Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC

www.spilmanlaw.com


Contact Spilman's Marcellus Shale Practice Group 

 

1-800-967-8251

Michael G. ConnellyMichael G. Connelly
Pittsburgh

mconnelly@spilmanlaw.com
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.

 

In the News
Flame Marker

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.


Flame Marker

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.

Flame Marker

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.

Flame Marker

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.

Flame Marker

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.

James D. Elliott

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. 

Excellence. Value. Get There.
www.spilmanlaw.com  |  Print

 

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