|
|
|
|
Trends
in Marcellus Litigation in Pa. -
Royalty Issues Since
Kilmer As the work
and production in the Marcellus play matures,
the litigation risk exploration and production
companies face related to this work also
matures. To date, much of the litigation in the
region has involved issues surrounding disputes
over ownership of the minerals, whether property
is held by production, the formation and terms
of oil and gas leases, and royalty
disputes.
While the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court's decision in Kilmer v. Elexco
Land Services, Inc., 990 A.2d 1147 (Pa.
2010), decided one year ago, clarified that the
"net-back" method of calculating royalties at
the wellhead did not violate the Pennsylvania
Guaranteed Minimum Royalty Act - thereby
allowing the deduction of post-production costs
from royalties - it did not end royalty
litigation in Pennsylvania, as evidenced by two
cases decided in March of this year. On March 8,
2011, Judge John E. Jones III of the United
States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania decided Lauchle v. Keeton
Group, LLC, 2011 WL 782024 (M.D. Pa. March
8, 2011), holding that the plaintiff landowners
did not repudiate their leases when they filed
lawsuits claiming that the leases were invalid
under the Guaranteed Minimum Royalty Act, and,
because the leases were not repudiated when the
lawsuits were filed, the Court declined to
extend the lease terms to account for the period
of time that the lawsuits were pending.
After the Lauchle Court
declined the plaintiff landowner's request to
distinguish the case from Kilmer and
granted the defendant production companies'
motions to dismiss, thereby upholding the leases
as valid under the Guaranteed Minimum Royalty
Act, the production companies requested that the
Court equitably extend the leases to account for
the period the litigation was pending. The
Lauchle Court declined to extend the
lease term, a decision that is at odds with the
jurisprudence of other states on this issue,
including Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. The
Lauchle Court noted that this issue -
as is the case with so many issues being
litigated related to the Marcellus play - was
one of first impression in Pennsylvania and, as
such, the Court had to predict how the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court would rule on this
issue. Accordingly, until the issue is raised on
appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, or the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit weighs in, uncertainty as to how
Pennsylvania courts will interpret this issue
will continue.
On March 17, 2011, Judge
Sean McLaughlin of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
approved a proposed settlement of a class action
brought by leaseholders against Range
Resources-Appalachia, LLC in the matter of
Frederick v. Range Resources-Appalachia,
LLC, Civil Action No. 08-288, Document 83
(March 17, 2011 W.D. Pa). Plaintiffs originally
brought the class action claim in 2008 alleging
that Range Resource's royalty calculation
violated the Guaranteed Minimum Royalty Act, but
the Kilmer decision gutted the
plaintiffs' claims. After Kilmer was
decided, the plaintiffs amended the complaint to
withdraw the challenge to the legality of the
post-production cost deductions and instead
challenged the propriety of the amounts deducted
by Range Resources, alleging that Range
Resources: (1) improperly used the point of sale
volume of gas, rather than the volume of gas
collected at the well head, to calculate the
gross royalty; (2) improperly adjusted the
volumes by applying temperature and pressure;
(3) improperly assessed and deducted the costs
of marketing the gas; (4) assessed and withheld
a management fee; and (5) failed to pay
royalties on the value of the sale of liquid
hydrocarbons. The settlement approved by the
Court includes an initial payment by Range
Resources of $1.75 million, plus savings to the
class on future royalty payments estimated at
more than $16 million, and future payment of
attorneys' fees exceeding $4 million.
These two cases, of course, are merely
an example of recent developments in the area of
oil and gas lease royalty disputes in
Pennsylvania, one of the few issues that has at
least been litigated before and partially
addressed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The
majority of issues currently being litigated in
Pennsylvania related to the Marcellus play do
not have the benefit of such guidance from the
Commonwealth's highest court. Spilman's
Pittsburgh office is involved in a diverse
variety of litigation and pre-litigation matters
on behalf of exploration and production
companies operating in Pennsylvania, including
all phases of operation - ranging from lease
formation and bonus payment issues to disputes
involving the operation of joint ventures. We
will continue to provide in this forum periodic
updates on a variety of litigation and
pre-litigation issues that are important to the
industry. In the meantime, please contact Mike
Connelly directly at 412.325.3306 or mconnelly@spilmanlaw.com with
any questions.
| |
|
| |
|
Pooling
in Pa.
by
Ronald W.
Schuler
Pittsburgh
"Forced
pooling," or the ability of an operator to require
landowners to participate jointly in the
development of mineral interests within a
designated unit, has become a controversial issue
in Pennsylvania since Marcellus Shale gas drilling
became viable several years ago. The oil and gas
industry is lobbying for pooling order legislation
to curb the excesses resulting from the "rule of
capture." In Pennsylvania, the "rule of capture"
permits an operator to drill a well so as to
capture the gas under a neighbor's property. In
the absence of pooling orders, developers are
incentivized to extract gas quickly before a rival
developer exhausts a particular gas pool.
Accordingly, over-drilling may occur, leading not
only to greater surface disturbance, but also to
the depletion of a field, making it difficult, if
not impossible, to recover the resources. In
short, it creates an atmosphere of haste, waste
and inefficiency.
