Lawsuit Against Chesapeake, Anadarko Heads Back to PA Court
Last December Pennsylvania’s felony-indicted Attorney General, Kathleen Kane, brought a lawsuit against Chesapeake Energy, Anadarko and Williams accusing them of, among other things, royalty fraud (see PA Atty General Sues Chesapeake Energy, Williams for Royalty Fraud). In May MDN reported that Chesapeake and Anadarko had filed to dismiss Kane’s complaints against them, accusing Kane of attempting to litigate federal antitrust claims in state court (see Chesapeake, Anadarko Try to Wiggle Out of PA Royalty Lawsuit). In June Kane fired back by filing a motion to keep the case in state, not federal, court (see PA AG Files Motion to Keep Chesapeake Lawsuit in State Court). Yesterday U.S. Middle District Judge Christopher C. Conner granted Kane’s motion–the case will stay in state court…
Read More “Lawsuit Against Chesapeake, Anadarko Heads Back to PA Court”
A landowner couple in Bradford County, PA, Edward and Kathleen Ostroski, filed a royalty lawsuit against Chesapeake Energy claiming Chesapeake was screwing them out of money by conducting “creative” accounting and deducting expenses that shouldn’t be deducted. Seems like there’s hardly a state where Chessy drills where someone has not filed a similar lawsuit against the company. However, in the Ostroski case, the couple claimed (or rather, their lawyers claimed) the case should be a class action. That there are in fact some 2,000 other landowners similarly affected by Chesapeake’s actions. A U.S. Middle District judge ruled on Monday that the Ostroskis may pursue their case–but only for themselves. There will be no class action. If other landowners feel cheated, they will have to bring their own lawsuits against the company…
Norwegian oil giant Statoil, which is 67% owned by the country of Norway, was an early and big mover in leasing Marcellus and Utica Shale acreage, amassing a huge 665,000 acres. Over the past few years Statoil has been equally aggressive in divesting itself of its non-operated acreage (Statoil doesn’t do the drilling) in the northeast–in particular in West Virginia. This is about to get complicated, but we’ll try to make it understandable. A lot of Statoil’s acreage is in joint venture deals. In December 2014, Statoil sold some of its “working interest” in the Marcellus acreage it owns in WV and PA to Southwestern Energy for $394 million (see 
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has sided with landowners in a dispute with Shell’s shale drilling arm, called SWEPI (Shell Western Exploration Production Inc.). SWEPI signed a lease with two landowners who own a collective 1,036 acres in Lycoming County. SWEPI promised a $4,000 per acre signing bonus, but a few months after signing SWEPI decided they didn’t want the acreage after all and tried to cancel the lease and the bonus payment. The judge ordered SWEPI to pay $2,072,000 to each of the two landowner families…
What if you’re an heir to land that was drilled on or under in Pennsylvania? There may be money “ready and waiting to be distributed”–there for the asking. But the asking is a bit complicated. In cases where the owner(s) of the mineral rights for a piece of property is unclear, the PA Dormant Oil and Gas Act (DOGA) comes in to play. What is DOGA and how does it work?…
The NEXUS Pipeline is a $2 billion, 255-mile interstate pipeline that will run from Ohio through Michigan and eventually to the Dawn Hub in Ontario, Canada (see 
A decision by the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania is worth noting–for both drillers AND landowners. A landowner in Susquehanna County, PA sold some land already under lease to a new landowner/rights owner. Neither the new landowner nor the previous landowner informed the driller of the change in ownership. The time came to renew the lease and under the terms of the contract the driller sent payment–but didn’t know about the change in ownership–so the driller sent the payment to the previous owner. The new landowner used that faux pas as a legal excuse to sue the driller to break the contract. The new landowner claimed the paperwork filed (not the full lease but an abstract) didn’t contain mention of informing the driller. In other words, the landowner used the “we didn’t know” excuse. The judge disagreed and said, a) the lease itself clearly outlines the responsibilities of the old/new landowners to inform the driller, b) there is a reasonable expectation for the new landowner to perform due diligence in seeking out a copy of the original lease to know that. Therefore the new landowner is still under lease. Here’s an outline of the case, with names…
Yesterday we reported that a group of Ohio landowners calling themselves LEASE (Landowners for Energy Access and Safe Exploration) are encouraging Ohio residents to write in support of drilling in the Wayne National Forest (see 
This is the tale of landowners who negotiated a lease without consulting a qualified oil and gas attorney, and later regretted the decision. In 2008 the owners of a small hunting and fishing camp in Tioga County, PA negotiated and signed a lease with East Resources, which was later sold to SWEPI (i.e. the shale drilling arm of Shell). The lease, so the landowners thought, guaranteed that 11 wells would be drilled on the 240-acre property, and that a pipeline would be used to flow gas only from those wells. The landowners got a nice signing bonus–$287,000. They also got $164,000 for a pipeline right-of-way. But only one well was ever drilled–and it’s capped. And there is a pipeline–flowing other people’s gas through it. The landowners sued and a district court judge ruled last week that the landowners don’t have a case for their “shattered dreams” as they thought they did. It all comes down to a poorly worded lease and signing a lease without running it by a lawyer first…
Yesterday MDN brought you the news that EQT has cut a deal to buy all of Norwegian Statoil’s operated Marcellus assets in West Virginia for $407 million (see 
In MDN’s daily trawl of the news, we came across a resource for landowners from Ohio State University (OSU), a program called “Pipeline Easement and Right-of-Way Agreements.” Apparently OSU’s Extension service conducts workshops on occasion for landowners and other interested parties. We don’t have a list of the workshops, but we do have copies of the resources they hand out–very useful resources, including four different fact sheets that we think landowners in any state will benefit from…