United States: Oil And Natural Gas Production: Opportunities, Challenges And Political Quandaries

The expansion in recent years of domestic oil and natural gas production has profound implications for the supply of energy in the twenty-first century. It has reignited calls for the nation to achieve "energy independence," and has led to reconsideration of the ban on the exportation of domestically produced crude oil. At the same time, the resurgence of oil and natural gas activity has been met with increased governmental oversight and regulation. Rising production of oil and natural gas also has created tensions with the development of alternative sources of energy. In each of these areas, the surge in domestic production not only has presented the oil and natural gas industries with tremendous opportunities, but also has presented significant challenges for industry, regulators, and communities, and has landed the oil and gas industry squarely in the middle of several political quandaries.

Driven by innovations in drilling and completion techniques, development of oil and natural gas reserves found in shale formations (fine-grained sedimentary rocks with relatively low permeability) is one of the most rapidly growing trends in U.S. domestic energy exploration and production. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Shale Gas 101, http://energy. gov/fe/shale-gas-101. The increased development of shale reserves, and its concomitant increase in oil and gas production, is the direct result of the expanded use and functionality of the technique known as hydraulic fracturing or "fracking."

In the fracking process, an oil and gas operator injects water, sand, and a mixture of certain chemicals into rock formations to create fissures that provide pathways for the oil or natural gas to escape and flow into the well bore for ultimate recovery at the surface. See Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands, 80 Fed. Reg. 16,128, 16,131 (March 26, 2015). In most cases, the oil or natural gas embedded in the shale rock simply cannot be produced without the use of fracking. This explains why up to 95 percent of new wells today are fracked. Shale Gas 101, supra.

This increased use of fracking, in combination with horizontal drilling, has sent domestic oil and natural gas production into what commonly has been termed the "Shale Revolution." According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), domestic oil production in the United States has nearly doubled since 2008, from around five million barrels per day to somewhere near 9.5 million barrels per day today. Similarly, between 2005 and 2013, total dry natural gas production in the United States increased by 35 percent. EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2015 (Apr. 14, 2015), www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/.

Even as commodity prices have fallen in 2015, the nation's production of oil and natural gas has remained at historic highs. For example, North Dakota saw a reduction in oil production by 25,000 barrels per day, and the number of active producing wells in the state fell in September 2015 for the first time since 2003. Despite this increase, the state's overall production remained above one million barrels a day—a historically significant milestone only recently achieved in the state. Lynn Helms, North Dakota Industrial Commission, Department of Mineral Resources, Director's Cut (Nov. 13, 2015), www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/directorscut/directorscut-2015-11-13.pdf.

American Energy Independence

The rise in American production of oil and natural gas is often touted as the pathway toward American energy independence. While buzzwords and catchphrases are convenient for the media and politicians, they often say very little. Such is the case with the term energy independence. A standard definition of independence is the freedom from dependence on or control by another person, organization, or state. Viewed in this light, the increase in domestic production of oil and natural gas since 2005 has made the United States largely energy independent, at least at levels not seen since the early 1970s. From January through May 2015, the United States produced approximately 89 percent of the domestic energy consumed, the highest level since 1984. By contrast, in 2005, domestically produced energy accounted for less than 70 percent of domestic consumption. At the same time, through July 2015, foreign sources accounted for only slightly more than 25 percent of the total petroleum supply, the lowest level of net petroleum imports since 1971, and in stark contrast to slightly more than 60 percent in 2005. Mark J. Perry, Monday Afternoon Links (Aug. 31, 2015), www.aei.org/publication/monday-afternoonlinks-24/. The EIA has estimated that if prices post slow and modest rises in the coming years, the United States will be a net exporter of energy in 2028 (or 2019 if oil prices somehow would spike to over $100 a barrel). EIA, U.S. energy imports and exports to come into balance for first time since 1950s (Apr. 15, 2015), The rise in American production of oil and natural gas is often touted as the pathway toward American energy independence. While buzzwords and catchphrases are convenient for the media and politicians, they often say very little. Such is the case with the term energy independence. A standard definition of independence is the freedom from dependence on or control by another person, organization, or state. Viewed in this light, the increase in domestic production of oil and natural gas since 2005 has made the United States largely energy independent, at least at levels not seen since the early 1970s. From January through May 2015, the United States produced approximately 89 percent of the domestic energy consumed, the highest level since 1984. By contrast, in 2005, domestically produced energy accounted for less than 70 percent of domestic consumption. At the same time, through July 2015, foreign sources accounted for only slightly more than 25 percent of the total petroleum supply, the lowest level of net petroleum imports since 1971, and in stark contrast to slightly more than 60 percent in 2005. Mark J. Perry, Monday Afternoon Links (Aug. 31, 2015), www.aei.org/publication/monday-afternoonlinks-24/. The EIA has estimated that if prices post slow and modest rises in the coming years, the United States will be a net exporter of energy in 2028 (or 2019 if oil prices somehow would spike to over $100 a barrel). EIA, U.S. energy imports and exports to come into balance for first time since 1950s (Apr. 15, 2015), www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20812.

