Butler County | Energy Companies | Industrywide Issues | Lease & Royalty Payments | Litigation | Mercer County | Pennsylvania | XTO
Landowners Appeal Dismissal of XTO Lawsuit re Royalties in W. Pa.
We just happened across another XTO Energy lawsuit in which leased landowners sued over post-production deductions being taken from their royalty checks. Salvatora v. XTO Energy Inc. is a pivotal Pennsylvania case tackling the messy business of natural gas royalties. Western Pennsylvania landowners from Mercer and Butler counties sued XTO, arguing the company unfairly deducted “post-production costs”—like compression and transport—from their checks. The core debate hinged on “at the wellhead” lease language. Read More “Landowners Appeal Dismissal of XTO Lawsuit re Royalties in W. Pa.”
A 39-year-old former division order analyst at Pittsburgh-based EQT has been charged with allegedly stealing approximately $215,000 from the company. Between March 2021 and October 2025, the (now) ex-employee diverted funds from “orphaned” land interest accounts (unclaimed royalties) into a bank account held by his husband. The scheme was uncovered when a supervisor noticed unauthorized payments while reviewing the employee’s work. When confronted, the employee confessed to the theft, citing significant credit card debt as his motive. While his husband has not been charged, the (now) ex-employee faces multiple counts, including theft and unlawful computer use. Approximately $101,000 has already been repaid for official company restitution purposes. 
Here’s a lawsuit that had (until now) escaped our radar screen. It’s a lawsuit dealing with the issue of post-production deductions. The case is Kirkbride v. Antero Resources Corp. and is being litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. On March 6, 2026, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers denied a motion to certify the case as a class action. This is a significant development in the ongoing legal friction between Ohio landowners and energy companies over how royalties are calculated. 
We stumbled across a mention of a lawsuit (Kriley v. XTO Energy) that we previously were not aware of—a lawsuit that had its beginning back in 2019 and involves seven landowners in Butler County, PA. The landowners claim that XTO Energy (a subsidiary of ExxonMobil) systematically underpaid natural gas royalties. Over the past six years, the lawsuit has evolved and was certified as a class action in late 2025, meaning it has expanded from affecting seven landowners to potentially hundreds. XTO, in its latest court filing, is attempting to limit the class action. 
Yesterday, the Ohio Oil & Gas Land Management Commission (OGLMC) met in a public forum in Columbus and voted to open another 6,570 acres of state-owned wildlife land (in Belmont and Harrison counties) to allow bids to frack under (not on top of) those areas. The Commission also awarded a contract to Grenadier Energy to drill under another wildlife area in Carroll County, 172 acres of the Leesville Wildlife Area. The state is getting an amazing $6,000 signing bonus, equaling $1.03 million, plus big royalties! 
AI data centers are all the rage. The news (local and national) is full of such stories, playing up opposition to data centers. We’ve written plenty about AI data centers on MDN, given the close connection to gas-fired power that’s needed to operate them. We’ve also told you about a developing trend of “behind the meter” gas-fired power plants, built at the same location as a data center. That’s when the data center is built next to a power plant or vice versa. The electricity goes directly to the plant and never flows through the local power grid. Another part of this story is that sometimes the gas-fired power plant that’s on-site powering the data center receives its gas from a well drilled at the same site! The gas flows directly into the gas plant (bypassing gathering pipelines), and the plant produces electricity for the data center. And therein lies a potential, very thorny issue. 
Following three years of negotiations, Lycoming County Commissioners celebrated closing a deal with Range Resources to lease 1,350 acres in Jackson Township for shale drilling. The county is receiving a $5.4 million signing bonus, which works out to $4,000 per acre. Sweet. However, the county will receive just a 2% royalty for any oil/gas produced from the property. You read that right (not a typo)—just 2%, which has to be the lowest royalty rate we’ve ever seen negotiated, either with a private landowner or a municipality. 
Back in April, MDN brought you news about an important decision issued in a federal court case (in Ohio) that potentially affects landowners and drillers with shale leases throughout the Marcellus/Utica (see 
Lithium extracted from Marcellus shale wastewater (brine) has been in the news over the past week or so. Last week, we brought you the exciting news that a Boston-based company, Gradiant, is working on building a lithium production facility in an undisclosed PA location, which we were able to identify as Susquehanna County (see 
The West Virginia Supreme Court recently issued two 3-2 decisions reinforcing that oil and gas producers generally cannot deduct post-production costs from royalty payments to mineral owners unless lease agreements explicitly permit such deductions. We previously reported on both decisions. On June 6, the Supremes ruled in Kaess v. BB Land LLC on “in-kind” royalty leases (see 
Talk about shotgun weddings! WhiteHawk Energy has been smitten with PHX Minerals for two years. WhiteHawk repeatedly proposed marriage (M&A), yet PHX repeatedly gave WhiteHawk the cold shoulder (
Alice, get ready to go down the rabbit hole into litigation Wonderland. This post is about a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision issued on May 30, 2025. In the case Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Game Commission v. Thomas E. Proctor Heirs Trust, the PA Supremes addressed a question from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals regarding whether a 1908 tax sale of an “unseated” (undeveloped) parcel of land, the Haines Warrant, constituted a “title wash” that divested the subsurface estate owners of their ownership interest. We think the case has broader implications for landowners and drillers with respect to who owns mineral rights that have been separated from surface rights.