Header graphic for print
Oil & Gas Law Report Reporting on recent legal developments and trends in the oil and gas industry.

Category Archives: Mineral Interest

Subscribe to Mineral Interest RSS Feed

An agreement to enter into an oil and gas lease is an enforceable contract in Ohio

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Exploration & Production, Mineral Interest, Ohio

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).

Background

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 →

The Ohio Dormant Minerals Act: Part 4

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Exploration & Production, Mineral Interest, Ohio, Real Estate

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).

To summarize:

  • 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

Continue Reading →

The Ohio Dormant Minerals Act: Part 3

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Exploration & Production, Mineral Interest, Ohio, Real Estate

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 …


Continue Reading →

Anti-assignment clause in oil and gas lease enforced

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Exploration & Production, Mineral Interest, Ohio

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 facts

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 →

The Ohio Dormant Minerals Act: Part 2

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Exploration & Production, Mineral Interest, Ohio, Real Estate

In the first part of this series, we reviewed a 2010 Licking County case, which held that Ohio’s Marketable Title Act (MTA) extinguished an adjoining landowner’s claim against former railroad property. This article discusses how the MTA was used to reconcile competing claims to a severed mineral interest before Ohio’s Dormant Minerals Act was passed.

The Marketable Title Act and severed minerals: coal excepted, but not oil and gas

When the MTA was first enacted in 1961, it expressly excepted all mineral interests . But in 1973 the Ohio Legislature amended the mineral interest exception so that only coal was excepted from the operation of the MTA. That amendment set the stage for Heifner v. Bradford, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CA-81-10, 1982 Ohio App. LEXIS 14859 (Jan. 29, 1982), overruled by Heifner v. Bradford, 4 Ohio St. 3d 49; 446 N.E.2d 440 (1983).…


Continue Reading →

Carroll County dormant minerals interest case — decision favors mineral owners

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Exploration & Production, Mineral Interest, Ohio

We are in the process of posting a series of articles on the Ohio Dormant Minerals Act (DMA), in which we’ll provide analysis about Dahlgren-v-Brown, Carroll C.P., 13CVH27445, (Nov. 5, 2013). However, today we wanted to share news about this Carroll County opinion and what it may portend for future cases.

The facts

Leora Dahlgren owned severed minerals pursuant to a reservation in a deed to Walter Dunlap in 1949. When Leora passed away in 1977, her estate was probated and a Certificate of Transfer conveying the minerals to her heirs was issued and recorded — at the Probate Court rather than the Recorder’s Office — in 1978.1 More than 30 years later, in 2009, the mineral owners leased their oil and gas. During that same period of time, the surface had become owned by successors to Dunlap pursuant to deeds reciting the reservation in the 1949 deed. The surface owners filed a DMA notice of abandonment in March 2012. Within the following 60-day period, the Dahlgren mineral heirs filed their notice of claim and, in 2013, sued to quiet title.…


Continue Reading →

The Ohio Dormant Minerals Act: Part 1

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Mineral Interest, Ohio

This is the first in a series of articles delving into the history and influence of the Ohio Dormant Minerals Act since it was enacted in 1989.

The oil boom at the turn of the last century led property owners selling their land to reserve from the sale, for themselves, “the oil and gas and other minerals” — thus creating severed mineral interests. During the next 40 to 50 years there were two world wars, divorces, deaths and myriad other family-changing events. In many cases, the ownership of severed mineral interests became clouded. Through the years, legislatures in the Midwest have worked to address the situation through mineral lapse acts or dormant minerals acts, whereby the severed interest is reunited with the surface.

With the advent of horizontal wells, consternation around determining who owns the minerals has become exacerbated. Horizontal wells and fracking have made severed interests, even small ones, a matter of animated debate. Furthermore, any time the legislature tries to decide who wins, the loser is bound to argue that the Constitution requires restitution. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said in one of his famous dissents, “Great cases, like hard cases, make bad law.” Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904). The severed mineral interest issue pits two fundamental principles against each other: the certainty title to land vs. the need to extinguish dormant claims so that development can proceed.

The objective of this series of articles is to trace the history and …


Continue Reading →

Who owns oil and gas when people (or businesses) go bankrupt?

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Mineral Interest, Ohio

Businesses active in Ohio’s current oil and gas boom should be aware of how oil and gas leases are treated in bankruptcy. Unsettled Ohio law regarding whether a debtor owns unextracted oil and gas as part of the debtor’s real property can make this a difficult issue. This eBook discusses recent court opinions and examines the question of just who owns unextracted oil and gas in a bankruptcy context. Download Oil and Gas Leases in Bankruptcy.…


Continue Reading →

Is a reservation of oil and gas ambiguous?

