Porter Wright

Subscribe to Porter Wright's Posts
Contact:Read more about Porter Wright

Last week the Ohio Northern District Court, Eastern Division issued a decision in Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, N.D. Ohio No. 4:09-cv-2256, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176898 (Oct. 25, 2017), which involved a dispute about whether Ohio follows the “at the well” rule (which allows oil and gas royalty payments to be downward adjusted to account for a lessor’s pro rata share of post-production costs) or the “marketable product” rule (which does not allow producers to adjust royalty payments to account for post-production costs).

The case has an interesting history. In 2015 District Judge Lioi certified a question of law regarding post-production costs to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted briefing and heard oral argument before returning the issue to the Judge Lioi with instructions to interpret the disputed leases according to their plain language. The Ohio Supreme Court held, “[u]nder Ohio law, an oil and gas lease is a contract that is subject to the traditional rules of contract construction. Because the rights and remedies of the parties are controlled by the specific language of their lease agreement, we decertify the question of law submitted by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.”Continue Reading Federal district court finds that Ohio allows deduction of post-production costs from royalty payments required to be calculated “at the well”

This week, the Ohio Supreme Court issued key decisions on its pending Dormant Mineral Act (DMA) cases. The Supreme Court Announcement itemized the various decisions released this morning, which were further detailed in Court News Ohio . Only three cases received full opinions: Corban v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., Walker v. Shondrick-Nau and Albanese v.

Last year we reported on the flood of appeals pouring in to the Ohio Supreme Court raising dozens of questions about the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (DMA), which can be found at R.C. 5301.56. A year later we finally have a few answers and the surge of new DMA appeals seems to have subsided.

This blog post provides a comprehensive update on DMA cases that have been decided and which remain pending before the Ohio Supreme Court to date. Overall, two cases have been decided – Dodd v. Croskey and Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Buell – and 13 cases presenting 39 questions of law have been accepted and remain pending. There are no pending DMA appeals that have not been accepted for review.Continue Reading Ohio Supreme Court still mulling many questions about the Dormant Mineral Act

On Feb. 11, 2015, the biennial budget bill appropriating money for 2015 and 2016 was introduced in the Ohio House of Representatives. The bill incorporates Gov. Kasich’s proposals, which were released earlier this month in his Blueprint for a New Ohio. Generally, if enacted in its current form, there would be an overall reduction in personal income tax, with an increase severance tax, commercial activity tax and sales tax. This article focuses on the severance and commercial activity tax components of the bill.

Severance tax

The structure of the severance tax would be altered to incorporate an average price — the spot price — into the calculation of tax owed for extraction of natural resources horizontal drilling techniques. In the bill, a “horizontal well” is defined as “a well that is drilled for the production of oil or gas in which the wellbore reaches a horizontal or near horizontal position in the Point Pleasant, Utica, or Marcellus formation and the well is stimulated.” The new severance tax formula for those horizontal wells would be:
Continue Reading 2015-2016 Ohio budget bill proposes severance tax increase

Litigation over Ohio’s Dormant Mineral Act, R.C. 5301.56, (DMA) began as a trickle in 2012 and turned into a flood in 2014 that continues to confound mineral title attorneys and challenge judges. Questions about the DMA have all but paralyzed oil and gas companies still looking to acquire and develop mineral leases. Now all eyes are on the Ohio Supreme Court for guidance on myriad questions regarding the validity and application of the statute. This post provides an update of DMA appeals and issues pending before the Ohio Supreme Court to date.

Though the Ohio Supreme Court hasn’t yet issued any decisions related to DMA, that is about to change. The court has accepted five DMA cases for review — all accepted in 2014. These five cases present a total of 15 questions of DMA law. Only two of these cases (Dodd and Buell) have been argued, at least in part (the question accepted sua sponte in Dodd was not argued). The other cases have yet to be scheduled for oral argument. In addition, six more cases present another 20 questions of law that have been appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court but are not yet accepted for review.

