2 Royalty Bills Focus of PA Senate Hearing Today
Last week MDN brought you the news that several northeastern Pennsylvania counties are investigating an alliance to push for passage of a bill like last session’s House Bill (HB) 1391 to guarantee landowners receive a minimum 12.5% royalty regardless of post-production costs (see Northeastern PA Counties Explore Alliance to Pass Royalty Reform). However, landowners and those who support them in the PA legislature are not pinning all hopes on a guaranteed minimum royalty bill. Also proposed in the last session (2015/2016) were two bills meant to greatly assist landowners in their quest to monitor royalty payments and how they are calculated. In January 2015 (almost exactly two years ago) PA Senator Gene Yaw, who represents several counties in northeast PA, re-introduced Senate Bills (SB) 147 & 148 (see PA Senate Reintroduces Two Marcellus Royalty Bills, SB 147 & 148). “Re-introduced” in 2015 means both bills were introduced in the previous session (in 2013/2014). SB 147 would have allowed landowners the right to review drilling company records to verify proper royalty payment. It would also have required drillers to pay royalties within 90 days of production. SB 148 prohibits drillers from “retaliating” against a landowner who questions royalty payments by canceling the lease or stopping drilling activity. Both bills were embraced by the Pennsylvania chapter of the National Association of Royalty Owners (NARO). They both passed the Senate and stalled in the House. Now, for the third time (going on the sixth year) Sen. Yaw has re-introduced both bills again. This time they are called SB 138 & 139 (full copies below). Sen. Yaw isn’t wasting any time–he’s holding a hearing today to discuss both bills. Will this time be successful?…
Read More “2 Royalty Bills Focus of PA Senate Hearing Today”
One of the issues that isn’t going away is the demand by landowners in some Pennsylvania counties, like Bradford, for lawmakers in the state to pass a bill that guarantees them what they believe they are already guaranteed–a 12.5% minimum royalty, based on a 1979 law that states they should get such a royalty. We’ve extensively covered what we call a civil war between two parties who are otherwise friendly toward each other–landowners and shale drillers. Last year the issue came to a head with House Bill (HB) 1391 (
Cabot Oil & Gas has a major presence in Susquehanna County, PA, not far from where MDN is written (just across the border). In fact, Susquehanna County, located in the northeastern tip of PA, is the only county in PA where Cabot drills. It is a “dry gas” zone–and extremely productive. By our reckoning, Cabot alone produces something like 3% of the entire natural gas supply for the entire country. One driller, in one county. It is an astonishing feat! Susquehanna County is rural. The entire county has 43,000 residents (11,700 families). The largest “city” in Susquehanna County is the county seat of Montrose, population 1,600 (750 households). Until now, there has been drilling all around the edges of Montrose, but no drilling directly under the city. That may soon change. Cabot has made an offer on 10.76 acres of land located within city limits. Cabot is offering a lowball $1,000 per acre as a signing bonus, plus 15% royalties. Not long ago Cabot cut deals for $3,500 per acre and 18.75% royalties. It appears this is just an opening negotiating tactic…
A West Virginia law professor and one of his students (who went on to become a trial attorney with the U.S. Dept. of Justice), have just published a research paper on the topic of surface and mineral rights in the Mountain State. The paper, titled “Horizontal Drilling Vertical Problems: Property Law Challenges from the Marcellus Shale Boom” (full copy below) discusses property law challenges that can impede business development and negatively impact landowners and mineral owners in shale regions, with a focus on the West Virginia Marcellus. The paper explains the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing process. A widespread problem in WV is that (because of coal) in many cases the owners of the mineral rights under the ground are not the same people who own the property on the surface. The paper makes the point that while courts can handle one-off cases, the WV legislature should develop better “large-scale policies” to deal with an ongoing, contentious situation…
A couple of weeks ago four companies won bids on 17 parcels totaling 719 acres of federal land (for Utica Shale drilling) in the Ohio Wayne National Forest (see 
A significant court case was decided last week in West Virginia. The WV Supreme Court ruled in a gas royalty case that not only has significant implications for WV landowners (and drillers), but also may reverberate across the border into neighboring Pennsylvania where the same issue has been a long and contentious fight–what we call a civil war between landowners and drillers. Like all such cases, this one is complicated and not easy to summarize, but we’ll do our best. The WV Supremes have just handed down a decision that says, in essence, that EQT (and by extension other drillers) cannot deduct post-production expenses when calculating royalty payments to landowners. Specifically, the justices in their ruling said that drillers can “not deduct from that (royalty) amount any expenses that have been incurred in gathering, transporting or treating the oil or gas after it has been initially extracted, any sums attributable to a loss or beneficial use of volume beyond that initially measured or any other costs that may be characterized as post-production.” Yikes! That is fantastic news for landowners who now have a case to recoup money deducted from their checks–and really bad news for drillers who will owe that money. The big winners are, of course, the lawyers who will litigate this for years to come. However, hold on to those briefs–EQT has just appealed the decision, asking the WV Supreme Court to reconsider their decision, gently chiding the court for erring in their interpretation of state law on royalties…
As we previously noted, last week the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proceeded with an online auction for BLM-controlled land in Ohio’s Wayne National Forest (see 
All seven members of the Bowling Green City Council (Wood County) unwisely voted to reject an offer from Spectra Energy’s NEXUS Pipeline to lease 4 acres of city-owned land for the pipeline. Why unwise? Because the project is close to receiving its final federal approval, which will give it the right to use eminent domain to use the land anyway (see 
MDN has highlighted the importance of the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision with regard to the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act (DMA). In September the OH Supreme Court ruled in three DMA cases, saying all of the other cases come under those three (see 
Black Stone Minerals is one of the largest owners of oil and natural gas mineral rights in the U.S. Black Stone owns mineral interests and royalty interests in over 40 states and 60 onshore basins in the continental U.S–including leases in the Marcellus/Utica region. Black Stone also owns and selectively participates as a non-operating working partner in drilling programs, primarily on its own leased acreage. Black Stone reported its third quarter earnings yesterday. The numbers show the company made $37.5 million in 3Q16 (down a bit from making $53.9 million in 3Q15). However, for the first nine months of 2016 the company is in the black this year, while it was in the red last year at this point. Our point: yet more evidence that drilling and royalties and everything in our industry that was down is now trending up, once again…
MDN has been reporting on the Ohio Dormant Minerals Act (DMA) for years. In a nutshell, there are two DMAs in Ohio–one passed in 1989 that went into effect in 1992, and another in 2006 which added certain additional procedural requirements to the 1989 version. The DMA in its various versions provides for mineral rights that had previously been separated from surface rights to transfer back to the surface owner under certain conditions. The problem, for drillers and for landowners in Ohio, is in knowing which set of DMA rules to use (1989 or 2006) in determining who owns the mineral rights. A number of DMA cases went before the Ohio Supreme Court. In May, Ohio attorney David Wigham (Roetzel & Andress law firm) said there are signs that the Supremes were about to release a massive, all-in-one-go ruling on the DMA (see 
On Monday, October 24, 2016, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (in Western Pennsylvania) ruled that Marcellus driller ECA (Energy Corporation of America) did not prove a need for a new trial in the case it previously lost. Pennsylvania landowners sued ECA in federal court beginning in 2010, saying their royalty checks were shorted because ECA was improperly deducting post-production costs. Sound familiar? In February 2013 a federal judge upheld a split decision that said most of what ECA was deducting was OK, but the one thing they can’t deduct from royalty checks are charges for interstate pipeline transmission (for the full story, read our post