Posted in Mineral Interest

Siblings at odds before the North Dakota Supreme Court

Reservations of mineral interests in deeds is tricky business. A particular case in North Dakota was resolved only after five years of litigation — including a trial and an appeal to the state supreme court. As we have written previously, whether in Ohio or North Dakota, shale source rock and horizontal drilling seem to make mineral interests worth fighting for — even between siblings.

Background

George Tank and his wife owned property in McKenzie County, North Dakota. After his wife had passed away, George executed a quitclaim deed conveying his interest in part of his property to one of his five children — his son, Greggory Tank, who had stayed on the farm to work with his parents.

George’s quitclaim deed was captioned “(Life Estate Reserved)” and contained the following reservation clauses:…


Continue Reading →

Sixth Circuit affirms “paragraph 14” lease interpretation

Posted in Exploration & Production, Mineral Interest, Real Estate

The right, but not the obligation, to renew an existing lease

As we discussed previously, state and federal courts in Ohio have been asked to interpret the meaning of “paragraph 14” in oil and gas leases. On Oct. 30, 2013, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that paragraph 14 does not require a lessee to match a third-party offer or have the lease terminated. The federal court opinion issued in Stewart v. Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22302, 2013 FED App. 0928N (6th Cir.), 2013 WL 5832343 (6th Cir. Ohio 2013) is consistent with other holdings interpreting this lease provision.

The court found the landowners’ interpretation “strange at best,” “implausible” and in conflict with several other provisions in the lease.

The court closed by holding:

“In summary, we agree with the district court that, by its terms, Paragraph 14 does not grant the landowners a right to terminate their leases, but instead grants Chesapeake a ‘preferential right to renew’ them.”

 …


Continue Reading →

What is an oil and gas lease? A federal court in Ohio predicts Ohio law

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Exploration & Production, Mineral Interest, Ohio

An essential function of the law is to provide predictability as questions arise. When legal questions arise in the oil field regarding ownership rights, a consensus in the law — especially in the common law — is crucial. With that consensus, the attributes of conveyances related to those hydrocarbons (rights) can be examined. Specifically, what are the landowner’s rights with regard to the hydrocarbons under a piece of land in Ohio? Does he or she actually own them, or do they just have the right to capture them? If he or she would grant a lease to an oil company, what does the oil company own — is it an interest in real estate or is it simply a right to search? And, if found, what is the nature of the interest owned by the oil company pursuant to the lease? These fundamental questions have not been answered clearly in Ohio despite the fact that courts have struggled with them for over a century.

This ambiguity in the law puts federal courts in a potentially difficult position. Absent a clear indication of state law, federal judges deciding these issues under Ohio law are required to consider how the Ohio Supreme Court would decide the issue. Recently, a federal judge weighed in on the nature of an oil and gas lease in the case of Wellington Resource Group LLC v. Beck Energy Corporation, Case No. 2:12-CC-104 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, …


Continue Reading →

Part 3: Who owns the minerals under Ohio Township Section 16?

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Mineral Interest, Ohio, Real Estate

In our previous two segments on Section 16 lands — Part 1 and Part 2 — we examined the dedication, by Congress, of one section in each Ohio township, usually Section 16, for the support of public education. Initially, while retaining title to such lands in trust, Ohio vested administrative control in township trustees. However, the allocation of authority to the townships did not go well and in 1914 and 1917 the legislature reallocated responsibility to the Auditor of State as administrator of school lands remaining in state hands.

From 1827 to 1917, when the township trustees were authorized to sell or lease school land to private individuals, mineral title typically passed with the fee simple title. However, this practice ended in 1917 when the auditor assumed authority.

The 1917 legislation, known as the Garver Act, was enacted to provide for better administration of school lands. H.B. No. 192, 107 Ohio Laws 357, G.C. 3203. One of the issues was confusion about the status and ownership of leases of Section 16 parcels granted by township trustees. Section 23 of the Garver Act —provided procedure by which someone claiming title could file a claim with the state supervisor who, after public notice and if satisfied that the claim was valid, would execute a new lease. The Garver Act also provided a mechanism whereby a lessee could surrender his lease and obtain a fee simple title.…


Continue Reading →

What Goes Up … Quick Glance #3 at Ohio Oil and Gas Leases in Bankruptcy

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Mineral Interest, Ohio, Real Estate

As with prior posts about oil and gas leases in bankruptcy (located here and, on Porter Wright’s Banking & Finance Law Report blog, here), this post presents another thorny issue — namely, “Is an oil and gas lease a lease at all?”

Whether an oil and gas lease is a “lease” is significant in the bankruptcy context, because the Bankruptcy Code has several provisions regarding the treatment of leases.

