On June 1, 2017, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a provision in an oil and gas lease requiring the lessee to pay a minimum rental/royalty does not automatically invoke a termination provision in an unrelated delay rental clause and is not void as against public policy.
In Bohlen v. Anadarko E&P Onshore, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-4025, the Ohio Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a lessor can terminate an oil and gas lease if the lessee fails to pay minimum rental/royalty payments. In Bohlen, the oil and gas lease contained a primary term of one year along with standard secondary term language. The lease allowed the lessee to pay a delay rental for the privilege of deferring the commencement of a well. If this delay rental was not paid, then the lease would terminate. The Addendum attached to the lease stipulated that if royalty payments due to the lessor under the lease were less than $5,500, then lessee would pay any shortfall between the royalty payments and the $5,500. This minimum rental/royalty clause did not contain a termination provision. Lessee drilled two wells during the primary term of the lease but ultimately failed to pay yearly royalty amounts equal to or greater than $5,500. Lessors argued that the failure to pay a minimum rental/royalty triggered the termination clause found within the delay rental provision.
In Bohlen, the Court reasoned that the delay rental clause and the minimum annual-rental/royalty clause were two distinct clauses. Therefore, since the minimum rental/royalty clause did not contain termination language, the failure to pay the minimum royalty would not trigger the termination of the lease. It was of no consequence that the lease contained termination language in the delay rental clause since the two clauses at issue were to be read separately. Whether the lessee needed to compensate the lessor for underpayment was not at issue in the case.
Additionally, since the lease at issue contained a primary term, it did not violate public policy for being an indefinite lease.
Senate Bill 576 (SB 576), introduced in the West Virginia Senate to address the oil and natural gas industry’s effort to efficiently develop production of natural resources, died in the last week of the regular session of the West Virginia Legislature, which concluded on April 8, 2017.
For an analysis of the original version of SB 576, click here, and for an analysis of the significantly revised version that was sent to the West Virginia House, click here. Before passing the Senate, an amendment agreed to by the industry provided for a graduated severance tax provision that increased the severance tax rate as the price of natural gas increased. Click here for the text of the amendment.
Unfortunately, a frantic last week of the regular legislative session, highlighted by contentious budget battles and House debate over a medical marijuana bill, resulted in many bills never reaching the House floor for a vote, with SB 576 being among those. Given that the Legislature needs to be called back into special session to pass a budget that is presently being negotiated, there is speculation that SB 576 may be put on the agenda for that special session. Unless that happens, however, co-tenancy and lease integration is dead in West Virginia until February 2018.
On March 23, 2017, a Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 576 (SB 576) was introduced to the West Virginia Senate Judiciary Committee that substantially rewrote the original version of the bill, which addressed the oil and natural gas industry’s effort to efficiently develop production of natural resources. For an analysis of the original version of SB 576, click here.
Among the significant changes in revised SB 576 are the following:
- The percentage of cotenant mineral ownership interests needed to consent to mineral development is increased from two-thirds to three-fourths.
- Non-consenting mineral owners are still entitled to production royalties free of post-production expenses, but they are also entitled to a bonus payment calculated as “equal to the average amount paid to such consenting cotenants calculated on net mineral acre basis.”
- Non-consenting mineral owners may forgo receiving a production royalty payment by electing to obtain a “revenue share” in development, which allows the non-consenting mineral interest holders to essentially obtain a working interest in the production activities on the tract.
- If any property subject to mineral development under this statute has a non-consenting mineral interest owner, the surface of that property may not be disturbed for that development without the consent of the surface owner, unless such disturbance is permitted through a prior surface use agreement or is otherwise permitted by a “valid contractual arrangement.”
- “Joint development” is still permitted for multiple contiguous oil and gas leases, but the “operator” must pay surface owners damages available under W. Va. Code §22-6B-3, all damages permissible under common law, and $30,000 for “each well pad constructed by the operator which results in damage to that surface owner’s property.”
