Published on:

By

The Energy Information Administration has issued rankings of states in production of oil, gas, coal, electricity generation, and energy consumption. Texas ranks prominently in most categories.

— Texas is first in total energy production, producing 10,997 trillion Btus of energy in 2006 (the most recent information available). Wyoming is second (mainly from coal production) with 10,062 trillion Btus. Texas produced 15.5% of all the energy produced in the nation.

— Texas is first in crude oil production, producing 32.77 million barrels in May 2009 (20% of the nation’s production), ahead of Alaska with 21 million barrels; and (by far) first in natural gas production, producing 6 trillion mcf in May 2009 (30% of the nation’s production), ahead of second-place Wyoming with 1.9 trillion mcf.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

America’s Natural Gas Alliance, a recently formed energy lobbying group formed by natural gas producers, has issued a press release praising the Senate’s version of a climate bill.  Without actually endorsing the bill, the Alliance commended the bill’s authors for “including provisions in their bill that will enable us to continue to engage in the process of developing language that will effectively promote natural gas as part of the climate solution.”

The Alliance was formed in March 2009, and according to its website it represents 28 of North America’s largest independent natural gas producing companies, whose members produce more than 40 percent of total U.S. natural gas supplies, about nine trillion cubic feet per year. Its members include Anadarko, Apache, Chesapeake, Devon, El Paso, Encana, Petrohawk, Pioneer, Plains, and XTO. The Alliance’s position on the Kerry-Boxer energy bill is markedly different from that of the American Petroleum Institute and the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, long-time lobbyists for the energy industry which have come out strongly against cap-and-trade legislation. Alex Mills, President of Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, is in particular an opponent of cap-and-trade, saying that it will wreak havoc on the energy industry. Chesapeake, Devon, Encana, and XTO are also members of the Texas Alliance. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

But companies relying mainly on gas production — more than 90 percent of Chesapeake’s total production is natural gas — believe that natural gas producers can benefit from climate legislation, since natural gas is a clean-burning fuel with much lower carbon emissions per unit of energy than oil or coal. Tom Price, Senior V.P. of Chesapeake for corporate development and government relations, said that “We think Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas and the states that are primarily natural gas producers will come out very favoarable to a legislation that differentiates among the low-carbon fuels.”

Published on:

By

The recent volatility in prices for oil and gas leases has raised issues with the time-honored custom in the industry of paying lease bonuses with drafts. Problems have arisin because companies have refused to honor the drafts or because lessors have sought to cancel the transaction after signing and delivery the lease and lessor’s deposit of the draft. When someone wants to back out of “the deal” after a lease has been exchanged for a draft, the lessor and lessee run to their lawyers to find out what legal rights and obligations have been created by the exchange. No one is happy.

As I have written previously, it is generally my advice to avoid using drafts for payment of lease bonuses. My practice is to hold my client’s original signed lease until I receive a check for the bonus from the company, then send the check to my client and the lease to the company. I find that most companies are willing to close the deal in this manner.

But most lease transactions are consummated using a draft. So, herein is an additional discussion of problems arising from use of drafts..

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The U.S. Energy Information Administration has launched a new website that contains wonderful information about energy described in terms laypersons can understand. It can be found at http://tonto/eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/ .  Here are some examples of information you can find there:

— A British Thermal Unit (Btu) is the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of one pount of liquid water by 1 degree Farenheit at the temperature that water has its greatest density (approximately 39 degrees F.).

— One Btu is about the amount of energy burned by a common kitchen match. One million Btu equals about 8 gallons of gasoline. One billion Btu eqals all the electricity that 300 households consume in one month.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy, and John Pinkerton, CEO of Range Resources, called for the industry to publicly disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.  A bill recently introduced in Congress, the FRAC Act, would require disclosure of frac chemicals.  (See my prior post on the FRAC Act here.)

The safety of chemicals used in fracing wells has been questioned in areas of Pennsylvania and New York, where concerns have been raised about possible contamination of drinking water. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection recently sent a notice of violation to Cabot Oil & Gas stemming from two spills of LGC-35, a lubricant used in fracing wells. One spill was reportedly between 1,000 and 2,000 gallons, the other between 5,000 and 5,900 gallons. Halliburton has reported that LBC-35 is a potential carcinogen. The Pennsylviania DEP has ordered Cabot to halt all hydraulic fracturing in Susquehanna County until the company has satisfied the DEP that it has taken necessary safety measures.  New York has imposed a moratorium on new Marcellus Shale drilling permits until it completes a study and new environmental regulations.