Energy independence, then, really isn't the issue. Instead, the more pertinent and significant issue is America's dependence on foreign oil. In 2014, the United States imported about 30 percent of the oil it used, a far cry from the nation's 60 percent dependence in 2005. In 2014, the United States imported approximately nine million barrels of oil a day from about seventy-five countries. By far the largest supplier of oil to the United States is Canada, accounting for almost three times the volume of oil as is imported from Saudi Arabia. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries collectively account for about thirty-five percent of United States' imports, while imports from Persian Gulf countries are only around twenty percent. EIA, How much petroleum does the United States import and from where? (Sept. 14, 2015), www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6.

Many of the nation's oil refineries were constructed to refine heavier crude oil, like oil imported from the Middle East, Venezuela, and Nigeria, as opposed to light, sweet crude that is the product of domestic shale operations.

A critical factor underlying the nation's dependence on foreign oil is that many of the nation's oil refineries, particularly those on the Gulf Coast, were constructed to refine heavier crude oil, such as that imported from the Middle East, Venezuela, and Nigeria, as opposed to light, sweet crude that is the product of domestic shale operations. Javier E. David, US Oil Output Booms—Now Refiners Have to Catch Up, CNBC (July 13, 2014), www.cnbc.com/2014/07/13/us-oil-productoin-refiners-struggle-with-fruits-of-us-shale-boom.html.

In order to be less dependent on foreign oil, the nation's refining capabilities will have to change. However, the United States has not built a new major oil refinery in over thirty years. EIA, When was the last refinery built in the United States?, www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=29&t=6. It takes several years and millions of dollars to retrofit existing refineries to handle domestic, as opposed to imported crude. Decreased drilling as a result of lower prices, together with an expected leveling off of the rising production from shale resources, make it unlikely many refineries will be converted. The nation's refining capacity will continue to be tied in a significant way to oil imported from the Middle East and other nonsecure regions.

Reduced reliance on foreign oil can have profound economic benefits. A recent study by the global consulting firm PwC concluded the growth in natural gas development is expected to translate into contributing 930,000 shale gasdriven jobs by 2030 and 1.41 million by 2040. PwC, Shale gas: still a boon to US manufacturing? (Dec. 2014). A report prepared for the United States Conference of Mayors found thatenergy-intensive manufacturing sectors added over 196,000 jobs from 2010–2012 in the country's metropolitan areas alone, largely flowing from activity surrounding inexpensive natural gas. U.S. Conf. of Mayors, Impact of the Manufacturing Renaissance from Energy Intensive Sources 1 (March 2014). Furthermore, in 2013, the United States spent as much as $300 billion importing foreign oil; a significant contributor to the nation's trade deficit. U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics, www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/index.html. It is axiomatic that money not spent on foreign oil imports and used instead for the production of domestic oil and natural gas would benefit the nation's economy.

Despite these expected economic benefits, there may be a lurking dark side to the nation's increased production of oil and natural gas: excess supply. As prices have plunged in recent months, attention has focused on the excess world supply. Increased world production, largely fueled by increases in production in the United States, has oversupplied the market, leading to reduced commodity prices that, in turn, have rendered expensive techniques such as fracking and long horizontal drilling uneconomic. Oil and gas operators will not continue to drill and complete wells that do not produce oil or natural gas in economic quantities. Reduced drilling and completion will lead to reduced domestic production; and reduced production, when unaccompanied by reduced demand, will require additional imports of oil. In turn, the United States may take one step back from oil independence.

Lifting the Ban on the Export of Domestic Crude Oil

As increased production promotes the prospect of energy independence, it also called into question the utility of the forty-year old ban on exporting domestically produced crude oil. The crude oil export ban was a Congressional reaction to the 1973 Arab oil embargo, and was codified in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Pub. L. No. 94-163, 89 Stat. 871 (1975), with the details in the regulations of the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), a Department of Commerce agency.