- “In the absence of specific language to the contrary, the royalty for all royalty owners of acreage jointly developed . . . shall not be reduced for post-production expenses incurred by the operator.” This provision, however, is not “intended to impact royalties due for wells drilled prior to the effective date of this chapter.”
- Consenting cotenants (or the operators) are subject to detailed reporting requirements that includes the amount of oil or natural gas produced and sale information, including price, for that oil and natural gas.
- Detailed guidelines for the payment of royalties are added, which include a requirement that royalties must be paid once the royalties due exceed $100, payment must be made within 180 days from the date that the sale of mineral is realized, and regardless of the amount of royalty due, payment must be made at least once a year.
Babst Calland will follow SB 576 during West Virginia’s Legislative Session, which is scheduled to end on April 8, 2017.
On March 17, 2017, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a trial court’s 2015 order that severed and terminated a portion of an oil and gas lease. The subject lease covered 240 acres located in Venango County, Pennsylvania, which was subsequently subdivided. Additionally, the leasehold interest was divided into depths that lie above and below the Onondaga formation and were held by different operators. On appeal, the appellant operator argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the controversy because the plaintiffs failed to join all the indispensable parties. This action was originally brought by property owners who acquired 32 acres of the 240 acre tract.
In part of affirming the trial court’s order, the Superior Court indicated that one of the major factors involved in a determination of whether a party is indispensable in a lease context is whether the lease is severable. In this case, the court held the lease was severable based on the intent of the parties to the lease, which was determined by the language of the lease and the subsequent conduct of the successors in interest to the original lessee. The lease specifically provided the lessee the “right to subdivide and release the premises.” Additionally, successors in interest to the original lessee divided the leasehold interest into depths that lie above and below the Onondaga formation, which supports that the lease was severable. The Superior Court distinguished this case from precedent set forth in Seneca Res. Corp. v. S & T Bank, 122 A.3d 374., that an operator was not required to be actively drilling undeveloped portions in order to maintain the leasehold on the bases that: (1) the leased acreage in this case consisted of a number of distinct parcels rather than one tract; (ii) the language of the subject lease provided the lessee the right to “subdivide and release” the property; and (iii) the successors in interest to the original lessee of the subject lease subdivided the leasehold into two or more formations rather than operating under the lease as a whole. Based on these factors, the court held that the lease was severable. Additionally, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the lease had expired as to the subject property because the predecessors in interest to the appellant operator failed to produce oil and gas in paying quantities on the subject property and had breached the implied obligation to explore and develop the property “with reasonable diligence.” Accordingly, the court held that the lease was null, void, and of no force and effect pertaining to the subject property.
On March 10, 2017, Senate Bill 576 (SB 576) was introduced in the West Virginia Senate to take the place of SB 244, which addressed the oil and natural gas industry’s effort to efficiently develop production of natural resources. Similar to SB 244, SB 576’s stated purpose is “to encourage the efficient and economic development of oil and gas resources[;]” however, it contains a number of provisions that differ from SB 244.
If signed into law, SB 576 would create a new code section, W. Va. Code §37B-1-1, et seq., titled the “Cotenancy and Lease Integration Act,” which, like SB 244, contains both “co-tenancy” and “lease integration” provisions.
SB 576 declares in proposed §37B-1-2 that West Virginia public policy includes both “the maximum recovery of oil and gas” and the “protect[ion] and enforce[ment of] the clear provision of contracts lawfully made.” This section also states that West Virginia public policy is to “safeguard, protect and enforce” both “the rights of surface owners” and “the correlative rights of operators and royalty owners in a pool of oil and gas to the end that each such operator and royalty owner may obtain his or her just and equitable share of production from that pool of oil and gas[.]”
Proposed section §37B-1-4 allows oil and gas production on a piece of property when “two thirds of the ownership interest in the oil and gas mineral property consent to a lawful use [i.e., production] of the mineral property[.]” By contrast, SB 244 only required that a “majority” of ownership interests agree to a “lawful use.”