The overlap between many of the cases and issues highlights the hottest current DMA issues. However, this list of questions and issues is far from complete. In hindsight, we may find that the wave of DMA litigation crested in 2014, but experienced oil and gas attorneys expect litigation surrounding the Dormant Mineral Act will continue for years as landowners and courts wrestle with unique fact scenarios and title transactions. But for now, any definitive guidance from the Ohio Supreme Court would be helpful. Following are cases, issues and questions of law appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court to date:
Continue Reading The Dormant Mineral Act: Lots of questions, few answers

In Eastham v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 6th Cir. No. 13-4233, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10531 (June 6, 2014), the Sixth Circuit court of appeals considered whether a provision in a 2007 oil and gas lease that granted Chesapeake the option to “extend or renew under similar terms a like lease” was ambiguous and whether it required Chesapeake to renegotiate the lease when it expired. The court held that the plain language of the lease allowed Chesapeake to “extend” the lease on the same terms. The decision contains insights about Ohio law and important lessons in contract drafting and interpretation.

Facts of the case

On April 9, 2007, William and Frostie Eastham signed an oil and gas lease with Great Lakes Energy Partners, LLC (“Great Lakes”) for their 49.066 acre parcel in Jefferson County, Ohio. The five-year primary term of the lease required Great Lakes to either drill a well or make delay rental payments to Mr. and Mrs. Eastham in the amount of $10.00 per acre per year until a well was drilled. The lease also provided that if the lease expired, Great Lakes would have the following option:

Upon the expiration of this lease and within sixty (60) days thereinafter, Lessor grants to Lessee an option to extend or renew under similar terms a like lease.

Sometime before the lease expired, Great Lakes assigned the lease to Chesapeake. There was apparently no dispute that the assignment was authorized by the lease and that all required delay rentals were timely paid throughout the primary term. Then, on March 14, 2012, about one month before the lease expired, Chesapeake recorded a notice of extension of the lease and sent a check for $490.66 (delay rentals for the first year of the extended five-year term) to Mr. and Mrs. Eastham along with a letter explaining that Chesapeake was exercising its option to extend the lease under the provision quoted above.
Continue Reading Sixth Circuit affirms Chesapeake’s right to “extend or renew” an oil and gas lease

Last fall, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) proposed listing the northern long-eared bat as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Though a decision on the ESA listing was expected this fall, the USFWS recently delayed its deadline for a decision until April 2, 2015. The USFWS also reopened the comment period on the proposed ESA listing until Aug. 29, 2014, citing “substantial disagreement regarding the sufficiency and accuracy of the available data relevant to our determination regarding the proposed listing.”

The northern long-eared bat would be the second native Ohio bat, after the Indiana bat, to be classified as an endangered species. Both bat species have suffered population declines in recent years as a result of a naturally occurring condition called white-nose syndrome, which affects the bats. If listed, Ohio oil and gas operators and pipeline companies would have to assess the impact of their activities on the northern long-eared bat, as is already required for the Indiana bat, and local and/or seasonal restrictions on certain kinds of construction or clearing activities are also likely.
Continue Reading USFWS reopens comment period on proposed listing of northern long-eared bat as endangered until Aug. 29, 2014

As we have noted previously, the sale to investors of interests in an oil and gas venture typically involves the sale of a security under federal and state securities laws, regardless of whether the investment vehicle is stock, a limited partnership or limited liability company interest, or even a fractional undivided interest in a lease (such as a working interest) if the investor is relying on someone else to manage operations. A corollary of this principle is that persons involved in marketing and selling the investment, if they receive compensation based on the transaction, must be licensed as a broker under state and federal securities laws. The lore that an unregistered “finder” can perform such services is mostly just that — lore. For the issuer, the consequence may well be loss of an exemption from registration and rescission claims from investors.  For the “finder” it may mean that his contract is not enforceable.

In Legacy Resources, Inc. v. Liberty Pioneer Energy Source, Inc. (No. 20120142, Dec. 20, 2013), the Utah Supreme Court held that a finder of investors for a prospective oil and gas project could not enforce an agent agreement with the issuer because the finder acted as an unregistered broker in violation of the Utah’s state securities laws. The court noted that the record contained undisputed evidence that the finder:
Continue Reading Utah decision highlights unregistered finder risks in sale of oil and gas investments