Close

Articles Posted in Post-Production Costs

Updated:

Bluestone v. Randle – Another Case to Watch – Post-Production Costs

Last April the Fort Worth Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Bluestone Natural Resources II, LLC v. Randle, No. 02-18-00271-CV, 2019 WL 1716415. The Court decided that, under Randle’s lease, Bluestone could not deduct post-production costs and owed royalty on plant fuel and compressor fuel. Bluestone has petitioned the…

Updated:

Arkansas Case On Post-Production Costs

A U.S. District Court in Arkansas decided a case in 2016 that a client sent me, Whisenhunt Investments, LLC v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2016 WL 7494266, No. 4:13cv00656 JM, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, raising an interesting issue on post-production costs. Arkansas has forced pooling. The forced pooling statute…

Updated:

North Dakota Supreme Court Decides for Royalty Owner on Post-Production Costs

In a short opinion, the Supreme Court of North Dakota decided a case brought by Newfield Exploration against the North Dakota Board of University and School Lands to determine how royalties on gas should be calculated under the State’s leases to Newfield. The case illustrates how post-production costs can sometimes…

Updated:

Burlington v. Texas Crude – another Supreme Court Case on Post-Production Costs

The Texas Supreme Court has denied motion for rehearing of its opinion in Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company v. Texas Crude Energy, No. 17-0266. The case addresses deductibility of post-production costs in the context of an overriding royalty. The case may, however, have implications for post-production-cost deductions in oil…

Updated:

Royalty Owner Revolt Against Chesapeake in Pennsylvania

Royalty owner opposition to Chesapeake is heating up in Pennsylvania. Chesapeake has sent royalty owners letters saying it has overpaid them by failing to deduct post-production costs and demanding reimbursement.  Post-production cost deductions are exceeding revenues on Chesapeake’s royalty checks, resulting in a “negative royalty.”  The Commissioners of Bradford County,…

Updated:

Chesapeake Exits Barnett Shale

Chesapeake Energy announced last week that it is selling (giving away?) all of its interest in the Barnett Shale to Saddle Barnett Resources, LLC, a company backed by First Reserve. First Reserve is a global private equity investment firm. The Barnett Shale is the birthplace of the shale revolution in…

Updated:

Texas Supreme Court Denies Motion for Rehearing in Chesapeake v. Hyder

Last week the Texas Supreme Court denied Chesapeake’s motion for rehearing in Chesapeake v. Hyder. The court originally affirmed the lower courts’ opinions in favor of the Hyders, with four justices dissenting. On rehearing, the court’s alignment did not change, but Justice Hecht issued a new opinion for the majority,…

Updated:

Class Actions Against Chesapeake in Pennsylvania

Lawyers have filed a new class action against Chesapeake in Pennsylvania. The suit is against Chesapeake Energy and Chesapeake Marketing, filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs also filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association against Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC. According…

Contact Us