U.S. Capital

Austin Oil and Gas Attorney Gregory D. Jordan Comments on $10 Million Carbon-Injection Royalty Case

Feb 24, 2014

Austin, TX (Law Firm Newswire) February 24, 2014 – The Texas Supreme Court will decide a $10 million dispute between property owners and Occidental Permian Ltd. over the valuation of natural gas production.

Austin Oil and Gas Attorney, Gregory D. Jordan

Austin Oil and Gas Attorney, Gregory D. Jordan

The case questions whether a company can take deductions for the cost of carbon injection from the mineral royalties it pays to property owners.

“Deductions for production costs and post-production costs are a common area of dispute between royalty owners and oil and gas producers,” says Gregory D. Jordan, an Austin oil and gas attorney not involved with the case. “It is extremely important for mineral and royalty owners to have the assistance of an experienced oil and gas attorney in negotiating the terms of their leases and production agreements so that these disputes can be avoided. The initial agreements should clearly establish the rights and obligations of the parties.”

The lawsuit was filed by a group of Cogdell Canyon Reef Unit royalty owners. The plaintiffs claim that Occidental reduced their royalty payments by deducting the cost of production services provided by a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Inc. Carbon dioxide injection was used to produce natural gas and natural gas liquids as part of an enhanced recovery project.

The plaintiffs were awarded damages of $10 million and attorneys’ fees of $500,000 by a trial court, but that decision was reversed in October 2012 by the Eleventh Court of Appeals. The appeals court found that the expense of removing carbon dioxide from the gas stream was properly shared between landowners and producers, because it was part of the cost of treating the gas so it could be sold.

The lawsuit raises the question of whether gas is properly valued before extraction, in its “native” state, or when it is commingled with carbon dioxide at the wellhead. Additional issues in the lawsuit include whether removing, compressing and transporting carbon dioxide should be classified as production operations, and whether the off-site action of removing carbon dioxide for reuse is properly classified as a production operation or a post-production operation.

The royalty owners claim that the decision by the appeals court is in conflict with a 1974 ruling by the Texas Supreme Court, which found that royalty obligations only apply to natural gas produced in its “native” state, and not to minerals produced with carbon dioxide injection methods. Occidental takes the position that the gas should be valued based on its condition when it left the well, and that gas containing up to 85 percent carbon dioxide requires additional processing.

To learn more, visit http://www.theaustintriallawyer.com/

Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan
5608 Parkcrest Drive, Suite 310
Austin, Texas 78731
Call: 512-419-0684

View Larger Map

  • Multibillion-Dollar Dispute Between Texas Energy Companies to Go to Trial
    In Dallas, a trial is set to begin in a business dispute between two large Texas energy companies contesting whether a business partnership had been formed between them. Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners filed the lawsuit against Houston-based Enterprise Products Partners and Enbridge Inc. of Calgary, Alberta. Energy Transfer Partners claims that a business partnership had […]
  • Eye Clinic Denied Injunction Due to Improper Noncompete Agreement
    A Texas court has denied an injunction requested by a Houston eye clinic based on an improper noncompete agreement. LasikPlus of Texas requested a court order to enforce the covenant not to compete against a doctor, formerly employed by the clinic, who planned to open his own clinic nearby. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals rejected […]
  • Exxon Wants Texas Supreme Court to End Oil and Gas Royalty Dispute
    Exxon Mobil Corporation has filed a brief with the Texas Supreme Court seeking to end a long-running dispute with royalty owners. The owners allege that they were misled into selling their gas and oil interests for a reduced price; the company argues that the royalty owners should not get a new trial after a previous […]