Though often portrayed as an outright ban on exportation of domestically produced crude oil, the EPCA is not so restrictive. The BIS automatically grants licenses for the export of crude oil for shipments to Canada for consumption or use therein, crude exported from the Cook Inlet in Alaska, as well as heavy California and Alaskan North Slope crude. Other marginal crude exports also do not require a license. See 15 C.F.R. § 754.2(b)(1). The BIS also is empowered to approve export licenses, on a case-by-case basis, upon a determination that the granting of such a license "is consistent with the national interest and the purposes of the [EPCA]." 15 C.F.R. § 754.2(b)(2).

Recently, however, many concluded that increased domestic oil production provided an opportunity for exporting oil consistent with the energy independence and security policies underlying the EPCA. On December 18, 2015, President Obama signed into legislation an Omnibus spending bill that included legislation to repeal the export ban. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113 (2015).

Buried within the 2009-page Omnibus bill (page 1865, Division 0, Title 1, Section 101), the legislation calls for the express repeal of the EPCA and further mandates that "no official of the Federal Government shall impose or enforce any restriction on the export of crude oil." Notably, the repeal legislation has two exceptions: (1) the president retains authority to restrict exports to sanctioned countries, entities, and individuals; and (2) the president can restrict exports for up to one year if the president and the secretary of commerce conclude that exports have caused either material supply shortages or increased oil prices attributable to the export of crude oil produced in the United States.

However, there is no agreement as to the effect the lifting of the export ban will have on commodity prices (in the long term) or the economy as a whole. Supporters of lifting the ban maintain that it will provide economic stimulus and political leverage overseas. Prior to the ban being lifted, the Aspen Institute had concluded that lifting the oil export ban would lead to increased oil production and "[h]igher levels of oil production require higher investment expenditures for capital equipment and construction, which in turn boost overall demand for goods. This stimulates the manufacturing sector and its supply and distribution chains. The resulting improvement in income and employment boosts the economy significantly." Thomas J. Duesterberg, Donald A. Norman & Jeffrey F. Werling, Lifting the Crude Oil Export Ban: The Impact on U.S. Manufacturing 1 (Oct. 2014), www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/FINAL_Lifting_Crude_Oil_Export_Ban.pdf.

The ability to trade freely with the rest of the world also may benefit American shale producers by providing access to both foreign buyers and foreign revenues. According to consulting firm IHS, U.S. production could increase to 11.2 million barrels daily in just eight years as a result of the lifting of the export ban. This increased production would promote sufficient additional economic activity to support nearly one million jobs in four years. IHS, US Crude Oil Export Decision KF-1 (2014), www.ihs.com/info/0514/crude-oil. html?ocid=coe:The ability to trade freely with the rest of the world also may benefit American shale producers by providing access to both foreign buyers and foreign revenues. According to consulting firm IHS, U.S. production could increase to 11.2 million barrels daily in just eight years as a result of the lifting of the export ban. This increased production would promote sufficient additional economic activity to support nearly one million jobs in four years. IHS, US Crude Oil Export Decision KF-1 (2014), www.ihs.com/info/0514/crude-oil. html?ocid=coe:pressrls:01. Finally, numerous analysts project that allowing crude exports will result in lower gasoline prices for American drivers by further stabilizing world crude supply.

On the other hand, the lifting of the export ban actually could make the United States more dependent on foreign oil. Some analysts argue that the United States simply does not have, and is unlikely to have any time soon, sufficient capacity to refine all of the light, sweet crude produced from the nation's shale formations. Less refining capacity inherently equates to more (excess) supply. In a climate of excess supply, refineries capable of processing oil from the nation's shale formations will pay less than they will after the lifting of the export ban when foreign refineries also can bid on the oil. However, to compensate for the sale of oil to foreign refiners, the United States may have to import more of the foreign, heavy oil that could be processed at the existing refineries. The same analysis demonstrates that the financial impact on refiners from an easing of the export ban could be onerous: "Buried in the latest government analysis on lifting the crude-oil export ban is a piece of data that shows why ending the limits will be a heavy lift: It would cut refiners' profits by $22 billion a year." Mark Drajem, Refiners' Loss Roils Politics of Oil's Push to End Export Ban, Bloomberg.com (Sept. 3, 2015).

