Published on:
Major Banks’ Oil Price Predictions
Published on:
Cities vs. Industry: Fight over Municipal Regulation of Fracking Continues at Legislature
Struggles over fracking bans have been in the news for some time in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Ohio, New Mexico and other states. The State of New York has had a moratorium on fracking for several years. But until recently, cities and oil and gas companies in Texas had been able to get along. Until, that is, the City of Denton, Texas passed a referendum banning fracking with in its city limits. Since then, as we say in Texas, all hell has broken loose.
The day after Denton’s referendum passed, two suits were filed challenging its ordinance, one by the Texas General Land Office and one by the Texas Oil and Gas Association. In the Legislature, several bills were filed to limit municipal authority to regulate drilling. One bill would require cities to reimburse the state for lost revenue from any drilling ban. Another would require cities to get approval from the Attorney General before putting any referendum on the ballot.
The two bills that appear to have the most legs are HB 2855, introduced by Drew Darby, and SB 1165, introduced by Troy Fraser. SB 1165 has been favorably reported out of the Senate Natural Resources Committee. HB 2855 remains pending in the House Energy Resources Committee after a lengthy hearing at which representatives of the industry and municipalities testified late into the night.
Published on:
Bakken and Eagle Ford Production Declining
The Energy Information Administration shows oil production from the Niobrara, Eagle Ford and Bakken fields dropping for the first time, by 24,023 bbl/d — much sooner than some predicted. Production from the Permian Basin is still rising. Operators may be delaying completion of wells already drilled, in effect storing their reserves in the ground. (Click image below to enlarge.)
Published on:
Commissioner v. Sandridge: GLO Meets Heritage
Last November, the Texas General Land Office lost its appeal in Commissioner v. SandRidge Energy, Inc., in the El Paso Court of Appeals. For the first time, a court has ruled that a lessee can deduct post-production costs under the Texas General Land Office’s Relinquishment Act lease form, citing Heritage Resources v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. 1996).
The case actually involves several oil and gas leases owned by SandRidge in Pecos County, some covering lands owned by private parties, some covering Relinquishment Act lands. (The State owns the minerals under Relinquishment Act land; the surface owner is agent for the state in granting oil and gas leases, for which the surface owner receives ½ of bonuses and royalties. The lease must be approved by the GLO and be on the approved GLO lease form.) The most interesting part of the case is the court’s interpretation of the GLO’s Relinquishment Act lease form. There are somewhere between 6.4 million and 7.4 million acres of Relinquishment Act lands in Texas, principally in West Texas, in and around the Permian Basin.
SandRidge’s wells on the leases in dispute produce mostly carbon dioxide, mixed with some natural gas. Originally, SandRidge paid the GLO royalties on its sales of natural gas and carbon dioxide. More recently, SandRidge made an agreement with Oxy USA; SandRidge built a plant, the Century Plant, to extract the CO2 from SandRidge’s gas. Oxy owns and operates the plant and gets the CO2 extracted; SandRidge gets the natural gas. Oxy doesn’t charge SandRidge for separating the gas from the CO2. Oxy uses the CO2 in secondary recovery projects. The plant reportedly cost a billion dollars.
Published on:
Texas Supreme Court Decides KCM Financial v. Bradshaw
Betty Lou Bradshaw’s parents owned 1773 acres in Hood County. In 1960, they sold the land and reserved 1/2 of the royalty on oil, gas and other minerals. Betty Lou inherited her parents’ royalty interest.
In 2005, Steadfast Financial (subsequently renamed KCM Financial) acquired the right to purchase the land. In 2006, KCM made a deal with Range Resources by which it simultaneously (1) exercised its right to purchase the land, (2) sold the land to Range, reserving all minerals, and (3) leased the mineral estate to Range. The lease provided for 1/8th royalty, and the bonus was $7,505 per acre.
Betty Lou sued KCM and Range. She alleged that they conspired to limit her royalty on production from the lease to 1/16 (1/2 of 1/8), whereas it should have been 1/8 (1/2 of 1/4), since the going rate for lease royalties in Hood County at the time was 1/4. She alleged that Steadfast had agreed to a lower royalty in order to receive an above-market bonus.
Published on:
Bills to Watch in Texas Legislature
Here are bills filed in the current Texas Legislative session that may be of interest to mineral owners:
House Bill 539: This is the bill to prohibit municipalities from banning drilling within their jurisdictions.