McClendon said that the industry needs to “demystify” fracing. “We need to disclose the chemicals that we are using and seaqrch for alternatives to the chemicals we are using.” Pinkerton said that oilfield service companies impose confidentiality agreements on producers when they contract to provide fracing operations; “It’s a little silly to be honest.” A spokesman for Schlumberger said that disclosure is limited by agreements with the firms supplying the chemicals. A spokesman for Haliburton said that the different chemical makeup of the compounds is proprietary information. “We make a significant investment in developing effective fracturing fluid systems and we are careful to protect the fruits of the company’s research and development efforts.”

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Prior to the Texas Legislature’s passage of House Bill 2259, an operator could leave an inactive well unplugged indefinitely, as long as the oil and gas lease on which the well is located remains in effect, by simply filing an annual form. House Bill 2259, effective September 1, 2009, imposes additional requirements on operators desiring to delay plugging of the well.

An operator may not operate wells in Texas unless its annual Organization Report, form P-5, has been filed and accepted by the RRC. When filing the P-5, the operator must provide a form of financial assurance that it has the ability to properly plug all wells for which it is the designated operator.

The additional requirements imposed by H.B. 2259 require an operator to file certain forms each time the operator files its annual Organization Report, Form P-5, with the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC). The new forms related to inactive wells operated by the operator. An “inactive well” is a well that has had no activity for 12 consecutive months.

H.B. 2259 amends Chapters 98 and 91 of Texas Natural Resources Code. The new law provides that, if an operator has any inactive wells at the time its Organization Report is due, it must file an “Application for Extension” requesting that it not be required to plug those inactive wells. In order to be granted the extension, the operator must do each of the following four things:

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Gas prices in Texas recently dipped below $2/mmbtu. Companies are shutting in wells to avoid selling at such low prices. Nevertheless, record volumes of gas are going into storage.

natural-gas-in-storage.gif

 

The chart shows the five-year monthly average of gas in storage for the last five years, and the red line shows gas in storage this year. Gas in storage for August is already well above the last five-years’ highest volume, and is sure to climb higher. We are likely to find out the true limit of how much capacity there is for gas storage in the U.S. Unless we have a very cold winter, this excess gas may continue to suppress gas prices for months to come.

Published on:

By

Three law firms in Dallas have joined to sue oil companies who backed out of leases covering lands in Arlington, Texas last fall. The three firms — Petroff & Associates, Riddle & Williams, P.C., and Mathis & Donheiser, P.C. — have so far filed two suits on behalf of two lot owners who say they had binding deals with companies to lease their property. The law firms have created a website at www.ntxleaselitigation.com, and are organizing meetings of landowners who believe they had lease deals with XTO . The interesting part of the two lawsuits filed so far is that they name as defendants not only the company that allegedly had agreed to pay for leases of the two plaintiffs’ properties, but also multiple other companies and their leasing agents who were leasing in the Barnett Shale.  The suits claim that all of these companies conspired last fall to revoke their outstanding lease offers and to drive down the bonus price for leases, in violation of antitrust laws. For a story in the Fort Worth Star Telegram on the cases, see http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1593837.html . According to the suits, the plaintiffs were in an area of Arlington organized to negotiate leases for its landowners called the Southeast Arlington Coalition of Texas (SEACTX). SEACTX claimed that it had a deal to lease to XTO Energy for $26,517 per acre.  Here are copies of the two petitions: 
08-06-09BoothOriginalPetition[1].pdf and
08-31-09MylesOriginalPetition[1].pdf

Published on:

By

A Delaware bankruptcy judge has ruled in the SemCrude bankruptcy that the claims of Texas producers for unpaid revenues from oil sales are subordinate to the claims of SemCrude’s bankers. As a result, the Texas producers (and perhaps their royalty owners) may lose up to $57 million.

SemCrude filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in July 2008. SemCrude was a large purchaser of crude oil in Texas and seven other states. At the time of the filing, the SemCrude entities owed their banks $2.55 billion. It also owed more than one thousand oil and gas producers millions of dollars for oil purchased but not paid for in June and July 2008, including $57 million owed to oil and gas producers in Texas.

The court in the SemCrude bankruptcy recently ruled that the claims of Texas Producers for the $57 million in unpaid proceeds of oil and gas sales are subordinate to the claims of SemCrude’s Banks, who hold liens on all os SemCrude’s assets, despite a Texas statute that grants the Texas Producers a lien on their production and all proceeds of sale to secure the purchaser’s obligation to pay.

The arguments made in the dispute between the Banks and the Texas Producers are complicated because they involve the interpretation of Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a code that has been the bane of many law students’ studies. The judge’s ruling will be appealed and so is not the final word on the matter, but if the ruling stands it will adversely affect the rights of royalty owners in bankruptcy proceedings of oil and gas purchasers and producers, and could greatly reduce their rights to recover payments for their royalties.

Here is a simplified summary of the judge’s ruling:

Continue reading →

Contact Information
John McFarland
 Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody, P.C.
401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2700
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: 512-480-5618
This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only as well as to give general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2025, John McFarland
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design