The Texas Supreme Court has denied motion for rehearing of its opinion in a case that addresses deductibility of oil and gas post-production costs in the context of an overriding royalty, writes John McFarland for the Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog.

Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company v. Texas Crude Energy may, however, have implications for post-production-cost deductions in oil and gas royalty clauses, according to the post on the website of Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody.

The dispute involved alleged breaches of a development agreement between the parties, including the deduction of post-production costs from Texas Crude’s overriding royalties.

The trial court ruled that post-production costs in the case were not deductible. But the Texas Supreme Court “reversed and remanded, holding that the language of the overriding royalty assignments permits deduction of (some?) post-production costs,” explains McFarland.

Read the article.

A Thompson & Knight trial team earned a unanimous verdict for BP America Production Company in a retrial of a 12-year-old lease termination dispute brought by Laddex, Ltd., an Amarillo-based oil company. Absent further appeals, this verdict could be the final chapter in over a decade of contentious lease termination litigation, according to a release from the law firm.

The release tells the history of the litigation:

In 2013, BP took two lease termination disputes to trial within one month of each other: Laddex v. BP America and Red Deer Resources v. BP America. In each case, the plaintiffs sought termination of large BP leases in the Texas Panhandle. Both cases involved the hot Texas litigation topic of “production in paying quantities,” a doctrine that allows a typical oil and gas lease to continue after its primary term only if the well or wells on that lease produce enough oil and gas to turn a profit.

Laddex was originally tried in June 2013. In that trial, the jury found that the lease failed to turn a profit from August 2005 to October 2006 and further found that a reasonable operator would not continue to operate the Mahler D-2 well for the purpose of making a profit. The effect of these answers was the termination of BP’s lease.

Red Deer went to trial one month later. In that case, the jury found that the well had produced in paying quantities at all relevant times, but that it was not capable of producing in paying quantities at the time it was shut-in on June 12, 2012.

Both cases eventually found their way to the Texas Supreme Court. In Red Deer, the court determined in its 2017 opinion that the only material question asked of the jury was whether the lease produced in paying quantities—and BP prevailed on that question. The result was a reversal and judgment rendered in favor of BP. In Laddex, also in 2017, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the jury charge in the 2013 trial erroneously instructed the jury to limit its analysis only to a specific 15-month period and held that the length of the time period to be considered for determining profitability was for the jury to decide. The court therefore remanded the case for a new trial.

The focus of Laddex is whether the Mahler D-2 well produced enough oil and gas to maintain BP’s almost 50-year-old lease. In order for the 1971 lease to remain valid, it needed to produce oil and gas in profitable quantities. Laddex’s suit claimed that the Mahler D-2 failed to turn a profit for over a year starting in the summer of 2005, and therefore the lease terminated on its own terms. It was undisputed that the well experienced a significant slowdown for about 15 months, but BP maintained that the lease was still profitable during that time. The well recovered to more normal levels of production in November 2006 and continues to produce near those levels to this day.

BP hired Thompson & Knight for the retrial, which began on April 15, 2019, and concluded mid-day on April 23. The jury ruled unanimously for BP.

The Thompson & Knight retrial team in Laddex v. BP was led by Rob Vartabedian, with support from Alix Allison, Rich Phillips, Conrad Hester, and Connor Bourland. Thompson & Knight’s Rob Vartabedian and Conrad Hester assisted with all aspects of Red Deer, from trial to the Texas Supreme Court. M. Coy Connelly, BP America managing counsel, supervised the successful litigation efforts in both the Laddex and Red Deer suits.

Several reported cases in recent years have involved title to minerals underlying roadways, points out Austin Brister for the McGinnis Lochridge Oil and Gas Law Digest.

“In urban oil and gas plays such as the Barnett Shale, horizontal drilling has ‘paved the way’ for oil and gas operators to drill through and produce minerals underlying highways, streets, and roadways,” he explains. “Even in rural areas across Texas, numerous horizontal wells have been drilled underneath roads and highways.”

The article discusses the case of Green v. Chesapeake in the Fort Worth Court of Appeals as it relates to the the strip-and-gore doctrine.

Read the article.

A recent Texas ruling illustrates the problems that can arise when parties to a joint operating agreement elect to have a non-owner serve as the operator, points out Austin Brister in the McGinnis Lochridge Oil and Gas Law Digest.

The court was called on to determine whether an elected unit operator is permitted to delegate operatorship duties to a contract operator, and whether that contract operator can be liable to nonoperators for breach of any duties imposed on the operator under that unit operating agreement.

PBJV was designated as unit operator, but then PBJV entered into a contract with Apache to perform a number of duties.

The court concluded that Apache was merely delegated duties, based on its observations that PBJV never actually named or designated Apache as the “Unit Operator,” but instead entered into a “Contract Services Agreement” and power of attorney with Apache under which PBJV contractually delegated certain operator duties to Apache.

Read the article.

When  you prepare, review and/or sign settlement agreements you sometimes pay less attention than you should to the details of those “standard” releases, writes Charles Sartain in Gray Reed’s Energy & the Law blog.

