If you dispose of produced water you are no-doubt aware of the intensive earthquakes being observed across the Midland and Delaware Basins. In West Texas Earthquake Observations, Implications for the Oil and Gas Industry, Scott Pinsonnault and John Shepherd of Ankura Consulting summarize the evolving situation and the Texas Railroad Commission’s response. They also
Louisiana Pipeline Intrusion Case Remanded to Determine a Remedy
The baseball season might be in jeopardy, but litigants are swinging for the fences. In Mary v. QEP Energy, the parties entered into a Pipeline Servitude Agreement over Ms. Mary’s 160 acres. One of QEP’s pipelines extended beyond the servitude by 31 feet and another by 15 feet.
Ms. Mary sued claiming the pipeline was
Is the Oil and Gas Industry Worth Defending?
Of course it is. (Apologies for the clickbait.) If further reading would damage you, I recommend a subscription to the Guardian. Otherwise, consider these points of view when conversing with those in need of enlightenment. Counter-arguments abound, but they are not the purpose of this post.
The industry is subject to ad hominem attacks
Louisiana Court Considers Texas and Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Acts
Federal Insurance Company et al v. Select Energy Services LLC and Exco et al. is a reminder for negotiators of indemnity and defense obligations in oilfield contracts that choice of law is important. Ignore it when drafting and it will be too late when litigating.
The events
Three workers were injured on an Exco drilling rig in DeSoto Parish. Two sued in Texas, one sued in Louisiana. In the Texas suit Exco demanded that Select indemnify and defend Exco under the parties’ service agreement; Select did, and paid $31MM to settle. In the Louisiana suit the roles were reversed. Exco (through Federal) agreed to defend Select. Exco then withdrew its defense and alleged that the indemnity provision was unenforceable because it contravened La. R.S. 9:2780 the Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act. Select filed a reconventional demand to recover the amount of the Texas settlement.
The choice of law provision called for Texas law to apply without regard to conflict of laws provisions. In case a court might choose to apply the Louisiana Act, there was a substitute indemnity provision: The indemnity and insurance obligations are separate and apart from each other. The insurance obligation would support, but not in any way limit, the defense and indemnity obligations set forth in the agreement.
The Louisiana and Texas Acts
The Louisiana Act was an attempt to avoid adhesionary contracts in which, due to unequal bargaining power, a contractor would have no choice but to agree to indemnify the oil company lest they risk losing the contract. The Act declares null and void any provision in any agreement which requires defense and/or indemnification where there is negligence or fault on the part of the indemnitee or an independent contractor who is directly responsible. If Louisiana law applied, the statute would invalidate Exco’s defense and indemnity obligations to Select.
On the other hand, the Texas Act generally invalidates oilfield indemnity agreements but allows enforcement of mutual indemnity obligations limited to the scope and amount of contractual indemnity insurance each party as indemnitor has agreed to provide to the other as indemnitee. Thus, a mutual obligation is enforceable but limited to the extent of coverage limits of contractual indemnity insurance.
The insurance provided by the parties in the contract brought the mutual indemnity agreement within the exception.
Continue Reading Louisiana Court Considers Texas and Louisiana Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Acts
2021’s Bad Guys in Energy
Like wild mushrooms after a warm summer rain, and undaunted by the COVIDs, the fraudsters, the grifters, and the “the spawn of the Devil’s own strumpet”* were prolific before meeting the wrath of the courts and the regulators in 2021. This year features several potential lifetime achievement awards for recidivism.
Corruption Goes Nuclear
Perps: Former Ohio Speaker of the House Larry Householder and utility First Energy, beneficiary of a $1.3 billion state bailout of the state’s nuclear energy industry.
Crime: Householder was indicted on racketeering and conspiracy charges for taking bribes from FirstEnergy. Others were charged for crimes.
How they did it: The utility paid $56.6 million to an outfit called Generation Now who allegedly siphoned it off to Householder and the others. The money came from customers of First Energy’s distribution and transmission units.
Sentences: Plenty but none yet to the calaboose. Householder’s trial date is coming up. Republicans and Democrats together expelled him from the House; First Energy CEO Charles Jones was fired; two others pled guilty; a lobbyist committed suicide; First Energy was fined $230MM and entered into a deferred prosecution agreement.
