment Staff Publications

Investor-state contracts are regularly used in low-and middle-income countries to grant concessions for land-based and natural resource investments, such as agricultural, extractive industry, forestry, or renewable energy projects. These contracts are rarely negotiated in the presence of, or with meaningful input from, the people who risk being adversely affected by the project. This practice will usually risk violating requirements for meaningful consultation, and, where applicable, free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), and is particularly concerning when the investor-state contract gives the investor company rights to lands or resources over which local communities have legitimate claims.

This article explores how consultation …

Best Practices In Data Driven Development Planning In Mining Regions, Nicolas Maennling, Josefina Correa

Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment Staff Publications

Strategic development planning has long been used by private and public sectors to guide actions that will lead to a determined goal in the medium- to long-term. The SDG framework has helped to create a common language of what development means, what the global objectives are by 2030, and how progress can be measured. With the world entering an era in which data is generated and used at an unprecedented scale, data and ICT systems should be used to better inform policy decision making and help evaluate progress to hold stakeholders accountable to their promises and performance. This report outlines …

Appeal No. 0960: Faith Ranch & Farms Fund, Inc. V. Division Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Orders 2018-101 & 2018-108 (McBride East & Central Units; EAP Phioo. LLC)

Appeal No. 0979: John F. Williams Oil Field Services, Inc. V. Division Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 2019-247

Appeal No. 0976: Energy Exploration & Development, Inc. V. Division Of Oil & Gas Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 2019-104

Appeal No. 0961: Faith Ranch & Farms Fund, Inc. V. Division Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Orders 2018-101 & 2018-108 (McBride East & Central Units; EAP Phioo. LLC)

Appeal No. 0980: C. David Snyder V. Divison Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 2019-343

Appeal No. 0982: Wheeling & Lake Eries Railway Company V. Division Of Oil & Gas Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission

Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions

Review of Chief's Order 2020-01 (Gulfport Appalliachia, LLC; Angelo Unit)

Pakootas V. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., Connlan W. Whyte

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Throughout the twentieth century, Teck Cominco Metals leaked metal pollutants into the Upper Columbia River that ultimately entered the United States and the Colville Indian Reservation. In 2004, after almost a decade of working with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Colville Tribes initiated a citizen suit under CERCLA against Teck for damaging the ecosystem of the Upper Columbia River. In 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment against Teck for recovery costs and attorney’s fees.

Space Governance 3.0, Brian R. Israel

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Recent Case Decisions

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Contractual Interpretations, Ambiguities, And Litigation Difficulties Presented In The Context Of Oil And Gas Leases As A Result Of The Texas Supreme Court’S Decision In Murphy Exploration & Prod. Co.-Usa V. Adams, 560 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. 2018), Jake B. Ware

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Can You Dig It? A Note On The U.S. Supreme Court’S Atomic Energy Act Preemption Decision In Virginia Uranium, Inc. V. Warren, John Shelden

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Balkanization In Oil And Gas: How Home Rule Constitutional Provisions Disrupt State Law, Dan Ray

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Identifying The Pillars Of A Pro-Solar Energy Policy: A Multi-State Survey Of Distributed Solar Energy Generation Laws, Samuel Moore

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Budding Marijuana Industry Meets Climate & Environmental Crisis: A Call To Legislative Action, Spencer Gill

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Parker Drilling Mgmt. Servs., Ltd. V. Newton: Drilling Down On The Law Of The Outer Continental Shelf, William Dakil

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

The Battle For Oil: Fighting Through Corruption & Changing Socio-Economic Landscapes To Win Over Africa’S Biggest Giants, Modupe Adamolekun

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Editor's Introduction & Front Pages

Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal

No abstract provided.

Fmc Corp. V. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Seth T. Bonilla

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In 1998, FMC Corporation agreed to submit to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ permitting processes, including the payment of fees, for clean-up work required as part of consent decree negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, in 2002, FMC refused to pay the Tribes under a permitting agreement entered into by both parties, even though the company continued to store hazardous waste on land within the Shoshone-Bannock Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho. FMC challenged the Tribes’ authority to enforce the $1.5 million permitting fees first in tribal court and later challenged the Tribes’ authority to exercise civil regulatory and adjudicatory jurisdiction over …