In addition, SB 576 (like SB 244) states that payment of royalties will be on a pro rata basis, with payments for a mineral owner who cannot be located reserved by the producer. Unlike SB 244, however, SB 576 would specifically allow surface owners to use W. Va. § 55-12A-1, et seq. (the unknown and missing landowners statute), to lay claim to the interests of the absent or missing owners. Finally, and importantly, SB 576 would require that a mineral interest owner who opposes oil or natural gas development be paid royalties (1) “free of post-production expenses” and (2) “equal to his or her fractional share of the average royalty of his or her consenting cotenants[,]” but “in no event may the royalty be less than his or her fractional share of one-eight [12.5%].”
SB 576 adds proposed sections §37B-1-5 and -6, which would take the place of the “Joint Development” provision in SB 244. Under proposed §37B-1-5, “[w]here an operator or operators have the right to develop multiple contiguous oil and gas leases, the operator may develop these leases jointly by horizontal drilling unless the development is expressly prohibited by the terms of a lease or agreement.” Importantly, an operator may only disturb the surface of property subject to this provision if it “has a surface use agreement” with the owner(s) of the property that will be disturbed. As with SB 244, under proposed §37B-1-6, royalty payments are based upon “production [that] shall be allocated to each lease in the proportion that the net acreage of each lease bears to the total net acreage of the jointly developed tracts.” As with dissenting owners under proposed §37B-1-4, however, “[i]n the absence of specific agreement to the contrary or where deductions are authorized by statute, the royalty for all royalty owners of the jointly developed acreage who do not have leases containing express pooling and unitization clauses shall not be reduced for post-production expenses incurred by the operator.” This provision, however, is not “intended to impact royalties due for wells drilled prior to the effective date of this chapter.”
While SB 576 keeps the basic goals of SB 244 – development without the approval of all mineral interest owners and development of contiguous property through horizontal drilling – it contains a number of provisions designed to mollify the concerns of surface owner organizations and other property rights groups. The “co-tenancy” provision now requires a 2/3 majority of mineral ownership interests to permit development, and royalty payments to dissenting owners must not take post-production costs into account. The “lease integration” provisions explicitly allow horizontal drilling of contiguous tracts that are each subject to production leases (provided horizontal drilling is not expressly prohibited), but if a production lease does not explicitly permit pooling or unitization, then royalty payments to the owners under that lease cannot be deducted for post-production costs. Important to surface owners is the requirement that a surface use agreement be in place before the surface of any property is disturbed by joint development.
Babst Calland will follow SB 576 during West Virginia’s Legislative Session, which is scheduled to end on April 8, 2017.
Today, the Ohio Supreme Court issued three written opinions interpreting the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (O.R.C. §5301.56) (the “ODMA”) and decided 10 related cases based upon its decisions set forth in the written opinions. Notably, in Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration L.L.C., (Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5796), the Supreme Court held that the 1989 version of the ODMA (the “1989 Act”) did not automatically abandon oil, gas and mineral rights in favor of the surface owner. Instead, the Supreme Court interpreted the statute to require the surface owner to seek a judicial decree that the mineral rights were abandoned. The Court focused on the statutory phrase “shall be deemed abandoned and vested in the owner of the surface” in determining that the legislature intended the 1989 Act to serve as a method of terminating abandoned mineral rights through a quiet title action rather than automatically transferring the mineral interests to the surface owner by operation of law. Additionally, the Court held that payment of delay rentals under a lease does not constitute a “title transaction” under Ohio law since the payment of delay rentals are not filed or recorded in the country recorder’s office.
In Walker v. Shondrick-Nau, Exr., (Slip Opinion No 2016-Ohio-5793), the Ohio Supreme Court built upon its decision in Corban and held that, if a surface owner failed to quiet title under the 1989 Act prior to the enactment of the 2006 version of the ODMA (the “2006 Act”), then the 1989 Act is unavailable and the surface owner can only pursue a claim to abandon mineral interests under the 2006 Act.
