University of Oklahoma College of Law

Crouse, Douglas J.

 
369 
 
ONE J 
Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal 
VOLUME 10                                                                                      NUMBER 3 
 
MISSOURI 
 
 
 
 
Douglas J. Crouse* 
Table of Contents 
I. Introduction ........................................................................................... 370 
II. Legislative and Regulatory Developments ........................................... 370 
III. Judicial Developments ........................................................................ 370 
 
 * Douglas J. Crouse is Of Counsel at Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, in Charleston, West 
Virginia. His practice concentrates in the area of energy, with a focus on mineral title and coal, 
oil, and gas transactions, and related industry contracts. 
Published by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons, 2025
370 Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal [Vol. 10 
  
 
I. Introduction 
The following is an update on Missouri legislative activity and case law 
relating to oil, gas, and mineral law from August 1, 2023, to July 31, 2024.   
II. Legislative and Regulatory Developments 
A. State Legislative Developments 
We did not locate any notable legislation during the search period. 
B. State Regulatory Developments 
None reported. 
C. Local Legislative Developments 
None reported. 
III. Judicial Developments 
A. Supreme Court Cases 
None reported. 
B. Appellate Activity 
None reported. 
C. Trial Activity 
None reported.  
https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/onej/vol10/iss3/11


English

Missouri

McKeen, Tim

Grimes, Melissa

Ohio

Ketron, Westley A.

 
445 
 
ONE J 
Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal 
VOLUME 10                                                                                      NUMBER 3 
 
TENNESSEE 
 
 
Westley A. Ketron* 
 
Introduction of Oil and Gas Development 
This article provides an update on the developments in oil and gas law in 
the State of Tennessee from August 1, 2023, through July 31, 2024.  This 
article focuses on major legislative and regulatory enactments as well as 
developments in common law. 
 
 * Westley A. Ketron is Of Counsel at Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, and practices in the 
firm’s Charleston, West Virginia office.  Westley is licensed in Tennessee and West Virginia 
and concentrates in energy law. 
Published by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons, 2025
446 Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal [Vol. 10 
  
 
I. Legislative And Regulatory Developments 
During the relevant time period of this update, there were no notable 
Legislative and Regulatory Developments involving the oil and gas industry. 
II. Judicial Developments 
During the relevant time period of this update, there were no notable 
Judicial Developments involving the oil and gas industry. 
https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/onej/vol10/iss3/21


Tennessee

Barissi, M. Vafa

Banks, Delainey

 
365 
 
ONE J 
Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal 
VOLUME 10                                                                                      NUMBER 3 
 
MICHIGAN 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
M. Vafa Barissi & Delainey Banks* 
 
Table of Contents 
I. Introduction ........................................................................................... 366 
II. Statutory Law ....................................................................................... 366 
A. Michigan Senate Bill No. 271 ......................................................... 366 
 
 * Vafa Barissi is a Member in the Wheeling, West Virginia office at Steptoe & Johnson, 
PLLC, where he focuses his practice in energy law throughout the Appalachian Basin, 
specializing in title, due diligence and mineral acquisitions and divestitures. Delainey Banks 
is an Associate in the Wheeling, West Virginia office, where she focuses her practice in the 
area of energy, title, and mineral law. The authors would like to thank and credit Abby 
Thomas, summer associate with Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, for her contributions to this survey. 
Published by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons, 2025
366 Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal [Vol. 10 
  