He explains that Acme Energy Services, d/b/a Big Dog Drilling v. Staley et al. provide the lesson: Beware the boilerplate; before signing, consider what you actually are trying to accomplish.

“Lake Hills contracted to provide materials and services on oil and gas leases owned by Heritage. Big Dog and other subcontractors provided work and materials and invoiced Lake Hills,” Sartain explains. “Heritage stopped paying Lake Hills and Lake Hills stopped paying the subs, who then recorded statutory mineral property liens against Heritage, its leases, and the well. Each subcontractor sued Heritage to foreclose and for personal liability.”

He lists the five rules the court considered in the case and discusses the ruling.

Read the article.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has agreed to hear a case to consider whether the rule of capture applies to hydraulic fracking, reports The Hydraulic Fracking Blog of Norton Rose Fulbright.

The case involves landowners’ trespass and conversion claims against an energy company based on hydraulic fracking activities. The plaintiffs  compared the energy company’s fracking activity to slant drilling, claiming that the proppants of hydraulic fracturing “serve the same purpose as a drill bit invading the land.”

Read the article.

A Texas Supreme Court ruling in Texas Outfitters Limited v. Nicholson explains why there is no bright-line rule delineating the duty of the executive right holder in resolving disputes among the mineral interest family, according to Gray Reed & McGraw.

The article in the firm’s Energy & the Law blog explains that the case presented an opportunity for the court to apply the guidelines outlined in an earlier ruling to a different scenario: whether the executive breached the duty by refusing to lease.

The ruling in “Outfitters reinforces the message that surface protection is not the only goal an executive is allowed to pursue – especially if a co-owner has leased.”

Read the article.

A new article by two Gray Reed & McGraw lawyers in Houston covers the benefits and risks of hydraulic fracturing, including reduction of foreign imports, jobs, reduced prices for consumers, water quality and usage, air quality, earthquakes, and social impacts, writes John McFarland in the Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog of Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody.

“A Brief Look at the Law of Hydraulic Fracturing in Texas and Beyond” gives a balanced view of the ongoing debate over whether increased use of natural gas for generation of electricity reduces greenhouse gas emissions, whether there is a connection between hydraulic fracturing and earthquakes, and adverse impacts on roads and other infrastructure, according to McFarland.

Read the article.

Recent court decisions are making it easier for private litigants who believe they have been underpaid royalties under an oil-and-gas lease to ratchet up the pressure on operators by styling their complaints as putative class actions, writes Thomas G. Ciarlone Jr. for Kane Russell Coleman Logan’s Energy Law Today.

“This has the obvious potential to transform nuisance-value lawsuits into headline-making disputes that can involve thousands of lessors seeking a bigger piece of the pie from the working interest,” he explains.

“There could be trouble ahead for operators if the future of royalty disputes lies increasingly within the province of states’ attorneys (with broad powers and vast resources) operating under the auspices of consumer protection laws,” Ciarlone concludes.

Read the article.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is continuing to aggressively investigate and bring enforcement action against companies that engage in energy market manipulation, reports WilmerHale in its 10-in-10 Hot Topics in Energy Series.

These investigations and proceedings mirror Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) action on financial market manipulation in the energy area.

“As the recent Powhatan and Silkman decisions indicate, the body of case law defining FERC’s enforcement authority continues to develop. Regulated companies should be aware that the statute of limitations in market manipulation cases will likely be read permissively. A strong internal compliance program, coupled with self-reporting in appropriate instances, can help reduce risk,” according to the article’s authors.

Read the article.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a $1.5 million award to ex-NBA All Star David West, who claimed he qualified for a payout in the BP oil spill settlement because he earned less in 2010 than in 2009.

Reuters reporter Alison Frankel explains that West “was in the fourth year of a five-year, $45 million contract with the New Orleans Hornets when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in 2010. West was paid every penny of the $45 million he was owed under his contract, including the full amount he was due in the year after the spill. He nevertheless argued – and the settlement administrator agreed – that under the definitions and formulas in BP settlement, he qualified for a payout for economic losses because he earned less in 2010 than in 2009. The 5th Circuit shut that right down.”

5th Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham, who wrote for the panel, didn’t see it that way: “In 2010, he earned exactly what he was entitled to receive under his contract.”

Read the Reuters article.

Haynes and Boone’s Spring 2019 Energy Roundup highlights an evolving United States oil and gas industry responding to recent commodity price volatility, the firm said on its website.

It also examines new international investment opportunities arising from legal changes in the United Kingdom and Brazil.

And the Spring 2019 Borrowing Base Redeterminations Survey predicts a conservative, but not knee-jerk, response by banks to the late 2018 drop in oil prices.

“Investor activism is on the rise in the public E&P space – our capital markets group tracks the various players and the demands they are marking. In the midst of this changing market, our guest contributor from Opportune LLP gives an outlook on upstream trends in 2019 and we also look at the related impact in the midstream space,” the firm said in the introduction to the report.