Finally, in Albanese, Exr. v. Batman et al., (Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5814), the Ohio Supreme Court followed the rationale of Corban regarding the necessity of filing an action to quiet title under the 1989 Act prior to the enactment of the 2006 Act. The Court further held that under the 2006 Act mineral rights cannot be deemed abandoned if the owner of the minerals had not been served notice of the abandonment pursuant to the 2006 Act. The notice requirement is mandatory under the 2006 Act.
Citing to the above cases, the Supreme Court decided 10 additional cases consistent with the three written opinions. The 10 cases are listed below:
Carney et al. v. Shockley et al., (Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5824)
Dahlgren et al. v. Brown Farm Prop. L.L.C., et al., (Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5818)
Eisenbarth et al. v. Reusser et al., (Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5819)
Farnsworth et al. v. Burkhart et al., (Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5816)
Swartz v. Householder et al., (Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5817)
Shannon et al. v. Householder et al., (Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5817)
Taylor et al. v. Crosby et al., (Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5820)
Thompson et al. v. Custer et al., (Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5823)
Tribett v. Shepherd et al., (Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5821)
Wendt et al. v. Dickerson et al., (Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5822)
After first acquiring an option agreement in 2012 for a 340-acre site, and then purchasing the site in 2014, Shell Chemical Appalachia has officially announced that it will build a multi-billion dollar ethane cracker plant on the site of the former Horsehead zinc smelter in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. The site will consist of the cracker, two units that will convert ethylene into polyethylene pellets, a natural gas-fired power plant, a loading dock, and a wastewater plant. It is estimated that constructing the plant will employ approximately 6,000 workers. Thereafter, the plant will permanently employ about 600 workers. The plant is expected to consume approximately 105,000 barrels of ethane per day and Shell has reportedly secured supplier commitments from at least 10 oil and gas operators in the region. Primary construction on the site is expected to start in approximately 18 months.
The following statement is from Babst Calland environmental regulatory attorney Jean Mosites who provided testimony at yesterday’s daylong public hearing on the subject of proposed revisions to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 78 submitted by the Department of Environmental Protection.
As evidenced by the quality and quantity of thoughtful testimony given by businesses that will be impacted by these regulations, yesterday’s 3-2 vote by the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) will not necessarily be the final word on Chapter 78. While legal and procedural concerns were discussed at the IRRC meeting yesterday in its review of the final form rule-making to revise 25 Pa. Code Chapter 78, the Commissioners were required to vote on this extensive and complicated regulatory package as a whole in an up or down vote.
In my testimony yesterday, I indicated that the DEP did not meet its obligations under the Regulatory Review Act (RRA). It failed to comply with critical provisions of the RRA at key points along this entire rulemaking process. The final form rule does not reflect either consensus or balance, is not justified by a compelling public need and will do far more harm than good for this industry and the Commonwealth, its environment and its citizens.
The rule will now be reviewed by the Attorney General as to form and legality and may be considered by the House and Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committees for a joint resolution to bar the regulation, a resolution that would go to the Governor for signature or veto. Barring any unforeseen developments, the rule could be published as final and immediately effective in June or July 2016.
On April 21, 2016, the Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) approved the Environmental Quality Board’s Chapter 78 (conventional wells) and Chapter 78a (unconventional wells) regulations by a vote of 3-2. Vice Chairman Mizner, in making a motion to disapprove the regulation, noted that the Department of Environmental Protection did not:
- provide enough information on the cost of the regulations;
- meet its burden to show that the revisions as applied to conventional operations are necessary;
- conduct the required flexibility analysis for small businesses;
- adequately consult with the Conventional Oil and Gas Advisory Committee or the Oil and Gas Technical Advisory Board; or
- develop a consensus on the regulations with industry.