 
B. Michigan Senate Bill No. 273 .......................................................... 366 
C. Michigan Senate Bill No. 519 .......................................................... 366 
D. Michigan House Bill No. 4826 ........................................................ 367 
III. Administrative Law ............................................................................ 367 
IV. Common Law ..................................................................................... 367 
V. Conclusion ........................................................................................... 368 
I. Introduction 
While there were no significant case law developments in Michigan 
during the period examined between August 1, 2023, to July 31, 2024, there 
were a few notable legislative updates that could impact the oil and gas 
sector. These changes address various aspects of regulatory oversight, 
environmental protection, and operational standards, signaling potential 
shifts in how the industry will be managed and regulated soon. 
II. Statutory Law 
A. Michigan Senate Bill No. 271 
Approved by the governor on December 29, 2023, Senate Bill No. 271 
amends the Clean and Renewable Energy and Energy Waste Reduction Act 
(“Act 295 of 2008”) and is part of a larger package of initiatives referred to 
as the “Clean Energy Future” bills.1 S.B. 271 requires fifty percent (50%) of 
Michigan’s energy to come from renewable sources by 2030, sixty percent 
(60%) by 2035, and one hundred percent (100%) by 2040. 
B. Michigan Senate Bill No. 273 
Senate Bill No. 273 is another Clean Energy Future bill that requires 
certain providers of electric or natural gas service, whose rates are regulated 
by the Michigan Public Service Commission (“MPSC”), to establish and 
recover costs for energy waste reduction programs.2 The bill further intends 
to lower natural gas and electric utility costs for families by returning energy 
costs savings to customers and offering energy efficiency programs to low-
income customers.  
C. Michigan Senate Bill No. 519 
Continuing with amendments to Act 295 of 2008, the governor approved 
Senate Bill No. 519, which creates the Office of Worker and Community 
 
 1. S.B. 271, 2023 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mi. 2023). 
 2. S.B. 273, 2023 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mi. 2023). 
https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/onej/vol10/iss3/10
2025] Michigan 367 
 
 
Economic Transition in the Department of Labor and Economic 
Opportunity.3 The new department’s purpose is to streamline renewable 
energy projects and protect fossil fuel workers and communities impacted by 
the transition to clean energy.  
D. Michigan House Bill No. 4826 
Approved by the governor on February 27, 2024, House Bill No. 4826 
repeals Sections 65 and 66 of the Administrative Procedures Act, 1969 PA 
306.4 The law eliminates the Environmental Rules Committee, which was 
made up of representatives from the oil and gas industry, within the Natural 
Resources and Environmental Protection Act and the Department of 
Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy.  
III. Administrative Law 
On December 1, 2023, the Department of Natural Resources, Forest 
Resources Division, published its amendment to the Michigan 
Administrative Code related commercial forests, being R 299.2601, R 
299.2603, R 299.2603a, R 299.2604, R 299.2605, R 299.2605a, R 
299.2605b, R 299.2606, R 299.2608, and R 299.2610 of the Michigan 
Administrative Code.5 These changes update definitions, standards, and 
requirements for forest management, conservation practices, and compliance 
monitoring. Although these amendments are focused on forestry and land 
management, portions of the rule aim to influence land use decisions of 
commercial lands, such that if commercial forests are located on or near land 
with potential oil and gas resources, the updated forest management rules 
might affect how those lands can be used or developed, which could 
subsequently impact how resource extraction activities are managed in 
proximity to commercial forests. Thus, the integration of sustainable 
practices and updated standards in forest management could influence how 
resource extraction activities are planned and conducted, particularly in areas 
where forestry and energy interests intersect in the future.  
IV. Common Law 
No new developments for the period searched. 
 
 3. S.B. 519, 2023 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mi. 2023). 
 4. H.B. 4826, 2024 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mi. 2024). 
 5. 2023 MR 21, at 2-7. 
Published by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons, 2025
368 Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal [Vol. 10 
  
 
V. Conclusion 
Although there were some developments to Michigan’s oil and gas law 
during the period searched, the proposed legislative measure discussed above 
could have a future substantial impact on the use and development of natural 
gas. 
 
https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/onej/vol10/iss3/10


Michigan

Keele, Layne

Only Mostly Dead: How the Irreparable Injury Rule Can Protect the Jury Trial Right for Claims in Restitution

Rhodes, Steven A.

Barrett, Zachary H.

