Mineral Owner Tips & Considerations in Texas - Is Going Unleased Viable?

In this day of shale plays, we are seeing high bonus and royalties being offered by oil companies for oil and gas leases. However, just because your neighbor received $5,000 or more per acre as bonus and 1/4 royalty for a lease does not necessarily mean you will receive the same. Nevertheless, mineral owners will often hold out for better bonus or royalty and find themselves unleased when drilling begins. Below are some things to consider before holding out for more and going unleased.

Drillsite v. Non-Drillsite Tract

In Texas, an unleased mineral owner ("UMO") does not always share in production from a unit well in which the UMO's tract is pooled. To be clear, a company who owns oil and gas leases surrounding the UMO land can still include that land in a unit - the company does not need a lease to do so. However, just because the UMO is included in the unit does not mean the UMO will share in production from the unit well. Only if the UMO is a drillsite tract will he share in production from the well. "Drillsite tract" means that all or a part of the wellbore passes underneath the property. If it is a vertical well, the surface location and wellbore are located entirely on and underneath one tract of land. If it is a horizontal well, then there are multiple drillsite tracts, as each tract under which the wellbore passes is a drillsite tract. If the UMO tract is not a drillsite tract, the UMO does not share in any of the revenues from production fom the well. The UMO is cut out and possibly subject to being drained by the unit well depending on its proximity to the UMO tract. In this instance, the UMO's only recourse to seek relief from the Texas Railroad Commission ("RRC") to drill his own well on his tract, or to be included in the unit under the Mineral Interest Pooling Act ("MIPA"), discussed below. Neither option is desirable to a UMO in Texas.

If, on the other hand, the UMO is a drillsite tract owner, then co-tenancy laws applu, and the UMO will receive his full share of production in proportion to the number of acres owned in the unit, but only after the well pays out. For instance, suppose the UMO owns 100% of the minerals under 50 acres included in a 500 acre unit, and the UMO is a drillsite tract. The UMO would be entitled to 50/500ths of all revenues from production. If that same UMO had executed a lease with a 1/4th royalty, his share would be 1/4th of 50/500ths of production. A huge difference in terms of potential monetary gain. The risk, however, is that the UMO will not receive his first check until the well pays out. This means the point at which the company that drilled and operates the well recoups all of its costs to drill and complete the well. For a horizontal well in a shale play, such as the Eagle Ford Shale, it can cost as much as $9 million or more to drill and complete one well. If the well is a marginal producer, it may be years before it payout is reached, and it may never be reached. A leased mineral owner, on the other hand, receives their royalty share from production in accordance with the oil and gas lease, regardless of whether the well pays out.

Although there is huge upside to going unleased, there is also huge risks. Two of those risks are (1) the UMO could be a non-drillsite tract in a unit, and be cut out of any revenues from the well; or (2) even if the UMO is a drillsite tract, the well may never pay out, and thus the UMO would not receive any revenues from production.

Rule 37 Exceptions

In Texas, another risk of going unleased is the Rule 37 exception. RRC Statewide Rule 37 governs how close a well can be to any property line, lease line, or other well. No well can be drilled closer than 1200 feet from another well completed in the same horizon on the same tract, and no well can be drilled closer than 467 feet from a property line, unit line, or lease line. Upon application by a company in any particular field, the RRC can issue field rules for each specific field that prescribe longer or shorter distances. For horizontal wells, the entire length of the horizontal drainhole (penetration point to terminus point) must comply with the spacing requirements, unless the field rules prescribe otherwise. The RRC, however, can grant exceptions to the spacing rule, permitting wells to be drilled closer than prescribed.