The motion to disapprove the regulation failed by a vote of 3-2, followed by the motion to approve the regulation. Commissioners voting to approve the regulation noted that consensus on the regulation was likely impossible to achieve but that the Department had acted earnestly to develop necessary regulations for an evolving industry and that current regulations are not adequate.
Both the House and Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committees previously voted to disapprove the regulations. IRRC’s approval begins a 14-day window in which the legislative committees may report to the House or Senate a concurrent resolution barring the revisions. If a resolution adopted by the General Assembly is not vetoed, or if the Governor’s veto is overridden, the Environmental Quality Board is barred from promulgating the final regulations. The Attorney General will conduct a review of the regulation as to form and legality before the regulation may be published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin as final. Publication of the rule as final could occur in June or July of 2016, becoming effective immediately on the day of publication.
The Ohio Supreme Court definitively decided a case that at one time threatened the validity of thousands of Ohio oil and gas leases. As previously reported in April of 2014, the Seventh District Court of Appeals overturned the decision of the Monroe County trial court in Hupp v. Beck Energy Corp., which originally held that a standard oil and gas lease form was void against public policy because it allowed a lease to be held in perpetuity. In January of 2015, the case was accepted for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio which issued a decision this morning affirming the District Court’s ruling. The Court held that the leases were not void against public policy and could not held in perpetuity because (i) delay rentals could only be used to maintain the leases during their stated primary term; (ii) the phrase “capable of being produced,” as used in the lease referred to the potential for production from a well drilled on the leased lands rather than the lands themselves; and (iii) that production “in the judgment of the Lessee” also applied to production from an existing well and not possible production from the leased lands. The Court also declined to read an implied covenant of reasonable development into the leases as they required development to commence within a certain period and contained specific language disclaiming implied covenants.
The Ohio Oil and Gas Commission issued its first decision under R.C. 1509.28 to provide for the compulsory pooling of property for oil and gas unit operations. In Gary L. Teeter Revocable Trust v. Division of Oil & Gas Resources Management, the Ohio Oil and Gas Commission ruled that a 69-acre farm must be included in unit operations occurring under the property. While the Commission ruled that the property would be “forced” into a unit against the will of the owner of the property, it specifically noted that the owner “benefits from from the statutory protections enacted to ensure that he will be fairly compensated for any resources that might be drawn from beneath his property as a result of the operation of a well, which the majority of his neighbors wish to have drilled.”
In the case titled Mason v. Range Res.-Appalachia LLC (2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97471), the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania recently held that a 1961 oil and gas lease remained in effect pursuant to the terms of the lease. The lease provided the lessee the right to enter the leased premises to explore, drill, produce and market oil and gas as well as inject, store and withdraw gas and protect gas stored therein. The habendum clause of the lease provided that the lease would extend into its secondary term so long as the lessee operated the property (i) in search for oil and gas; (ii) for production of oil and gas; (iii) for storage of oil and gas; or (iv) “for the protection of any gas stored in such storage field” (emphasis added). These types of oil and gas leases are commonly referred to as “Dual Purpose” Leases. The leased premises is situated within a protective area for a 11,000 acre storage field located in Washington County, Pennsylvania, and no well has been drilled on and no production occurred on the leased premises.
The landowners argued, among other things, that the 1961 lease has expired because (i) the lease provides the lessee the right to use the premises to produce gas, store gas and protect gas stored on the leased premises; (ii) the lessee may not use the leased premises for the protection of gas stored on adjoining lands until it first produced gas on the leased premises; and (iii) the annual payments were insufficient to extend the lease into its secondary term. The court applied the rationale set forth in Penneco Pipeline v. Dominion Transmission, Inc. and the rules of contract interpretation to conclude that the lease had entered into its secondary term and remained in effect. The court held that the only reasonable construction of the granting and habendum clauses is that the lessee may use the land for protecting gas stored immediately under the leased premises or gas stored under adjoining land or both. Because the lessee was using the leased premises to protect gas stored under adjoining land and tendered annual rental payments, it concluded that the 1961 lease is still in effect.
