MAGNOLIA POINT MINERALS VS CHK LA AND PXP LA - CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-00854 (Decision On No Cost Royalty Language)

CONCLUSION


The Court finds that the Lease language at issue is sufficiently clear and
unambiguous. The intent on the face of the document demonstrates that the production
payments are to be determined using the benchmark calculation of “market value at the
well.” The “no cost” provision in the Exhibit to the Lease does not alter the meaning of
this term of art but applies to any other costs incurred after calculating the “market value
at the well.” Therefore, Chesapeake may deduct post-production costs, including
transportation costs, as set out in determining the “market value at the well.”
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Chesapeake’s Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(Record Document 31) be and hereby is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magnolia’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (Record Document 23) be and hereby is DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, Shreveport, Louisiana on this 30th

 

Magnolia%2052%20Court%20Ruling.pdf

Views: 6108

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Andrew, I agree with Ben Elmore on this one.  When the Exhibit A contains the following language:  "NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED HEREIN TO THE CONTRARY, the following provisions shall apply as an exhibit to the foregoing Oil, Gas, and Mineral Lease and shall be in force and effect as a part of said Lease.  In the event of a conflict between the provisions  contained in the Exhibit "A" and the provisions as stated in the printed Lease form, the provisions of Exhiibit "A" prevail".  I don't see how it can be any clearer than that, nor do I see how Judge Hicks can ignore that very clear language!  Though I don't think he had any ulterior motive, I just think Judge Hicks made a bad decision and I can't see how it wouldn't be overturned on appeal.

Skip........If the no cost language clause in Exhibit A pertaining to post production

cost will not holdup in court.....what about the other clauses that are used in the

addendum, such as, substituting 1/5 or 20% royalty for the customary 1/8? 

Jim B.

I'm just a landman and not an O&G attorney, jim.  My comment about turning legal somersaults refers to just the point you bring up.

to jimburgess' quesiton - I'll throw in my opinion that we can relax on most  exhibit language depending on the facts.  Most language augmenting royalty percentage in the exhibit would not go the same way as this clause.  And many no-cost clauses will not go the same way as this one did under the ruling, many will hold up because of their detail or other distinguishing factors. 

I think the Smithermans or any attorneys drafting this lease were competent on the no-cost issue by placing well known language in there, but as an attorney I feel for them, because there is never a crystal ball that will tell you which language will be challenged.  That's why using well known language is sometimes better than going out on a limb and drafting from scratch.   Really, you could have a 2 page no-cost clause, but if the incentive to the company is great enough, they will find a way to challenge.  CHK got themselves a little win here.  

That is also my problem with the opinion.  The judge ignores the parties "in the event of conflict" language for purposes of the no-cost clause.  But I think the other provisions in the addendum would hold up. 

That's a very good point. The stated justification, for better or for worse, for singling out this particular clause was that it was vague in how it should be applied, and to what. The other clauses that were clearer obviously override the main form. 

This is a federal judge, and is appointed not elected. He is also the author of the Adams v. Chesapeake "attorney fees for failure to respond to UMI demand" debacle.

Andrew,

For those of us who are not familiar with this ruling, could you please upload it if you have it available?  Or provide a link?  Thanks.

The Adams order is attached. I can't stress enough how wrong I think this opinion is. I am currently writing a case note about it. If it gets published I'll post it on GHS.

Attachments:
I thought you said the judge "may have gotten this one right as a matter of law?" what do you think now after considering it more?

The opinion I think is dead wrong is the Adams case above.

I'm still on the fence about Magnolia Point. Another difficulty I have is that I don't have the benefit of seeing the lease before I read the opinion, so it's hard to really evaluate objectively. But I do think the cost-free language leaves something wanted. 

After reading the actual lease, I think there is strong justification for concluding that if the Lessor wanted a better cost-free royalty in there, he was more than sophisticated enough to put it in there. Since he was the drafter the ambiguity should be interpreted against him. If you put the shoe on the other foot, this same rule should go against Chesapeake if they draft a lease with an unsophisticated landowner. 

The clause isn't clear which costs it is referring to. "[N]o cost shall be charged or allocated to Lessor’s interest except severance and other applicable taxes" is the exact language. There is an obvious and compelling justification for saying "no cost" means NO COSTS, but it is not clear that they are referring to marketing and transportation.

The issue for me is that once the gas hits the wellhead, the Lessor OWNS that gas. It is their property. The costs being paid are charged by the purchaser, or at least the purchaser is causing them to be incurred. I think if a Lessee is going to pay the costs of selling and transporting the Lessor's property for them, it should be clearly spelled out in the lease that they will provide that service for free, in addition to finding and development costs.

Again, this is a very close call for me. If I read this lease and made an objective judgment I don't know if I would have come to this conclusion, but I can definitely sympathize with the judge's difficulty in reconciling this lease.

I certainly agree the clause was poorly drafted, and that seems to be the primary basis for the court ruling the way it did.  Just another lesson to landowners that they need to be careful and specific in how they draft clauses in leases.

RSS

Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Not a member? Get our email.

Groups



© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service