Aidam, Kizito

 
315 
 
ONE J 
Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal 
VOLUME 10                                                                                      NUMBER 3 
 
ALASKA  
 
 
Steven A. Rhodes, Zachary H. Barrett & Kizito Aidam* 
 
Table of Contents 
I. Introduction ........................................................................................... 316 
II. Legislative and Regulatory Developments ........................................... 316 
III. Judicial Developments ........................................................................ 317 
 
 * Steven A. Rhodes and Zachary H. Barrett are Of Counsels in the Charleston, West 
Virginia office of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, and concentrate their practice in the areas of 
energy, with a focus on coal, oil, and gas transactions, and related industry contracts. Kizito 
Aidam is an Associate in the Charleston, West Virginia office of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC, 
and concentrates his practice in the area of energy law, with a focus on contract and 
transactional matters. He also assists clients with mineral title, property and due diligence 
matters.   
Published by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons, 2025
316 Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal [Vol. 10 
  
 
I. Introduction 
The following is an update on Alaska legislative activity and case law 
relating to oil, gas and mineral law from August 1, 2023, to July 31, 2024. 
II. Legislative and Regulatory Developments 
The following is a discussion of notable legislation: 
A. House Bill 50 
House Bill 50 (“HB 50”)—Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage 
Act—is a bill that addresses several aspects of carbon capture, utilization, 
and storage, including enhanced oil or gas recovery, and oil and gas 
production tax.  Below are some of the more notable changes.  
1. House Bill 50, Section 21: Amendment to Alaska Statutes Section 
38.05 
Section 21 of HB 50 amends AS 38.05 by adding a new subsection, AS 
38.05.720 requiring lessees of state lands under AS 38.05.180 to obtain 
carbon storage leases before engaging in carbon storage activity not 
associated with enhanced oil or gas recovery. Further, if the lessee is in 
compliance with AS 41.06.185(b), issuance of a carbon storage lease is at the 
discretion of the commissioner. The commissioner may consider the 
qualifications and abilities of lessee to meet the commercial requirement of 
a carbon storage lease and decide whether the issuance is in the best interests 
of the state in its discretion.1 The department may also adopt regulations that 
allow all or part of a lease issued under AS 38.05.180 to be transitioned into 
a carbon storage lease when a permit issued under AS 41.06.185 is received.2 
Section 21 of this Act took effect on October 29, 2024. 
2. House Bill 50, Section 39: Amendment to Alaska Statutes Section 
41.06 
Section 39 of HB 50 amends AS 41.06 by adding a new subsection, AS 
41.06.185,  which empowers the commission to adopt regulations that will 
allow leases for enhanced oil or gas recovery, and related well activities, to 
be converted to a storage facility. The new subsection also empowers the 
commission to determine which regulations must be considered, both in 
deciding whether to approve conversion, and whether the provisions of AS 
41.06.105-210 apply after the conversion. Additionally, the new subsection 
 
 1. Alaska Stat. Section 38.05. 
 2. Id.  
https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/onej/vol10/iss3/2
2025] Alaska 317 
 
 
establishes that the commission may impose requirements in addition to AS 
41.06.105-210, or specify situations under which the requirements of AS 
41.06.105-210 may be waived.3 Also, Section 39 of HB 50 amends AS 41.06 
by adding a new subsection, AS 41.06.210(4), which defines “enhanced oil 
and gas recovery.”4 
Section 39 of this Act took effect on October 29, 2024.  
III. Judicial Developments 
We did not locate any notable judicial developments during the search 
period.  
 
 3. Alaska Stat. Section 41.06. 
 4. Id.  
Published by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons, 2025


Alaska

Begley, Kathleen R.

 
371 
 
ONE J 
Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal 
VOLUME 10                                                                                      NUMBER 3 
 
MONTANA 
 
 
 
Kathleen R. Begley* 
 
Table of Contents 
I. Introduction ........................................................................................... 372 
II. Legislative and Regulatory Developments ........................................... 372 
A. State Legislative Developments ...................................................... 372 
B. State Regulatory Developments ....................................................... 372 
 
 * Kathleen Begley is an Associate in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania office at Steptoe & 
Johnson, PLLC, where she supports energy clients by providing mineral title and due diligence 
services. Her career began as a family law practitioner, where she navigated intricate and often 
emotional family legal matters.  
Published by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons, 2025
372 Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal [Vol. 10 
  
