For the past several weeks, our colleagues at Technology Law Source have been working hard to keep readers apprised of developments related to The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ new generic top-level domain (gTLD) program. This program, which is essentially redefining the face of the Internet, is likely to impact any business — or, indeed, any entity — with a web presence. If you haven’t been able to keep up with the hundreds of gTLDs already delegated this year, download this hot-off-the-press e-book: Protecting Your Brand in a New gTLD World.
You also may want to subscribe to Technology Law Source (use the “Subscribe by email” prompt in the left column of the site) to receive weekly updates about the evolution of the gTLD program and the dot-anythings launching each month.
As we have noted previously, the sale to investors of interests in an oil and gas venture typically involves the sale of a security under federal and state securities laws, regardless of whether the investment vehicle is stock, a limited partnership or limited liability company interest, or even a fractional undivided interest in a lease (such as a working interest) if the investor is relying on someone else to manage operations. A corollary of this principle is that persons involved in marketing and selling the investment, if they receive compensation based on the transaction, must be licensed as a broker under state and federal securities laws. The lore that an unregistered “finder” can perform such services is mostly just that — lore. For the issuer, the consequence may well be loss of an exemption from registration and rescission claims from investors. For the “finder” it may mean that his contract is not enforceable.
In Legacy Resources, Inc. v. Liberty Pioneer Energy Source, Inc. (No. 20120142, Dec. 20, 2013), the Utah Supreme Court held that a finder of investors for a prospective oil and gas project could not enforce an agent agreement with the issuer because the finder acted as an unregistered broker in violation of the Utah’s state securities laws. The court noted that the record contained undisputed evidence that the finder: Continue Reading
The Ohio Supreme Court recently accepted a new group of civil cases; among them is Chesapeake Exploration, LLC v. Buell. In this case, the Supreme Court has agreed to answer the following two questions of Ohio law certified by United States District Judge Watson of the Southern District of Ohio in Case No. 2:12-cv-916:
- Is the recorded lease of a severed subsurface mineral estate a title transaction under the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act, R.C. 5301.56(B)(3)(a)?
- Is the expiration of a recorded lease and the reversion of the rights granted under that lease a title transaction that restarts the 20-year forfeiture clock under the ODMA at the time of the reversion?
Read the court’s certification order and preliminary memoranda. Continue Reading
In February 2013, we reported that the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) had issued proposed revisions to its Model General Permit for oil and gas well-site production operations. On April 4, Ohio EPA announced that it had finalized those revisions. The revisions bring the Model General Permits up-to-date with changes in the law since Ohio EPA originally issued the permits and make other changes to respond to industry comments. The revisions also include revised leak detection and repair requirements, which have been the subject of much recent discussion.
Ohio law generally requires each new source of air pollution to obtain a pre-construction permit from Ohio EPA’s Division of Air Pollution Control before “begin[ning] actual construction, erect[ing], locat[ing] or affix[ing] [the] air contaminant source.” Ohio law also requires sources of air pollution to obtain operating permits. Larger sources typically obtain permits-to-install (PTIs) and “Title V” operating permits; smaller sources typically obtain combined permits-to-install and operate (PTIOs). Ohio EPA may also develop Model General Permits — model PTIs and PTIOs — for categories of sources. Sources may choose to apply for regular PTIs or PTIOs if they like, but Model General Permits can be obtained more quickly, because, as Ohio EPA has explained, “all the terms and conditions of the permit have been developed in advance.” Continue Reading
Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s mid-biennium review plan calls for an increase in Ohio oil and gas severance taxes, as proposed in House Bill 472. These increased taxes would fund certain local governmental initiatives and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. They also would help offset personal income tax cuts outlined in the mid-biennium plan.
The current production-based severance tax scheme does not distinguish between production generated by conventional oil and gas wells and production generated by horizontal wells. The current severance tax under R.C. § 5749.02 is levied at a rate of $0.10 per barrel of oil and $0.025 per thousand cubic feet (MCF) of natural gas.
For conventional oil and gas wells, the tax under H.B. 472 would remain a volume-based tax but the rates would increase to $0.20 per barrel of oil and $0.03 per MCF of natural gas. The tax would be imposed on the “severer,” defined for conventional wells as the person who actually removes the oil or gas from the ground. Other changes to the state’s regulatory scheme are intended to militate against this tax increase, however, resulting in no economic change to the costs of production for conventional wells.1 Moreover, low-producing conventional wells would be completely exempt from the severance tax. Continue Reading
From time to time we share news about educational opportunities that may be of interest to our subscribers. Members of Porter Wright’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice will hold a roundtable April 8 to discuss the benefits of amicus advocacy before the Ohio Supreme Court.
Too often, the Ohio Supreme Court decides issues that affect an industry statewide without first hearing from the industry itself. Trade associations and companies can address this issue by filing “friend of the court” briefs. To learn more about how your organization can be part of this process, join Kathleen Trafford, Brad Hughes and Dennis Hirsch for a breakfast briefing. Using a roundtable format, they plan to cover the benefits of amicus advocacy, strategies for effective amicus advocacy and the rules governing “friend of the court” briefs.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
7:30 a.m. – 8 a.m. — Registration and breakfast
8 a.m. – 9 a.m. — Roundtable discussion
41 S. High St., 29th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Register online for this complimentary event.
An agreement to enter into an oil and gas lease is an enforceable contract in Ohio
Landowner enters into an agreement to sign an oil and gas lease, finds outs there may be a better deal elsewhere and tries to get out of the first deal. A federal court in Ohio says, “No, a deal is a deal.” Bruzzese v. Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division (Feb. 13, 2014).
