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.
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
- Chesapeake Settles Lawsuit With City of Arlington Over Gas Royalties
Chesapeake Energy has agreed to pay $700,000 to the city of Arlington, Texas to settle a lawsuit that accused the energy company of underpaying royalties for gas pumped from under airports, parks and other public property. The Arlington City Council approved the settlement August 19 by a vote of 8-0, with Mayor Robert Cluck absent [...]
- Harrold Wright, Unsung Whistleblower, Uncovered Alleged Fraud in Royalty Payments, Sparking Wave of Lawsuits
Lawsuits filed by oil and gas lessors against producers, alleging underpayment of royalties, are becoming more common. The recent wave of lawsuits against Chesapeake Energy is just one example Both the federal government and lessors in Texas and other states have alleged that resource producers often use questionable accounting techniques, such as deducting post-production costs, [...]
- Texas Company Sues BP, Alleging Breach of Contract
Fluor Corp., an Irving, Texas-based engineering firm, has filed a lawsuit in Harris County district court against BP for millions of dollars, claiming breach of contract. The lawsuit claims that when a Fluor subsidiary agreed to help the oil giant clean up pollution in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, BP agreed to protect it [...]