Pennsylvania
law currently allows operators to obtain pooling
orders with respect to any well that penetrates
the Onondaga horizon, or that is more than 3,800
feet deep where the Onondaga horizon is within
3,800 feet of the surface. The Oil and Gas
Conservation Law was limited to the Onondaga
horizon and below because lawmakers wanted to
encourage more deep drilling in the state, and
because it was considered impractical to impose
restrictions on shallow drilling since that kind
of development "had been carried on exhaustively
since the discovery of oil in the Drake Well in
1859 without regulatory restriction or control."
Because Marcellus Shale is generally found on top
of the Onondaga formation, it is presumed that the
Law does not apply to Marcellus
Shale.
Marcellus Shale drilling, however,
is fundamentally different from drilling shallow
wells. It is more expensive to drill a Marcellus
Shale well than a conventional shallow well;
surface operations can take up five or more acres;
a typical well can drain hundreds of acres; and
Marcellus Shale development often employs
directional drilling. Such circumstances arguably
exacerbate haste, waste and inefficiency, not to
mention environmental degradation, which can
result under the "rule of capture" regime in
Pennsylvania.
The industry has proposed new
legislation called the Pennsylvania Unconventional
Oil and Gas Fair Pooling Act, which would permit
operators developing Marcellus Shale and other
unconventional oil and gas to obtain pooling
orders. Under the Fair Pooling Act, operators who
control 75% of the working interests in a proposed
unit could apply for a pooling order after being
unable to reach an agreement with all interest
owners in the unit. If the order is granted,
parties who have not leased their mineral rights
can elect to be treated as a lessor under a
standard lease associated with the unit, as a
non-consenting party who would be entitled to a
share of profits from the unit after being
assessed a risk fee at the rate of 400% of their
share of all costs incurred by the operator, or as
a consenting party who would be required to
contribute its share of the costs of drilling and
operation with the right to receive a share of the
profits. Parties who fail to make an election
would be treated as lessors in accordance with the
standard lease associated with the
unit.
Whether
the Fair Pooling Act will be passed by the
Pennsylvania legislature remains to be seen, but
some version of pooling order legislation for the
Marcellus Shale will undoubtedly need to be
enacted to promote responsible development of this
valuable natural resource in Pennsylvania while
continuing to provide reasonable compensation to
non-consenting
owners. |
Marcellus
Shale Litigation Expected to Boom
It
appears that Marcellus Shale drilling has caught
the attention of plaintiff's attorneys across the
Fairway region. As drilling activity grows, the
legal community is expecting an increased number
of lawsuits to be filed, concerning everything
from personal injury to environmental
contamination to gas rig explosions. To read the
full article, click here. |
Natural
Gas Vehicle Incentives
As mentioned in last
month's e-newsletter, the West Virginia Senate
passed the Marcellus Development Act, which
included incentives for natural gas vehicle
purchase, usage and infrastructure creation in
W.Va. In like fashion, the Pennsylvania
Legislature is now looking to spur local use of
shale gas through natural gas vehicle use.
Pennsylvania lawmakers are set for a renewed push
for bills created and designed to do just that.
Click here to read a recent
news article on Pa. natural gas vehicle
incentives. |
Earthquake
Myths
This recent article begins to debunk
the perceptions that earthquakes in Braxton
County, West Virginia are somehow related to gas
drilling. The aforementioned seismic events in
Braxton County, which occurred in spring of 2010,
were widely reported and sparked a significant
amount of discussion due to the rarity of such
events. As reported in this story, an official
from the WVGES has concluded that the events were
not related to injection well activity but instead
were coincidental. Click here to read the full
article. |
Technology
Watch: Traditional vs. LPG Fracking
We were intrigued to learn about the
potential for utilizing gelled LPG (liquefied
petroleum gas) along with three additives as a
fracturing fluid for well drilling. The primary
advantage is that this new technology may hold
potential to reduce or eliminate some of the
traditional water-processing challenges associated
with hydraulic fracturing, or hydro-fracking.
Interestingly, LPG is a naturally occurring
byproduct of natural gas extraction. In the
proposed alternative process, the gelled LPG
liquefies and returns to the surface as propane
gas which is recovered, chilled into a gel and
reutilized. Click here to view the side-by-side
comparison of traditional and LPG fracturing.
According to a recent news report, the process has
been piloted at a site in Texas.
Note: Spilman is in
no way affiliated with GASFRAC Energy Services,
Inc. This article is not an endorsement of the
company or the referenced
technology. | | | |
Marcellus
Shale Team Member
James
D. Elliott
Jim
brings to the Spilman team 15 years of experience in
environmental law practice, including litigation, agency
rulemaking, and administrative adjudication with special
emphasis on Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act compliance
counseling and civil and criminal defense. Recent experience
in EPA Region III includes defense of industrial discharger
for alleged criminal violations of the CWA and serving as
chair to the Citizens Advisory Committee to the Executive
Council of the Chesapeake Bay Program, with regular
interaction with top environmental regulators across the
Mid-Atlantic region. Click here
for more
information. |
Please be aware that this email publication is
distributed with the understanding that the author, publisher
and distributor are not rendering legal or other professional
advice on specific facts or matters and, accordingly, assume
no liability whatsoever in connection with its use.
Responsible Attorney: Michael J.
Basile | | | |