A group of landowners in eastern Ohio had engaged attorneys to negotiate oil and gas leases on their collective behalves. They signed an Agreement to Accept Lease Offer from Chesapeake Exploration, LLC. About 75 members of the group later sued Chesapeake Exploration, LLC, claiming that the agreement was unenforceable. Chesapeake settled with all the landowners except Stephen and Elizabeth Albery.
The Alberys had printed out the agreement, filled in blanks, signed it and emailed it to the group attorneys on July 16, 2011. Immediately thereafter, Mrs. Albery’s sister told them that she had heard that other energy companies were making better offers to landowners. Under the apparent understanding that they could back out of the agreement because they believed they could still opt out of the landowners group, the Alberys sent a letter to counsel on July 24, 2011, stating that they wished to terminate the agreement. Continue Reading
In the previous three parts of this series (read part 1, part 2 and part 3), we reviewed the Ohio Marketable Title Act (MTA), its application to severed minerals, and the experience of neighboring states, all of which played a role in the development of the Ohio Dormant Minerals Act (DMA).
- The MTA was enacted in 1961 to make land titles marketable, i.e., free of stale claims. It included a grace period and did not require notice before a chain of title was extinguished in favor of another.
- The MTA generally applies to any property interest (presumably still including oil and gas interests) where no conveyance or claim to preserve has been filed during the past 40 years.
- The MTA does not necessarily extinguish all old severed mineral interests, even those with a root of title more than 40 years old, because the severed interest may be a separate chain of title.
- The Illinois DMA was found unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court in 1980 as violating due process because it did not require severed mineral owners to be given notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- Indiana’s Dormant Mineral Interests Act, Ind. Code §§ 32-5-11-1 through 32-5-11-8 (1976) — which includes a grace period, a 20-year use-it-or-lose-it attribute and no notice requirement — was held to be constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1982. Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 516, 102 S. Ct. 781, 70 L. Ed. 2d 738, (1982)
- Illinois enacted its Severed Mineral Interest Act, which is based on presumptive adverse possession and requires notice, in 1983.
- Ohio’s lease forfeiture law requires notice and the filing of an affidavit. The law suspends the statutory determination when the lessee files an affidavit contesting the alleged forfeiture. The lessee’s filing must occur no more than 30 days after receiving notice.
- The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved the Uniform Dormant Interests Act in 1986. Continue Reading
In part 2 of this series, we reviewed the application of the Marketable Title Act (MTA) in a 1982 case involving a severed mineral interest and two independent chains of title. The Ohio courts appeared to struggle with the application of the MTA to the facts of that case. Courts and legislatures in neighboring states also struggled with how to handle dormant severed minerals. Those states’ case law and statutes played a role in the formulation of the Ohio Dormant Minerals Act, which was enacted in 1989 as part of the MTA. Examples of such influential laws and cases from Illinois and Indiana follow.
Illinois DMA held unconstitutional in 19801
In Illinois, at common law, once a mineral estate has been severed from the surface estate, it cannot be terminated by mere nonuse or abandonment. Uphoff v Trustees of Tufts College, 351 Ill 146, 155, 184 NE 213, 216 (Ill 1932). Thus, mineral interests can lie dormant, even through several transfers of title. This situation, over time, can result in missing or unknown owners. The difficulty in ascertaining and locating severed mineral owners had a substantial deterrent effect on would-be gas and oil developers.
The Illinois legislature responded by enacting the Dormant Mineral Interests Act in 1969. The act was intended to facilitate development of dormant oil and gas interests by permitting consolidation of mineral ownership in one person in instances where it had formerly been diffused among many unknown or missing persons. The act provided that unless an individual duly recorded his interest, his failure to actually produce oil or gas in any 25-year period created a presumption of abandonment. There was great uncertainty among oil and gas title examiners regarding the act’s validity because, at common law, abandonment required both intent to abandon and an affirmative act of relinquishment. Furthermore, the act did not require entities who sought a ruling of abandonment to give unknown mineral owners notice or an opportunity to be heard. Continue Reading
In a case involving the assignment of oil and gas leases from one company to another, an Ohio appellate court enforced an anti-assignment provision in the original lease. Harding v. Viking Internatl. Resources Co., Inc., 4th Dist. Washington No. 13CA13, 2013-Ohio-5236.
The Hardings owned property in Washington County that was subject to three oil and gas leases signed by the prior property owners, their parents. All of the leases contained the following anti-assignment clause:
The rights of the Lessor may be assigned in whole or in part and shall be binding upon their heirs, executors and assigns. The rights and responsibilities of the Lessee may not be assigned without the mutual agreement of the parties in writing.
The original lessee, Carlton Oil Corporation, assigned the leases to Viking in 2011. Though the assignment was recorded, the Hardings were not parties nor did they provide written consent to the assignment. However, after the assignment, the Hardings completed and returned a W-9 form that Viking mailed to them and they accepted and cashed royalty checks from Viking for eight months before they objected to the assignment and filed suit against Viking to have the court declare the leases void and forfeited because of the violation of the assignment provision. Continue Reading