With respect to horizontal wells, suppose Company A is tired of the demands for higher bonus and royalty made by the UMO before he will lease his minerals, and Company A's planned spud date for the well it intends to drill and pool the UMO tract in is rapidly approaching. Company A has plans for the drilling rig after it completes the subject well, and cannot change its timetables. In that instance, Company A may decide to cut the UMO tract out of the unit altogether. In that instance, Company A must comply with Rule 37, such that no portion of the horizontal drainhole can come within 467 feet of the UMO's property line. This presents a problem if the proposed wellsite or path of the horizontal drainhole is closer than 467 feet (or field rule spacing) of the UMO's property line. An extensive amount of engineering and planning goes into each well drilled, and Company A may not be able, or willing, to change the well path. A Rule 37 exception will allow Company A to drill the well closer than Rule 37 or field rules prescribed, in order to drill its well as intended without the UMO's tract. Under Rule 37, if the operator can prove there is a necessity for such an exception to prevent waste or confiscation, the RRC will likely grant the application, especially if the application is not contested (more on this below). To establish that the exception would prevent waste, the operator must show that its proposed well will recover oil or gas that would not otherwise be recoverable (i.e., the oil or gas under the unreasonable UMO's land), or that unusual geological conditions specific to the unit exist that require closer spacing to the UMO's tract. To establish an exception would prevent confiscation, the operator must show that absent the exception, it will be denied a reasonable opportunity to recover its fair share of hydrocarbons currently in place. Depending on how close the well is drilled under the Rule 37 exception, the UMO's minerals could be drained without Company A having to account to the UMO for his share.

Under Rule 37, the operator is required to send notice to all affected UMOs of their application for an exception, and notify them of the date the RRC will hear the application. It is up to the UMO to appear and contest the application. The UMO will need to hire an attorney familiar with the RRC rules and administrative process. Typically, the UMO lacks the resources to meaningfully contest the applications. If uncontested, the applications are usually granted.

As can be seen, going unleased does not necessarily mean the UMO tract will be included in a unit, and in fact, it could mean a well will be drilled so close to the UMO's property line that the UMO's minerals get drained. Again, the UMO's only recourse is to apply to the RRC to drill his own well, or apply for relief under MIPA.

Mineral Interest Pooling Act ("MIPA")

There is no automatic right for a UMO to be included in a unit in Texas. Texas' version of forced pooling is MIPA, but the burden upon a UMO under MIPA is so high, it has rarely been used.

Under MIPA, a UMO must apply to the RRC to force their way into an existing unit if the UMO meets certain criteria. First, their must be an existing RRC designated common reservoir for the field in which the unit is located, and existing or temporary field rules. Second, the UMO must show that the unit operator did not make a fair and reasonable offer to lease or pool the UMO's tract in the unit. What is considered fair and reasonable depends on the circumstances, however, typically an offer for the UMO to share on the same "yardstick" as others in the unit is usually considered fair and reasonable. Third, the MIPA unit is to be limited to 160 acres for an oil well and 640 acres for a gas well plus 10 percent tolerance, and must contain the "approximate acreage" of the proration units under the field rules. The UMO must also show that his acreage reasonably appears to be within the productive limits of the reservoir. Fourth, the UMO must propose the economic terms on which he is to be paid if force pooled. In past cases, the RRC has determined that the UMO is to be paid (1) on the royalty share of their interest, the fair market royalty rate at the time of the order with no bonus, and (2) on the working interest share of their interest, the difference of 100% and the royalty interest being pooled. In other words, if the market royalty is 1/4, then the UMO would receive a 1/4th royalty and a 3/4ths carried working interest. The MIPA unit typically dissolves one year after its effective date if no production or drilling operations has taken place, six months after a dry hole is completed, or six months after cessation of production. The UMO must provide notice of the hearing on its application to all interest owners (working, royalty, overriding royalty, etc..) in the unit.

Vice-versa, the unit operator can apply to the RRC to force pool a UMO's tract into an existing unit. The operator is required to meet the same elements, except that for element two, the operator must show a fair and reasonable offer was made but rejected by the UMO.

Seeking relief under MIPA is expensive (e.g., attorney's fees and expert witness fees), and very difficult to win. It has rarely been utilized by UMOs or operators.

Conclusion for Mineral Owners

If you are not happy with the oil company's offer to lease, and are considering going unleased or just waiting until a better offer comes along, be sure to consider the foregoing risks associated with being unleased. You may lose the benefits of mineral ownership altogether.