 
III. Judicial Developments ........................................................................ 372 
A. Montana Supreme Court .................................................................. 372 
I. Introduction 
This article presents a yearly review of legal developments in the oil and 
gas sector for Montana. Although oil and gas constitute a minor part of 
Montana’s overall legal and legislative profile, this summary highlights the 
key changes and trends in the oil and gas field. 
II. Legislative and Regulatory Developments 
A. State Legislative Developments 
There were no significant judicial developments from the Montana State 
Legislators regarding oil and gas.  
B. State Regulatory Developments  
1. ARM 36.22.1242 Reports by Producers – Tax Report – Tax Report 
Each owner or operator of an oil, gas, or other well (excluding injection 
wells reported on Form No. 5) must submit, or ensure the submission of, 
Form No. 6 to the board by the last day of the month following the month 
being reported on. Said form must include the required information set forth 
within, and accurately reflect the status of each well as of the last day of the 
reported month.1 
The privilege and license tax for each barrel of crude petroleum and every 
10,000 cubic feet of natural gas produced, saved, marketed, or stored within 
the state, or exported from the state, will be 73.33% of the rate specified in 
82-11-13, MCA (0.3% of the market value). This rule applies to all crude 
petroleum and natural gas produced on or after April 1, 2024. 
III. Judicial Developments 
A. Montana Supreme Court 
In Phoenix Capital Group Holding, LLC v. Board of Oil & Gas 
Conservation, decided on April 30, 2024, the Court addressed: “1. Whether 
the District Court correctly affirmed the Board’s determination that Kraken 
is entitled to forced pooling of Phoenix’s mineral interest.” and “2. Whether 
the District Court correctly affirmed the Board’s determination that Kraken 
 
 1. Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 36.22.1242, Reports by Producers – Tax 
Report – Tax Rate. 
https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/onej/vol10/iss3/12
2025] Montana 373 
 
 
is entitled to recover statutory risk penalties under § 82-11-202(2)(b), 
MCA.”2 
In February 2021, Phoenix Capital Group Holding, LLC, an oil and gas 
mineral rights investment firm, purchased mineral interests in Richland 
County, Montana, from Steve Solis, a successor in interest to Katherine 
Solis.3 Kraken Oil and Gas LLC, an energy production company and 
operator, had a spacing unit which covered sections of the property that were 
owned by Phoenix, and previously owned by Solis. Before Steve Solis 
obtained the mineral interest, which he then conveyed unto to Phoenix, 
Katherine Solis rejected multiple attempts from Kraken to effectuate a 
voluntary lease agreement for the mineral interest.4 Kraken notified Solis that 
non-participation to lease the mineral interest would result in statutory non-
consent “risk penalties.”5 On February 28, 2018, an election packet 
containing the first well to be drilled on the property (1H Well), the lease 
offer, election letter and authorization of expenditure, was sent to Solis, and 
subsequently returned to Kracken unclaimed. Drilling operations for the well 
began in June 2018. By October 2018, the Board of Oil & Gas Conservation 
(the “Board”) issued a force-pooling order, allowing Kraken to recover risk 
penalties concerning the 1H Well.6 Then, in January 2020, Kraken sent Solis 
additional election letters for new wells, which were similarly rejected.7 
Upon purchasing the mineral interests from Steve Solis, Phoenix notified 
Kraken of the purchase and indicated that they wanted to participate in the 
oil and gas production from the wells drilled within the spacing unit. Kraken 
responded that the mineral interests were deemed “non-consent” and that 
they were authorized to recover risk penalties.8  
At the hearing on October 14, 2021, Phoenix “argued that pooling was 
improper since it was now the owner of the mineral interests and wanted to 
voluntarily participate.”9 Kraken countered that it was appropriate to pool 
given that good faith attempts were made to obtain Solis’ participation.10 The 
Board found that Phoenix, as a successor in interest, was bound to Solis’ 
 