The big picture: Forbes’ Ken Silverstein predicts that it will jar an industry that is perpetually trying to regain its balance after much bad publicity. Plus, high capital costs for construction and cheap shale gas have curtailed nuclear development, presenting a problem for the environment. Example: When Southern California Edison closed its San Onofre nuclear station in 2013 CO2 emissions jumped by 35% (That’s green California for you). Factoid: 96 nuclear reactors in 29 states supply about 20% of the country’s electricity and 55% of the carbon free power.
Don’t you know his mother was disappointed
______________________________________________________________
Perp: Mark Plummer, host of the ironically-named Dallas radio show “Smart Oil and Gas”.
Continue Reading 2021’s Bad Guys in Energy
Buried Pipeline Ruling Favors Lessors
Co-author Brittany Blakey
In Texas, what happens to an obligation to bury pipelines when, after creation of the obligation, the surface and minerals are severed? Henry v. Smith explains.
Henry et al own the surface estate of the Camp Creek Ranch, a 15,000-acre tract in Archer County. Smith et al are lessees in three oil
Texas Supreme Court to Review the Lessee’s Covenant to Protect Against Drainage
Co-author Brittany Blakey
First, a word for you scriveners: Preserve your reputation and the honor of your law school writing instructor by preparing clear and understandable contracts. Then your handiwork won’t be disparaged as “opaquely worded” “cryptic language”, suffering from “lack of accuracy and lack of clarity”, and “containing grammatical and logical errors”, as in
Texas Supreme Court to Review Approval of Injection Well Permit
Co-author Brittany Blakey
The Texas Supreme Court has granted petition for review of a 2019 decision in Dyer et al v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality . At issue is whether rescission of a Railroad Commission no-harm letter before the TCEQ granted an injection-well permit rendered the permit void.
The Injection Well Act (Chapter 27 of the Texas Water Code) governs the permitting process for underground injection wells in Texas. The Act aims to maintain the quality of fresh water for the public and existing industries while trying to prevent injections that may pollute fresh water. Under the Act, a company seeking to construct and operate an injection well must apply to the TCEQ for a permit. The applicant must also provide a “no-harm” letter from the RRC stating that the injection well will not damage an existing oil or gas reservoir.
I’m an oil and gas guy. Why does this order concern me?
This case is about injection wells for industrial and municipal waste, not for oil and gas waste. But the court’s treatment of the Administrative Procedures Act and the effect of (dueling?) orders of state agencies could inform future actions and orders of both agencies.
The long and complicated timeline
Continue Reading Texas Supreme Court to Review Approval of Injection Well Permit
Texas Court Accepts Only One Meaning of “Leased Premises” in an Oil and Gas Lease
How many different meanings can parties attribute to a term in an oil and gas lease? Answer: As many as they want, but the court will only use one, says King Operating et al v. Double Eagle Andrews, LLC et al.
The facts
The Robisons own 50% of the minerals in Tract 1, and 100%
Another Post-Production Cost Decision in Texas
In resolving a dispute over post-production cost deductions from oil and gas royalties (PPC’s), the court in Shirlaine West Properties Ltd et al v. Jamestown Resources, LLC and Total E&P USA, Inc. opined that the case ” … is yet another episode in the endless struggle in the oil and gas context between lessors and lessees in the allocation of [PPC’s] in the calculation of royalty payments.”
Takeaway
Was the lessor’s gas royalty burdened by PPC’s? Yes. The market value royalty clause unambiguously fixed the wellhead as the valuation point for royalty calculation.
The royalty clause
The lessor did its best to be free of PPCs:
- Royalty on gas was 25% of “ … market value at the point of sale, use or other disposition …
- … to be determined “ … at the specified location and by reference to the gross heating value …”.
- “The market value used in the calculation … shall never be less than the total proceeds received by Lessee in connection with a sale, use or other disposition … “.
- Royalty “ … shall be free and clear of all costs and expenses whatsoever, except ad valorem and production taxes.”
- … [N]otwithstanding any language herein to the contrary, all oil, gas or other proceeds accruing to Lessor … shall be without deduction for [PPC’s] … and costs resulting in enhancing the value could be deducted ” … but in no event would Lessor receive a price lower than or more than the price received by Lessee.”
- If Lessee realized proceeds after deduction for PPC’s “ … the proportionate part of such deductions shall be added to the total proceeds received by Lessee … . “.
- Heritage Resources v. NationsBank would have no application.
Continue Reading Another Post-Production Cost Decision in Texas