Ben Elmore

WattBeckworth.com

Board Certified in Oil, Gas & Mineral Law by the TX Board of Legal Specialization. He represents mineral owners and companies in all varieties of oil and gas disputes, as well as negotiation of oil and gas leases in Texas in the Eagle Ford Shale, Haynesville Shale and Permian Basin plays.

Dear Ben,

Informative writing. Over the past 4 or 5 years or so, I have seen Declarations of Unit that expressly deny that the Unit Dec is an offer to pool for unleased mineral interests and NPRI's. I cannot remember offhand the case, but could you comment on what circumstances that a non drillsite UMO can ratify the Unit Dec, if at all possible?

Buddy,

A non-drillsite UMO has no right to unilaterally ratify a unit and claim his share of production. An NPRI owner is treated differently if their interest is covered by an existing lease. The lease in and of itself is an offer to the NPRI owner to pool, and the NPRI owner therefore has the right to ratify the lease and any unit the lease is pooled into. If on the other hand, the NPRI owner's interest is not covered by a lease, he is an unleased interest and has no unilateral right to ratify a unit.

Ben,

If you are a UMO, doesn't the oil company have to at least offer you a lease before they can pool your acreage whether or not you are the drill site or not?

No. For instance, there are often tracts where the mineral ownership is so fractionated that they cannot locate all of them to lease before their internal deadline to drill a well. In that instance, they will go ahead and drill and could still be trying to locate the unleased owners after production begins. They will just hold the UMO's share of royalty in suspense until they can find them and try to lease them.

In the situation (1) a UMO may be pooled, but not share in the proceeds, as to compensation for producing his presumed share of his drained assets. Further his recourse is to drill his own well, but being already pooled into an existing unit, his permit will be denied.

In the situation that (2) the UMO tract is a drillsite tract, the State has granted statutory forfeiture of ownership of subsurface assets, though he is pooled, and not leased.

Either way, given that all E&P companies are in business to profit, the best strategy is to stike minimal lease terms with widow's legacy tracts, pool others, and kiss off the legal rights of the others.....hmmm.

Suppose a UMO owns 100% of the minerals under 160 acres included in a 640 acre unit and the UMO is a drillsite tract. What % is he responsible for well costs, 25% or 100%?

Once the operator recoups 100% of his drilling and completion costs, the UMO begins to receive his 25% share of unit production which will be charged with 25% of costs.

Apparently my comments were misunderstood. I intended only to rephrase Ben's discussion above.

My first question or observation was that in the situation (1), would the UMO owner NOT be able to defend his assets by drilling his own well, because he was already pooled, that he would not be issued a PERMIT to Drill????

In the situation (2), as the drillsite tract, the UMO forfeit to the Unit his minerals, where yet a lease contract had NOT been made, where the Unit operator would be granted by the State, a Right of Taking and Trespass, on the UMO drillsite tract.????

What I read and question is Ben's conclusion that in the real world the UMO is advised to take any offer, or suffer the loss of ownership of his minerals. I had not intended to be so blunt but raise my questions, without raising the temperature of the discussion.

I firmly believe it is in the interest of all here to fully understand the implications (as in leasing strategy) and consequences of Ben's post above and seek his expanding on the topic.

Bret, I didn't take your comment as "raising the temperature." Just have not ad a chance to respond until now.

I am only trying to point out the potential pitfalls of going UMO, and not advocating for or against it. In your situation (1), I would not say the UMO would not be able to drill his own well in every situation, but in some that would be the case, and Texas law looks at it as within the UMO's control to prevent by leasing. The UMO can always try to get a permit to drill his own well, but it will not be simple. He still has to comply with RRC regulations and field rules, get a Rule 37 exception (most likely), and all along, the unit operator will be fighting him. Is it worth it to the UMO to go through all of that and assume the risk he might not get approved to drill his own well? It may be.