 2. Phoenix Cap. Grp. Holding, LLC v. Bd. of Oil & Gas Conservation, 547 P. 3d 1260, 
1262 (Mont. 2024).  
 3. Id. at 1263.  
 4. Id. 
 5. Id.  
 6. Id.  
 7. Id.  
 8. Id.  
 9. Id.  
 10. Id.  
Published by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons, 2025
374 Oil and Gas, Natural Resources, and Energy Journal [Vol. 10 
  
 
decision not to participate, and that the interest owned by Phoenix would be 
subject to forced pooling, which entitled Kraken to recover risk penalties 
from Phoenix.11 However,  Phoenix would receive a 12.5% royalty on the 
mineral interests. Phoenix requested an additional hearing and was denied. 
Thereafter, Phoenix filed a complaint seeking injunctive relief from the 
Board’s decision in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone 
County.12 The District Court found that the Board acted properly in granting 
the forced pooling order and the authorization of risk penalties.13 
In a appeal from the District Cout of Yellowstone County, the Montana 
Supreme Court found that “if the applicant has made an unsuccessful, good 
faith attempt to voluntarily pool the interests within the permanent spacing 
unit . . . ,” then the Board was justified in granting  forced pooling, and 
authorizing risk penalties.14 The Court agreed with the Board’s determination 
that Kraken was entitled to forced pooling of Phoenix’s mineral interests, 
because: 1. Kraken attempted to engage with Solis on eight separate 
occasions, starting in 2017; 2. Kraken continued to engage with Solis 
concerning each well they planned to drill after the initial 1H Well, all of 
which Solis rejected;  3. Over a year had passed since Kraken began drilling 
the wells; and 4. Kraken acted in good faith by applying for the pooling order 
after Phoenix requested to pool the interests voluntarily.15 Kraken did not 
have an obligation to repeat such engagement attempts with successors in 
interest, nor were they required to accept Phoenix’s belated offer.16 The Court 
further found that it is a “typical industry practice” to apply to the Board after 
being unable to obtain voluntary pooling, and after completing the drilling 
on its own, both of which were the case here.17 Thus, the District Court’s 
decision in affirming the Board’s determination that Kraken was entitled to 
forced pooling of Phoenix’s mineral interest was proper.18 
As it relates to the second question, the Court concluded that “Kraken’s 
letters to Solis constituted written demands that gave Solis the option to 
participate or face assessment of risk penalties” per § 82-11-202(2), MCA, 
which states that the Board must impose risk penalties on an owner who, 
“after written demand, has failed or refused to pay the owner’s share of the 
 
 11. Id. at 1264.  
 12. Id.  
 13. Id. 
 14. Id. at 1265.  
 15. Id.  
 16. Id.  
 17. Id. 
 18. Id.  
https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/onej/vol10/iss3/12
2025] Montana 375 
 
 
costs of development or other operations.”19 Phoenix argued that the 
communications made by Kraken to Solis that notified Solis of the risk-
penalties were merely “speculative future costs” based on an “estimated 
calculation of Solis’ interest.”20 The Court did not agree given that Kraken 
provided specific costs, production information, and a timeline for her 
decision to participate.21 Phoenix also argued that the Board incorrectly 
applied the presumption of owner non-participation as set forth in § 82-11-
202(3)(a), MCA, based on the failure of Solis to pay her share of costs after 
receiving the letters.22 The Court disagreed because the Board, and the 
District Court, did not rely on the statutory presumption of non-participation 
in rendering their decisions, rather they relied on the fact that Solis failed or 
refused to participate in all the wells operated by Kraken.23 
 
 19. Mont. Code Ann. § 82-11-202(b) (2023)  
 20. Phoenix Cap. Grp. Holding, LLC, 547 P.3d at 1265-66.  
 21. Id. 
 22. Id.  
 23. Id. 
Published by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons, 2025


Montana

Dunn, Annie

The Kids Aren’t Alright: Creating Greater Protections for the Children of Family Vloggers

Pumphrey, Josh

The “Arm” That Saves You Might Also Strangle You: The Impact of Sovereign Immunity on Economic Arms of Tribes and How It Could Affect Others’ Willingness to Contract with Them

Chase, Ivy K.

Tribal Authority to Issue Search Warrants to Non-Tribal Entities or on Non-Indian Land Within Reservation Boundaries

University of Oklahoma

Not a member yet