» Austin Oil and Gas Attorney Gregory D. Jordan Comments on $10 Million Carbon-Injection Royalty Case

Austin Oil and Gas Attorney Gregory D. Jordan Comments on $10 Million Carbon-Injection Royalty Case

Austin, TX (Law Firm Newswire) February 24, 2014 - The Texas Supreme Court will decide a $10 million dispute between property owners and Occidental Permian Ltd. over the valuation of natural gas production.

Austin Oil and Gas Attorney, Gregory D. Jordan

Austin Oil and Gas Attorney, Gregory D. Jordan

The case questions whether a company can take deductions for the cost of carbon injection from the mineral royalties it pays to property owners.

“Deductions for production costs and post-production costs are a common area of dispute between royalty owners and oil and gas producers,” says Gregory D. Jordan, an Austin oil and gas attorney not involved with the case. “It is extremely important for mineral and royalty owners to have the assistance of an experienced oil and gas attorney in negotiating the terms of their leases and production agreements so that these disputes can be avoided. The initial agreements should clearly establish the rights and obligations of the parties.”

The lawsuit was filed by a group of Cogdell Canyon Reef Unit royalty owners. The plaintiffs claim that Occidental reduced their royalty payments by deducting the cost of production services provided by a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Inc. Carbon dioxide injection was used to produce natural gas and natural gas liquids as part of an enhanced recovery project.

The plaintiffs were awarded damages of $10 million and attorneys' fees of $500,000 by a trial court, but that decision was reversed in October 2012 by the Eleventh Court of Appeals. The appeals court found that the expense of removing carbon dioxide from the gas stream was properly shared between landowners and producers, because it was part of the cost of treating the gas so it could be sold.

The lawsuit raises the question of whether gas is properly valued before extraction, in its “native” state, or when it is commingled with carbon dioxide at the wellhead. Additional issues in the lawsuit include whether removing, compressing and transporting carbon dioxide should be classified as production operations, and whether the off-site action of removing carbon dioxide for reuse is properly classified as a production operation or a post-production operation.

The royalty owners claim that the decision by the appeals court is in conflict with a 1974 ruling by the Texas Supreme Court, which found that royalty obligations only apply to natural gas produced in its “native” state, and not to minerals produced with carbon dioxide injection methods. Occidental takes the position that the gas should be valued based on its condition when it left the well, and that gas containing up to 85 percent carbon dioxide requires additional processing.

Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan
5608 Parkcrest Drive, Suite 310
Austin, Texas 78731
Call: 512-419-0684


View Larger Map

  • Eight ex-employees of Texas sanitation company claim racial discrimination
    Eight African American employees of a Texas sanitation company have filed a lawsuit claiming discrimination and retaliation. Dantrell Patterson, Lamonte Young, Demetrius Patterson, Tadarious Dixon, Keithdrick Patterson, Jarvis Hill, Jermaine Bell and Derrick Robert filed the lawsuit against Sanitation Solutions Inc. in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas on April 20. The [...]
  • Pipeline owners file $300 million breach of contract lawsuit against midstream operator
    An amended breach of contract lawsuit was filed by Magellan Midstream Partners and Plains All American Pipeline against Stampede Energy, seeking over $300 million in damages over an oil transport deal. The lawsuit claims that Stampede did not meet minimum volume obligations on the BridgeTex pipeline from March 2015 through 2016, breaching its contract. The [...]
  • Texas appeals court’s decision shows importance of wording in noncompete agreements
    A recent decision by a Texas appeals court demonstrates that the wording of a noncompete agreement must be precise. In the case, East Texas Copy Systems, Inc. v. Player, the Court of Appeals in Texarkana ruled that a noncompete agreement was nonbinding due to the language used in the agreement. As part of the sale [...]

See other news sources publishing this article. BETA | Tags: , , , , ,



Get headlines from Law Firm Newswire sent right to your inbox.

* indicates required