This post considers two cases that interpret 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(4), which provides that unless the bankruptcy court orders an extension, “an unexpired lease of nonresidential real property under which the debtor is the lessee shall be deemed rejected, and the trustee shall immediately surrender that nonresidential real property to the lessor, if the trustee does not assume or reject the unexpired lease by … the date that is 120 days after the date of the order for relief [(typically, the commencement of the case)]….” The Code further provides that “the rejection of an … unexpired lease of the debtor constitutes a breach of such contract or lease … immediately before the date of the filing of the petition.”…


Continue Reading →

Part 2: Who owns the minerals under Ohio Township Section 16?

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Exploration & Production, Mineral Interest, Ohio, Real Estate, Regulatory

In our first post about Section 16 lands, we provided background on such public lands here in Ohio. We summarized that in 1785, a Federal land ordinance granted one square mile — usually Section 16 — out of every six square mile township to be held in trust by the state and to be dedicated to support public education pursuant to federal law. The Ohio Legislature then began leasing the land, and in 1827 it authorized sale of the land with proceeds going to the “Common School Fund.” Interest from the fund was to be paid to the schools within the townships. See, Dr. George W. Knepper, The Auditor of State, The Official Ohio Lands Book, 2002. (“Knepper”).

In regard to the funds collected from the sale of all school lands, the Ohio Constitution provided:

“The principal of all funds, arising from the sale, or other disposition of lands, or other property, granted or entrusted to this state for educational and religious purposes, shall forever be preserved inviolate, and undiminished; and, the income arising therefrom, shall be faithfully applied to the specific objects of the original grants, or appropriations.” Ohio Constitution, Article VI, Section 1 1


Continue Reading →

Ownership of Minerals Under Public Roads

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Mineral Interest, Ohio, Real Estate

This is the second post in a two-part series examining ownership of minerals located under bodies of water and roads. See part I discussing the ownership of minerals under adjoining waters.

Who owns the minerals underneath public roads in Ohio? This is really two questions:

  1. What ownership interest does the state, county, or township have in the land underlying the road? 
  2. What is the rule for abutting landowners in the event the government owns less than a fee simple absolute?

Historical Ownership Interest of the State, Counties and Municipalities

Over time, the interest acquired in the land underlying roads has changed for states, counties, and townships. Ownership interests are transaction specific, but there is a general trend. Municipal roads were usually taken in fee, while roads outside municipalities are likely to be easements unless they were granted in the past 30 years, in which case they are likely to be held in fee.…


Continue Reading →

Common Oil and Gas Lease Conundrums

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Exploration & Production, Mineral Interest, Ohio, Regulatory

Understanding rights and obligations associated with oil and gas leases can be challenging. Imprecise lease language, implied legal duties, formulaic statutes and evolving case law all affect oil and gas leases in different ways. We’ve written several articles on these topics during the past several months and have compiled them into an eBook to help bring clarity to some of these issues. Download our Common Oil and Gas Lease Conundrums eBook.…


Continue Reading →

Ownership of Minerals Under Adjoining Waters

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Exploration & Production, Mineral Interest, Ohio, Real Estate

This post is the first of two articles examining ownership of minerals located under bodies of water and roads.

Who owns the minerals under bodies of water? When oil and gas were being produced in meager quantities, not many people cared. But the story is different when lease bonuses are thousands of dollars per acre and royalties could be worth millions. Now, every acre in eastern Ohio is cast in a different light and suddenly there is enormous interest in figuring out who owns the minerals beneath Ohio’s lakes, rivers, ponds, streams and reservoirs. The following press release helps drive home the point about what is at stake:…


Continue Reading →

Gaining Perspective on Ohio’s Oil and Gas Laws

Posted in Mineral Interest, Ohio, Real Estate, Regulatory

Ohio’s oil and gas industry has been around for more than 120 years. That means there is plenty of perspective, and precedent, to consider when applying Ohio oil and gas law to the Utica and Marcellus shale plays. We’ve compiled a few Oil & Gas Law Report articles into an eBook to help you build a better understanding of the how the industry and the law has evolved, and where it could be heading. Download our eBook — Ohio Oil & Gas Laws: History and Perspective.…


Continue Reading →

Ownership Theory of Oil and Gas Influences Bankruptcy Law in Ohio

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Mineral Interest, Ohio, Real Estate

One of the most fundamental questions in oil and gas law is whether oil and gas in the ground are capable of being “owned.” The answer to this question shapes the law and influences legal analysis in a variety of ways.

Different states have answered this question in different ways, and the answer is not yet clear in Ohio. But the characterization under Ohio law is critically important in federal bankruptcy law, as Andy Nicoll discusses in his recent post on the Banking & Finance Law Report blog. It is worth the read.…


Continue Reading →

ODNR Issues Two More Unitization Orders for Horizontal Utica Shale Wells

Posted in Exploration & Production, Mineral Interest, Ohio, Regulatory

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) recently issued two more unitization orders pursuant to R.C. 1509.28. These two orders bring the total number to four since the beginning of the Utica Shale play.