Some opposed the lifting of the oil export ban for environmental reasons, concerned that an easing of export restrictions would lead to increased oil and gas exploration and production. At an EIA conference in June 2015, Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources, predicted oil production could reach twenty million barrels per day by 2025 if the export ban is lifted. Justin Mikulka, Lifting Ban on U.S. Crude Oil Export Would Enable Massive Fracking Expansion, DeSmog (Aug. 10, 2015), www.desmogblog.com/2015/08/10/lifting-oilexport-ban-would-enable-massive-fracking-expansion. Such a dramatic increase in production alarms many environmentalists who worry that such an increase in production invariably will result in more fracking, more flaring, more trains carrying flammable crude oil, more spills, more greenhouse gas emissions, and more chances for environmental catastrophes. House Speaker Paul Ryan stoked the fears of the environmentalists when he proclaimed: "Having the export ban lifted permanently is like having 100 Keystone pipelines, and it's really good foreign policy." Michael Bastasch, Paul Ryan Justifies Oil Exports: 'Like Having 100 Keystone Pipelines', The Daily Caller (Dec. 22, 2015).

Increased Federal Regulation

Recently, the oil and natural gas industry has felt another impact of increased production of oil and natural gas—increased governmental regulation and scrutiny. In particular, federal agencies recently have promulgated or proposed regulations related to fracking operations and methane emissions in oil and gas operations.

On March 26, 2015, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued its final regulations regarding fracking on federal and Indian lands. Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands. 80 Fed. Reg. 16,127, 16,128–16,222 (Mar. 26, 2015) (the Fracking Rule). The stated goal was to ensure "that wells are properly constructed to protect water supplies, to make certain that the fluids that flow back to the surface as a result of hydraulic fracturing operations are managed in an environmentally responsible way, and to provide public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids." Id. at 16,128. The Fracking Rule was challenged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming in two separate actions brought by industry groups and the states of Wyoming and Colorado. The states of North Dakota and Utah and the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation joined the states' action.

U.S. production could increase to 11.2 million barrels daily in just eight years if the domestic oil production export ban is lifted, which would promote economic activity to support nearly one million jobs in four years.

The Fracking Rule was scheduled to take effect on June 24, 2015, but that effective date was postponed by the Wyoming federal court, which had before it several motions for preliminary injunction seeking to stop the implementation of the rule. Then, in an order dated September 30, 2015, the Wyoming federal court enjoined the BLM from enforcing its final hydraulic Fracking Rule and further ordered that its preliminary injunction would apply nationwide. Order on Motions for Preliminary Injunction, Wyoming v. DOI, No. 2:15-CV043-SWS, (D. Wyo. Sept. 30, 2015) (the Fracking Order).

The court concluded that "Congress has directly spoken to the issue and precluded federal agency authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing not involving the use of diesel fuels." Fracking Order at 10. Moreover, the court held that the "Fracking Rule creates an overlapping federal regime, in the absence of Congressional authority to do so, which interferes with the States' sovereign interests in, and public policies related to, regulation of hydraulic fracturing." Id. at 40. As one would expect, the litigation over the Fracking Rule will continue past the Fracking Order.

Decreased reliance on oil is difficult because, beyond using oil and natural gas for fuel and heat, petroleum products are essential to the economy for many uses that cannot be replaced by alternative energy sources.

A second significant set of environmental regulations implemented in response to increased oil and gas activity is a suite of requirements proposed by the EPA that the agency claims "will help combat climate change, reduce air pollution that harms public health, and provide greater certainty about Clean Air Act permitting requirements for the oil and natural gas industry." EPA, Regulatory Actions, www3.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/actions.html. Reducing methane is an important part of the administration's strategy, because methane is twenty times more powerful than carbon dioxide in trapping heat, although it persists in the atmosphere for far less time than carbon dioxide does. The administration has set a goal of reducing methane emissions by 40 to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025. The latest proposed regulations are expected to reduce methane emissions by 20 to 30 percent. Id. The proposed regulations include updates to the new source performance standards to (1) set methane and volatile organic compound (VOC) requirements for additional new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry; (2) produce draft control techniques guidelines for reducing VOC emissions from existing oil and gas sources in certain ozone nonattainment areas and states in the ozone transport region; and (3) implement a new source determination rule that would clarify EPA's air permitting rules as they apply to the oil and natural gas industry.

Oil and gas companies oppose the proposals, calling them unnecessary and costly, while environmental advocacy groups say they do not go far enough because they apply mainly to new wells and not most existing ones. The industry points to the EPA's own data that shows that methane emissions from hydraulically fractured natural gas wells have fallen nearly 79 percent since 2005, and total methane emissions from natural gas systems are down 11 percent over that same time period. Carlton Carroll, API to EPA: Failing methane emissions make new rules unnecessary, American Petroleum Institute (Sept. 23, 2015), www.api.org/News-and-Media/News/NewsItems/2015/September-2015/API-to-EPA-Falling-methane-emissionsmake-new-rules-unnecessary.