Ohio’s biennial budget legislation, House Bill 64, signed by the Governor on June 30, 2015, includes changes and additions to Ohio’s oil and gas regulatory program appearing in Chapter 1509 of the Revised Code. The changes and additions take effect on September 29, 2015. The more significant enactments are the following:
- A new section requiring the Chief of the Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management to create a program for the electronic submission of EPCRA reports to the Chief; state and local agencies required by EPCRA to receive the reports will have access to that database (Section 1509.231);
- A new section requiring the reporting of fires and explosions and certain releases of oil, gas, brine, or other substances to the Chief by telephone within thirty minutes of the event, unless such reporting is “impractical” (Section 1509.232);
- New language authorizing the Chief to include land owned by the Ohio Department of Transportation in drilling units approved by the Chief under Section 1509.28;
- An increase in the maximum civil penalty that may be imposed for certain regulatory violations from $4000 per day of violation to $10,000 per day of violation (Section 1509.33(A)); and,
- A significant expansion in the scope of regulatory violations for which the violator is liable to persons affected by the violation for the payment of damages and “the actual cost of rectifying the violation and conditions caused by the violation” (Section 1509.33(G)).
Today, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf fulfilled a campaign promise by signing an executive order banning new oil and gas leases on public land owned by the Commonwealth. This order ended the efforts of former Governor Tom Corbett to expand oil and gas drilling below Pennsylvania-owned parks and forests. While environmentalists applauded the new executive order as a sign of strong environmental regulation, critics labeled it an unnecessary political action that bans the safe development of natural gas beneath taxpayer land. Currently, Pennsylvania has leased about 700,000 acres of approximately 2.1 million acres of state forest. This new executive order does not effect leases already in effect.
On January 27, 2015, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed an order by the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County in Sisson, et al. v. Stanley, et al. The trial court’s order allowed the heirs of Joseph Stanley, who previously reserved all the oil and gas under a tract of land in 1953, to open a default judgment from an action to quiet title.
One of the three issues in this case was whether the lower court should have granted a petition to open a default judgment because of an insufficient search under Pa.R.C.P. 430 due to additional evidence being presented by the ‘after-found’ heirs, when the lower court already determined the Appellants conducted a sufficient good-faith investigated based upon Appellants’ affidavit and a hearing in according with Pa.R.C.P. 430. The Superior Court held that the lower court correctly granted such petition because the heirs did not receive proper service of process. Rule 430(a) provides that motions for service, including service by publication, shall be accompanied by an affidavit stating the nature and extent of the investigation which has been made to determine the whereabouts of the defendant and the reasons why service cannot be made. Due process of law requires an adequate investigation for interested parties and service of process be reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprised interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.
In this case, the court found the affidavit to be facially deficient for several reasons and granted the petition to open the default judgment. First, the affidavit indicated that the appellant searched the Recorder of Deeds office and not the Register of Wills office. The court stated that if the appellant searched the records at the Register of Wills office, he would have found the will of Joseph Stanley and identified his twelve heirs. Second, the affidavit indicated that the appellant did not consider that some of Joseph Stanley’s heirs could have moved. The court stated that if the appellant would have searched the local newspaper obituaries, he would have discovered that some the of heirs moved to the neighboring county. Finally, the court indicated that the appellant’s failure to identify which Internet sites he visited or what search he ran provided a basis that he did not exercise due diligence and good faith in his efforts to locate the heirs. It reasoned that given the ease of identifying and using sophisticated Internet services to trace ancestry and family history, it is inconceivable that the plaintiff, employing good faith efforts, was unable to locate a single heir.
Given the sparse information included in the affidavit, and the seeming ease with the plaintiff could and should have located interested parties, the court affirmed the lower court’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s investigation was deficient.