Senate Bill 540: The Senate’s version of House Bill 539.
Published on:
Another Major Suit Challenges Chesapeake’s Royalty Practices
A team of lawyers in Pennsylvania has filed an anti-trust suit against Chesapeake and Williams Partners (Formerly Access Midstream Partners) alleging that they conspired to restrain trade in the market for gas gathering services in and around Bradford County, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs also sued Anadarko, Statoil, and Mitsui, all of whom own interests in Chesapeake’s leases. The suit alleges violation of the oil and gas leases granted by the plaintiffs, violations of ant-trust law, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). A copy of the complaint, filed in federal court in Pennsylvania, can be found here.
The team of lawyers who filed this suit have their own website, “Marcellus Royalty Action.” They say that their approach differs from other suits against Chesapeake in that they will not seek class action status, they intend to pursue discovery before negotiating settlements, and they will sue all working interest owners responsible for royalty payments.
Royalty owner suits against Chesapeake have become a growth industry for attorneys. Recently, Chesapeake requested that multiple royalty owner suits against it in the Barnett Shale region of Texas be assigned to a pretrial court for consolidated and coordinated pretrial proceedings. (Defendants Joint Motion for Transfer and Request for Stay) The request says that more than 3,200 landowners have filed 97 separate suits in Johnson, Tarrant and Dallas Counties alleging that Chesapeake and Total E&P, USA, Inc. (Chesapeake’s working interest partner in the Barnett Shale) have charged excessive post-production costs. This request results primarily from multiple suits filed by the McDonald Law Firm. See http://royaltyripoff.com/. McDonald has said he does not oppose Chesapeake’s request.
Published on:
A Picture Says a Thousand Words
Rigs stacked near Odessa, Texas.
Published on:
NASA on Climate Change – This will get your attention
Published on:
Supreme Court Ducks Issue of Injection Well-Subsurface Trespass
On February 6, 2015, The Supreme Court of Texas released its second opinion in FPL Farming Ltd. (“FPL”) v. Environmental Processing Systems, L.C. (“EPS”). The Beaumont court of appeals had held that injected fluids that migrate beyond the boundary of the land owned by the surface owner constitute a trespass on a neighbor’s property. The Supreme Court declined to address whether or not subsurface wastewater migration is actionable as a common law trespass in Texas, and instead focused on consent as a general element of a trespass cause of action.
Until recently, subsurface wastewater migration had never been addressed by a Texas appellate court, and the assumption in the disposal industry was that such incursion was not actionable. But the Beaumont Court of Appeals, in FPL v. EPS, concluded that the neighbor does have a trespass claim. The Beaumont Court issued two opinions in the case; the first was appealed to the Supreme Court which reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals, and the second resulted in the opinion released February 6.
The facts in FPL are these: EPS operates an injection well for non-hazardous waste on land adjacent to the land owned by FPL. FPL had previously objected to an amendment of EPS’s permit that increased the rate and volumes allowed to be injected. The Austin Court of Appeals affirmed the permit amendment over FPL’s objections, ruling that “the amended permits do not impair FPL’s existing or intended use of the deep subsurface.” FPL Farming Ltd. v. Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n, 2003 WL 247183 (Austin 2003, pet. denied). FPL then sued EPS for trespass and negligence, alleging that injected substances had migrated under FPL’s tract causing damage. FPL lost a jury trial and appealed. The Beaumont Court affirmed, holding that because EPS held a valid permit for its well, “no trespass occurs when fluids that were injected at deep levels are then alleged to have later migrated at those deep levels into the deep subsurface of nearby tracts.” FPL Farming Ltd. v. Environmental Processing Systems, L.C., 305 S.W.3d 739, 744-745 (Tex.App.-Beaumont). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Texas laws governing injection well permits “do not shield permit holders from civil tort liability that may result from actions governed by the permit.” FPL Farming Ltd. v. Environmental Processing Systems, L.C., 351 S.W.3d 306, 314 (Tex. 2011). But the court was careful to say it was not deciding that owners of injection wells could be guilty of trespass if their injected fluids migrated onto other lands. “We do not decide today whether subsurface wastewater migration can constitute a trespass, or whether it did so in this case.” The court remanded to the court of appeals for it to consider the other issues raised by the appeal. Continue reading →