As we discussed after the last order was released, this statute is becoming a valuable tool for operators as they cobble together the rights to drill horizontal production wells. In the early stages of the Utica shale play, each new unitization order is noteworthy for operators who are trying to plan drilling units and to help companies evaluate their lease holdings.

The process of unitization is conceptually related to mandatory pooling (R.C. § 1509.27), and is part of our ongoing blog series on Ohio’s compelled participation laws. (Read part 1 and part 2.). A unitization order allows oil and gas operators to join, or unitize, recalcitrant mineral owners to create large tracts of land — often comprising hundreds of acres — necessary to profitably and efficiently produce hydrocarbons from shale formations while protecting each owner’s correlative rights.…


Continue Reading →

Be Careful Drafting Contracts and Deeds When the Ownership of Minerals Is at Stake

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Mineral Interest, Real Estate

A recent decision by the Court of Appeals of Ohio highlights several errors by a seller of property who may have intended to reserve mineral rights. (See Mong v. Kovach Holdings LLC, 2013 Ohio 882, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh Appellate District, Lake County, March 11, 2013.)

Facts
In August 2009, McMenamin conveyed real estate in Trumbull County to Mong. The deed contained a reservation:

“Grantor [McMenamin] herein reserves the oil and gas royalties for the duration of her natural life, but for a term not to exceed 10 years from the date hereof [August 4, 2009].”

The minerals were subject to an oil and gas lease. So at this point, McMenamin had a life estate in the royalty interest. Mong had a future interest in the royalties and a present ownership interest of the minerals.…


Continue Reading →

What Goes Up … A Quick Glance at Ohio Oil and Gas Leases in Bankruptcy

Posted in Mineral Interest, Real Estate

As Ohio enjoys its latest boom in oil and gas exploration, it is important to understand how oil and gas leases are treated in bankruptcy. Unsettled Ohio law regarding whether a debtor owns unextracted oil and gas as part of the debtor’s real property can make this a difficult issue. 

In In re Loveday, No. 10-64110, 2012 WL 1565479 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio May 2, 2012), the Northern District of Ohio examined whether a Chapter 13 debtor had properly included in his bankruptcy schedules his interest in unextracted oil and gas relating to the debtor’s real property. Whether the debtor’s oil and gas rights were properly scheduled was a significant factor in determining whether the debtor could retain the proceeds of the sale of his oil and gas rights. But more importantly, for the companies who sought to purchase the debtor’s oil and gas rights, knowing whether such rights were properly scheduled was necessary to determine whether the debtor had unfettered authority to sell his oil and gas rights without court approval.…


Continue Reading →

When Is an Assignment of a Lease not an Assignment of Obligations?

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Exploration & Production, Mineral Interest, Real Estate

When oil companies transfer oil property among themselves, they frequently do so by an assignment of lease rights. Sometimes they assign all their interest under a lease, but they often assign just a portion of the lease, or reserve some interest in the property. In the event of multiple assignments — such as when party A assigns to party B, who assigns to party C, and so on — there can be confusion about what was assigned, and who is obligated to do what.

This kind of controversy set the stage for the recent decision by the North Dakota Supreme Court captioned Golden v. SM Energy Co., 2013 ND 17, Feb. 1, 2013. The Golden decision presents an interesting discussion about royalty payments, division orders and assigned obligations. Does this case portend what can happen in Ohio? Only for companies that do not learn from mistakes made in other states.…


Continue Reading →

Mandatory Pooling and Unitization in Ohio, Part I: History and Constitutionality

Posted in Contracts and Leases, Mineral Interest, Ohio, Real Estate, Regulatory

Landowners, in certain situations, can be compelled by the state to combine their mineral interest with their neighbors for the purpose of producing oil and gas. In Part I of a multi-part series, I explain the history and constitutionality of this practice.

What is Compelled Participation?

“Compelled participation” is the term I will use throughout this blog series to refer collectively to mandatory pooling and unitization. Mandatory pooling and unitization are variations of similar state action — forcing mineral owners to include their mineral interests with other owners in a pool or unit. In later posts the two concepts will be distinguished and discussed separately, but because they have the same legal and historical origins, it also makes sense to discuss them collectively. Admittedly, this term is imperfect, but is preferable to untangling the Gordian knot of terminology in this area of oil and gas law (see our earlier blog discussing these confusing terms).

Compelled participation occurs when an operator cannot negotiate an agreement (usually in the form of an oil and gas lease) with enough landowners to legally or efficiently develop oil and gas resources. In those situations the operator can apply for an order from a state agency forcing the recalcitrant landowners to nevertheless participate.…


Continue Reading →