Read the report.

The Supreme Court of Texas is considering whether to grant a petition for review to establish whether an indemnity provision covers only third-party claims, not first-party claims, unless the provision unequiv­oc­al­ly states otherwise, writes D.C. Toedt III in the On Contracts blog.

He describes the case of Claybar v. Samson Exploration LLC, in which a property owner sued Samson for alleged damage to the property during oil and gas drilling. Claybar settled with Samson’s contractor but still claimed Samson was con­tract­ually required to indemnify Claybar for the attorney’s fees and costs that Claybar had incurred in pursuing his negligence claim.

Read the article.

The Energy & the Law blog of Gray Reed & McGraw discusses a case that sums up what is required for an instrument to be a conveyance and what is required for a stipulation to be effective.

Ellison v. Three Rivers Acquisition involves land title issues that arose when a mineral development company discovered an apparent discrepancy in a land swap from almost 100 years ago. The developer asked the owner of a mineral lease on the land in question to sign a letter confirming acceptance of a boundary stipulation designed to resolve the discrepancy.

The article discusses the question of whether the boundary stipulation was a legal conveyance.

Read the article.

In two related cases, petitioners are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down state generator subsidies that petitioners argue distort competitive wholesale power markets that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Federal Power Act, reports Verrill Dana in its Energy Law Update.

Associate Brian Marshall of Portland, Maine, explains:

Both cases concern “zero emission credits” (ZEC) schemes, one in Illinois and one in New York, that subsidize nuclear power plants. These ZEC subsidies allow otherwise uncompetitive nuclear plants to stay profitable and continue to operate, even if they fail to receive sufficient compensation in wholesale power auctions. Both the Second and Seventh Circuits have upheld the ZEC nuclear power subsidies.

Read the article.

Opportune takes a look at a few key indicators shaping the upstream oil and gas sector so far in 2019.

The first indicator is the continued climb of U.S. shale output, which is estimated to set records this year and next.

On the subject of supply and demand, the United States is expected to continue leading growth in oil supply worldwide, as global consumption of petroleum and liquid fuels show relative growth.

Liquid natural gas production reached a record high at the end of 2018, and export capacity will grow significantly.

The bad news for producers, however, is that increased production will limit price increases.

Read the article.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the “take first, pay later” approach to building the Mountain Valley Pipeline, in which the company condemned private property in the project’s path before paying opposing landowners for their losses, reports The Roanoke Times.

Reporter Laurence Hammack writes that the ruling was a blow to pipeline foes, who have long decried the use of eminent domain to take parts of family farms and rural homeplaces to make way for a 303-mile natural gas pipeline through West Virginia and Virginia.

Landowners did not contest the laws that allowed the pipeline company to obtain forced easements through nearly 300 parcels in Southwest Virginia, but they objected to a lower-court ruling granting immediate possession of the disputed land before deciding how much each property owner should be compensated, Hammack explains.

Read the article.

Writing in Gray Reed’s Energy & the Law blog, Charles Sartain points out that parties to a transaction need to be mindful that if a business deal is a partnership, there will be rights and duties not present in arms-length commercial transactions.

He discusses a recent appellate court opinion and considers the main question: Was a partnership formed by a letter agreement, a participation agreement and the actions of the parties?

Stephens et al v. Three Finger Black Shale Partnership et al. is a complicated petroleum development deal that included all those elements. The jury trial ended with a multimillion dollar judgment for actual and exemplary damages in favor of two separate groups of plaintiffs and intervenors against several groups of defendants.

The appellate court determined that there was no evidence of a partnership, which meant that no fiduciary duty was owed by the defendants.

Read the article.

San Antonio oil and gas entrepreneur Brian Alfaro avoided getting hauled off to jail Friday, a day after a bankruptcy judge issued a warrant for his arrest, reports the San Antonio Express-News.

Alfaro had failed to provide various records to a court-appointed receiver, prompting the judge to issue an arrest warrant. But in a hearing in which Alfaro, attending via phone from his lawyer’s office as four federal marshals stood ready to take him to jail, the judge granted him an additional 10 days to comply.

The judge “presided over a trial in 2017 on 28 investors’ claims that they had been defrauded by Alfaro. The judge awarded nine of them $8 million. Alfaro is appealing. Rose’s duties include ensuring that investors collect on the judgment,” writes Patrick Danner of the Express-News.

Read the article.

The Texas Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Barrow-Shaver Res. Co v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc., on the interpretation of a farmout agreement providing that an assignment could not be made “without the express written consent,” according to a post on the website of Porter Hedges.

“The issue—whether the provision means consent can be withheld arbitrarily or only reasonably,” the post states. “Regardless how the Texas Supreme Court rules, there are three lessons in Barrow-Shaver for contract drafters: (1) be precise in contractual language; (2) address the use of non-final drafts in interpretation disputes; and (3) consider other provisions that may be impacted by the implied reasonableness issue.”

The post offers some pointers on each of those three points.

Read the article.