The natural gas industry in particular also points to the positive effects of the increased use of natural gas in electric generation. Over the past decade, the increased use of natural gas in power production has played a significant role in the reduction of emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur dioxide by 23 percent, 40 percent, and 44 percent, respectively. Nanci Bompey & Katy Human, New findings show U.S. power plant emissions are down, Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin. (Jan. 9, 2014), www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/news/2014/148_0109.html. Environmentalists respond by pointing to new research indicating that methane releases from all natural gas-related activities exceed what previously had been believed to be total emissions and are higher than that previously acknowledged by the EPA.

Several politicians voiced their opposition to the proposed methane regulation, including Representative Lamar Smith (R–Tex.), chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. Congressman Smith issued a press release in response to the EPA's announcement of the proposed regulations asserting that the proposals are part of the administration's "war on American energy jobs." Press Release, Lamar Smith, Smith Statement on EPA Methane Rule, (Aug. 18, 2015). Others in Congress have touted the success of the oil and gas industry in reducing methane emissions and voiced their opposition to additional federal regulations on methane emissions, contending that mandatory reductions are "unnecessary" and would be "less effective than a voluntary, cooperative effort." Press Release, U.S. Senate Comm. on Env't and Public Works, GOP Leaders Oppose Federal Mandates on Emissions (June 11, 2015).

Exploiting Hydrocarbon Resources and Developing Alternative Energy Sources

The increased national production of oil and natural gas has exacerbated the seemingly inevitable conflict between the production of hydrocarbons and the development of alternative energy sources. Many of those cautioning against overdevelopment of the nation's oil and gas reserves due to environmental concerns also contend that the oil and gas production should not take precedence over the growth and implementation of alternative fuels.

In truth, irrespective of an individual's feelings toward the oil and gas industry, the nation will not, at least any time in the near future, be able to rely solely on alternative sources of energy. Renewable energy cannot by itself answer to the country's oil-importation concerns. The EIA has estimated that in 2014, renewable energy sources (biofuels, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, and wind) accounted for about 10 percent of the total U.S. energy consumption and 13 percent of electric generation. EIA, How much U.S. energy consumption and electricity generation comes from renewable sources? (March 31, 2015), www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=92&t=4.

Even one of the most optimistic of all projections coming from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) places electric generation from renewable sources by 2050 (still thirty-five years off) at 80 percent—significant, but hardly cause to believe the United States can be free of oil and natural gas. Moreover, even the NREL study points to difficulties in achieving that volume of renewable electric generation: "[M]any aspects of the electric system may need to evolve substantially for high levels of renewable electricity to be employed." Trieu Mai, et al., Renewable Electricity Futures Report: Executive Summary, NREL (2012) (emphasis added), www.nrel.gov/analysis/re_futures.

Decreased reliance on oil is difficult, if not impossible, because petroleum products are essential to the economy, even beyond the standard fuel and heating uses normally associated with oil and natural gas, and many of those uses simply cannot be replaced by use of alternative energy sources. Alaska Congressman Don Young explained it this way:

What many Americans do not realize is how many products are made from a barrel of oil. Someday America's energy may not come from fossil fuels, but the U.S. will never be able to fully cut our ties to them. In a 42 gallon barrel of oil (results in 44.68 gallons through the refining process), 19.15 gallons becomes gasoline (43%), 9.21 gallons becomes diesel (20%), 3.82 gallons becomes jet fuel (9%), and 1.75 gallons becomes heating oil (4%). The remaining, and most important, part of the barrel is the 10.75 gallons (24%) that compose the molecules that make-up asphalt, plastics, lubricants, etc. Failure to develop this 24% of the barrel will leave the U.S. without rubber, aspirin, syringes, golf balls, toothpaste, and even the synthetics that compose windmills and green cars.

Congressman Don Young, Energy Independence, http://donyoung.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=5005.

The supply of energy in the United States in the twenty-first century has been, and will continue to be, dramatically influenced by the domestic production of oil and gas. The increased production of oil and natural gas provides opportunities for increased energy independence (and less dependence on foreign oil, particularly from politically hostile or unstable regions). At the same time, however, increased domestic production is directly linked with increased federal regulation and may be viewed as having an inverse relationship to the development of alternative sources of fuel. However viewed, there can be no doubt of the significant impact—socially, politically, and economically—of the Shale Revolution and the increased domestic production of oil and natural gas.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.