City of Crowley v. TotalEnergies E&P USA, is a post-production cost (PPC) case with a predictable result. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals confirmed its reasoning in Shirlaine W. Props. Ltd. v. Jamestown Res., L.L.C from 2021, that under a market-value oil and gas lease, gas sold at the wellhead means
Fasken Ranch Ltd et al v. Puig et al featured a reservation in the sale of a ranch of an undivided 1/16 non-participating royalty interest “free of cost forever.” What does that mean? In particular, does it mean that the royalty owners must bear their share of post-production costs? The answer is No. Read
In Self v. BPX Operating, a case with significant implications for Louisiana operators and royalty owners, the Supreme Court of Louisiana ruled that the doctrine of negotiorum gestio in La. Civil Code art. 2292 does not allow the operator of a drilling unit created by Louisiana’s conversation laws to withhold post-production expenses (PPCs) from
In Carl v. Hillcorp Energy the Supreme Court of Texas addressed the relationship between the lessee’s use of gas off-premises under a free-use clause and the lessor’s burden to share post-production costs (PPCs) under the at-the-well gas royalty clause of an oil and gas lease. Spoiler alert: Lessee wins.
The basics
Minerals that have been
In Devon Energy Production Company, LP et al v. Sheppard et al, the Supreme Court of Texas construed what it referred to as a “bespoke” and “highly unique” royalty clause in several oil and gas leases to prohibit the producers from deducting out of the lessor’s royalty post-production costs incurred downstream of the point of
Co-author Brittany BlakeyRecall our recent post on Carl v. Hilcorp Energy Company from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas discussing the lessee’s royalty obligations on gas used off the premises in a market-value lease. See now, Fitzgerald v. Apache Corporation: Different judge; same district; similar facts, lease provisions
Co-author Brittany BlakeyThe question is presented again but in a different format: In Texas is a lessee allowed to deduct post-production costs (PPC’s) from the lessor’s gas royalty? In Carl v. Hilcorp, the answer was “yes” based on the language in the oil and gas lease at issue. The question was for gas
The question with wide-ranging implications for Louisiana operators and mineral owners in Johnson et al. v. Chesapeake Louisiana LP et al is whether unleased mineral owners in a drilling unit established by the Commissioner of Conservation must bear their proportionate share of post-production costs.
The statutory scheme
Under Louisiana’s forced pooling statutes, the Commissioner may form drilling units and appoint an operator to drill and operate wells for all owners in the unit. Unleased mineral owners (the court called them UMO’s) are exempt from the statutory 200% risk charge for drilling costs applied to non-participating lessees. The operator is required by La. R.S 30:10(A)(3) to pay a UMO who has not elected to market his share of production the tract’s pro rata share of proceeds from the sale of hydrocarbons.
The claims and defenses
Continue Reading Louisiana Unit Operators May Deduct Post-Production Costs from Unleased Mineral Owners
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