It was jurisprudential Groundhog Day as the Supreme Court of Texas handed down Nettye Engler Energy v. Bluestone Natural Resources, another in a series of postproduction cost disputes, only two days after Puxsutawney Phil peeked out of his cozy burrow to pronounce six more weeks of winter.
The takeaway
The Court clarified Burlington Resources
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:
Continue Reading Another Post-Production Cost Decision in Texas
Coauthors Sahrish K. Soleja and Lydia WebbIf you are a royalty owner and have questions about how your claim is likely to be treated when your lessee/operator goes into bankruptcy in Delaware, In re MTE Holdings LLC is a significant case.
Historically, royalty claims have been treated as funds placed in trust because they
Most bills filed in each legislative session fail. For the most part we are thankful for that. But today we summarize a few that survived while you weren’t paying attention. As usual, there are winners, losers, and rainouts.
HB 2730 beefs up the “Landowners’ Bill of Rights” in eminent domain negotiations and proceedings. It amends
Co-author Rusty TuckerThe Supreme Court of Texas has ruled that oil and gas leases under consideration in BlueStone Natural Resources II, LLC v. Walker Murray Randle, et al. did not permit deduction of postproduction costs from sales proceeds before royalties were computed, and a “free use” clause did not authorize the lessee to consume leasehold gas in off-lease operations without compensating the lessors.
The takeaway …
… at least that’s what they ruled in this cicumstance. The Court reiterated that regardless of a recitation here or an observation over yonder, it will not adjudicate the supremacy of one contract clause over another or one arbitrary rule of construction over another. Rather, it will construe each contract according to its terms.
The royalty clause
Continue Reading Texas Supreme Court Weighs in on Post-Production Costs
Co-author Rusty TuckerBlueStone Nat. Res. II, LLC v. Nettye Engler Energy, LP is another Texas case deciding whether language creating a nonparticipating royalty interest prohibited deduction of post-production costs. (Spoiler alert: it didn’t. Read on to learn why.)
The Deed
By a 1986 Deed Engler’s predecessors conveyed land to BlueStone’s predecessor. Grantor reserved an undivided 1/8th NPRI in the minerals and was entitled to 1/8th of gross production, “ … to be delivered to Grantor’s credit, free of cost in the pipe line, if any, otherwise free of cost at the mouth of the well or mine … .” (emphasis ours).
Continue Reading Texas NPRI Burdened with Post-Production Costs
Co-author Rusty TuckerDevon Energy Prod. Co., et al. v. Sheppard, et al is your kind of case if you are in search of:
Continue Reading When is a “Gross Proceeds” Royalty not Paid on Gross Proceeds?
Co-author Rusty TuckerConfirming the obvious, in In re Etheridge a Texas court concluded that “personal effects,” in a last will and testament did not include mineral royalties. Let’s investigate how the case got this far.
Continue Reading Mineral Royalties are Not “Personal Effects” in Texas
Co-author Paul YaleWhat’s good for the goose is not always good for the gander, at least in some places. It appears that the North Dakota Supreme Court has adopted the minority “ Marketable Product Rule” in connection with a 1979 North Dakota state oil and gas lease. We say “it appears” because not so long ago, in its 2009 decision in Bice v. Petro-Hunt, LLC, the Court held that North Dakota was an “at the well” state, like Texas and the majority of other oil producing states. This latest decision is Newfield Exploration Company, et al v. State of North Dakota et al.
The difference between the “Marketable Product Rule” and the “at the well” rule has to do with the deductibility of post-production costs of transporting, compressing, treating and processing from royalty payments. In an “at the well” state such costs are charged proportionately against the royalty owner. In a “Marketable Product” state they are not.
Continue Reading North Dakota: A Different Rule for Post-Production Costs In a State Lease.
Did the lessor’s deposit of royalty checks for production from a pooled unit that she contends was improper ratify the improper pooling? In Strickhausen v. Petrohawk et al, a jury will have to sort out the answer. Her case will be aided by exculpatory language in her oil and gas lease and her complaints from the beginning that her lease was improperly pooled.
The “Future Documents” clause and other facts
Strickhausen’s lease on 50 percent of the minerals on land in LaSalle County, Texas, prohibited pooling without her express written consent. An unusual “Future Documents” provision said (to paraphrase): If the lessee requires her to execute any document, such as a division order, such execution does not constitute waiver, acceptance, ratification, reviver, or adoption or waiver of any claim or demand, unless the document expressly states that as its purpose.
Continue Reading Lessor, Should You Cash That Royalty Check?