Non-operators under the 1989 Model Form JOA have been hoping to drive a stake through the dark heart of Reeder v. Wood County Energy, LLC. Bachtell Enterprises, LLC v. Ankor E&P Holdings Corp might be a start. The question was whether the Article V.A. exculpatory clause exonerated the operator who intentionally
Co-author Justin CowanDoes a former working-interest owner of a well bear continuing responsibility for a defective gas line despite having conveyed its ownership interest? The line was constructed by the former owner as operator of record, and it received a fee as operator. (One could assume there was a RRC Form P-4 on file
Co-author Rusty TuckerWhat is the standard of care imposed by the Model Form JOA on the well operator? Crimson Exploration Op., Inc. v. BPX Op. Co. gives us the answer, and it is no surprise.
Background
Under a Model Form JOA, BPX as operator and Crimson and other non-operators drilled the McCarn A1H well. After a problem that prevented further drilling the parties agreed to plug and abandon the well.
BPX billed Crimson for its proportionate share of drilling expenses; Crimson refused to pay. In BPX’s suit to recover Crimson’s share of costs, Crimson asserted the affirmative defense of prior material breach by BPX’s failure to act as a prudent operator in drilling the well. Crimson argued the standard of care was a “reasonably prudent operator” while BPX relied on the exculpatory clause in Art. V.A of the JOA that excused liability unless BPX acted with gross negligence or willful misconduct.
Continue Reading Well Operator Protected by the Model Form JOA
Co-author Rusty TuckerThe threat: You, the operator, are operating unprofitable wells where monthly costs exceed or barely equal revenues, making money on the fixed COPAS overhead charges. Your non-operators are going into the economic hole and they don’t like it.
Yesterday we presented options for the non–operator to stop the financial bleeding. Today we anticipate responses available to the operator.
Yesterday’s caveats still apply.
Continue Reading My Operator is Making Money … Part 2, The Operator’s Response
Co-author Rusty TuckerWith the plunge in commodity prices many formerly profitable wells are now in the red, and we don’t know for how long. This is causing non-operators to question the bona fides of the operations … and of the operator, and to search for a way out of their obligations.
The challenge: The operator is operating unprofitable wells where monthly costs exceed or barely equal revenues, making money on fixed COPAS overhead charges, and non-operators are going into the economic hole. What can the non–operator do to stop the financial bleeding?
Continue Reading My Operator is Making Money on the Well and I’m Not. What Can I Do? Part 1.
Co-author Rusty TuckerJatex Oil & Gas, L.P. v. Nadel & Gussman Permian, L.L.C. presents several teachable moments:
Continue Reading Lessons from an Operating Agreement Dispute
Under Louisiana law, does the operator’s bad faith preclude recovery for the non-operator’s breach of a joint operating agreement if the operator caused the non-operator to breach the JOA but did not itself breach?
Apache’s choice
In Apache Deepwater, LLC v. W&T Offshore, Inc., the litigants were parties to a JOA for operations on offshore deepwater wells. Apache proposed to use two drilling rigs or P&A three wells at a much higher cost than a vessel that had been considered for the operation. W&T contended that Apache’s proposal was for the purpose of offloading to W&T half of $1 million per day stacking costs of a bad rig contract. Apache’s AFE for the P&A using the two rigs was $81 to $104 million, which would be cheaper for them (but not in total) than the alternative. Apache’s story was that the federal regulators would not have approved the original vessel for the operation after Deepwater Horizon.
W&T declined to approve Apache’s AFE. Apache used the two rigs anyway. The work was successful and Apache billed W&T for its 49% share, or $68 million (Note to self: You can’t afford offshore operations). W&T paid $24 million, its share of the original estimate. Apache sued for breach of contract.
The ambiguous JOA
Section 6.2 of the JOA prohibited the operator from conducting any operation costing more than $200,000 without an AFE approved by the non-operator. But Section 18.4 directed the operator to conduct abandonments required by governmental authority and the risks and costs would be shared by the participating parties. No AFE was required.
Continue Reading Louisiana Operator’s Bad Faith Does Not Preclude Recovery
Like breaking into CIA headquarters, sneaking into the Vatican, or hanging off the side of the Burj Khalifa, sometimes getting the deal done seems impossible. The key to any successful mission is planning for disastrous contingencies—be they rats in an air duct, malfunctioning suction gloves, or having to reach out to a third party to finance the bid you just won. Your mission—should you choose to accept it—is to learn how to avoid the fallout of an oil and gas acquisition gone bad by studying Pacific Energy & Mining Co. v. Fidelity Exp. & Prod. Co.
Continue Reading Attempt to Prove a Texas Partnership Fails
We begin with an existential question:
“The philosophy behind all of the model form agreements is that aggressive drilling under the JOA should be promoted and rewarded.
Agree or disagree?
That was an issue in Talisman Energy v. Matrix Petroleum. It was not resolved, but the decision is worth your attention because the court enjoined
Good morning class. Welcome to an advanced course on what can go wrong with the Model Form just when you need it.
FIRST CASE
Do you know where to file your UCC financing statement?
Operator wants to perfect