In situation (2), if the UMO is a drillsite tract, Texas law does not consider it a taking or trespass by the unit operator. A unit well exists because the RRC regs permit them for efficient development of the resource, and in this regard, for horizontals, it is necessary to form a unit unless you are talking about very large tracts. This, coupled with the law of co-tenancy, is why the UMO's full share is on a unit basis. If it is a 5000 acre lease, there may not be a need to form a pooled unit. If the UMO owns 50% of the minerals and executive right, and a lease well is drilled, then he is a 50% owner in the well.

If I understand it right, once the operator recoups 100% of his drilling and completion costs, then the UMO begins to receive his 25% share of unit production which will then be charged with 25% of continuing costs?

If neighbouring units all around the UMO have multiple consistent producing wells (400-500 bopd after ip) and greater, could the UMO expect that the operator could recoup the costs within a year?

All depends on the costs incurred to drill and complete the well.

If drilling and completions costs are $9 million, is that amount considered to be re-cooped after the company has taken in its first $9 million off of the well, or can the company prolong paying the UMO his share by other means?

Whenever revenues are brought in they are applied to determine "payout" of the well, and cannot be earmarked to apply to something else to prolong payout. Payout is when the operator recoups its drilling and completion costs.

In a situation where there exists the ability to produce from multiple stratas, suppose there is a 640 acre unit where there are three owners who are all leased to an operator. Two of the owners' leases allow for the operator to drill at all levels, but one does not. If the operator decides to drill at the level which is "unleased" by the one owner, I suppose that owner can choose to remain unleased at that level, but leased on the other?

Yes

That is unless the 640 acre unit was designated as to all depths and the UMO ratified it, then the operator could try and argue the UMO is bound to accept his royalty share and not full share. That would be a tough argument, but it is there.

If in a large family unit situation some sign a lease (with a depth-exclusion clause) and others do not sign the lease at all. The unit is pooled with neighbors whose lease did not include such a clause. The operator drills at the "exclusion" level. Those who had the exclusion clause in their lease can choose to be either leased at that level or not, but can the mineral owners who remained unleased from the beginning (never signed) also choose to now be leased at the "exclusion" level?

Ben:

Your piece on MIPA and UMO’s in Texas is well written and informative. How do you view the “dilligent obligation standard” in Texas to either A. Locate a UMO or B. to make an arms length leasing deal in the first place?

There are a lot of younger Landmen out there on brokerage crews who do not make the effort to find some rather easily locatable mineral owners these days. I have been a Landman for 32 years and manage mineral interests in 8 producing states, some of the work I see being done by some inexperienced field Landmen just is not what it should be. Is there not some standard of due diligence under applicable Texas RRC rules and regs to allow mineral owners to challenge the level of diligence in doing a complete job to locate so called “lost” mineral owners not to mention the forming of spcaing units for wells and not including UMO’s?

I realize that mineral AND LEASEHOLD OWNERS need to diligently watch the counties they own INTERESTS IN, for drill site and leasing activities but there should be a some sort of due diligence standard that operators should be held to in this regard?

Sorry, I've been on vacation and just returned. Tex ext, as to your question, I think the answer is yes assuming the operator still wants to lease them.

F. Andrew,
I don't know of a diligent obligation standard in Texas. If the mineral owner can show they were not truly lost and the operator just did a poor job at trying to find them, then they might claim good faith v. bad faith trespass. Presumably every lease is an arm's length deal unless the lessor is somehow related to the lessee, so is your question, "is there a requirement to make a fair offer or deal in the first place?" I think the answer in Texas is "no," unless the issue arises under MIPA as discussed above. But for everyday lease negotiations, there is no duty to make a fair offer. It's up to the lessor to protect his or her interests. For instance, there were some lawsuits filed by lessors in the Haynseville shale who missed out on big bonuses and royalty fractions against the lessees alleging fraud for failure to disclose the true value of the minerals at the time they made the low ball offer. These lawsuits are not getting anywhere, and if they ever did get to a jury and resutled in a jury verdict, the Supreme Court would more than likely reverse it.