Frackers slash billions in payments to landowners - The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 13 (permalink) Old 08-29-2013, 11:03 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Carbon County Pa/Kidder Township
Posts: 19,099
Back To Top
Frackers slash billions in payments to landowners


<span style="font-size: 17pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">Frackers slash billions in payments to landowners</span></span>


<span style="font-weight: bold">Report:</span> Thousands are receiving far less money than they were promised by energy companies to use their properties. Some are being paid virtually nothing.

<span style="font-weight: bold">Abrahm Lustgarten</span>, PROPUBLICA
Tuesday, August 27, 2013


Don Feusner ran dairy cattle on his 370-acre slice of northern Pennsylvania until he could no longer turn a profit by farming. Then, at age 60, he sold all but a few Angus and aimed for a comfortable retirement on money from drilling his land for natural gas instead.

It seemed promising. Two wells drilled on his lease hit as sweet a spot as the Marcellus shale could offer – tens of millions of cubic feet of natural gas gushed forth. Last December, he received a check for $8,506 for a month’s share of the gas.

Then one day in April, Feusner ripped open his royalty envelope to find that while his wells were still producing the same amount of gas, the gusher of cash had slowed. His eyes cascaded down the page to his monthly balance at the bottom: $1,690.

Chesapeake Energy, the company that drilled his wells, was withholding almost 90 percent of Feusner’s share of the income to cover unspecified “gathering” expenses and it wasn’t explaining why.

“They said you’re going to be a millionaire in a couple of years, but none of that has happened,” Feusner said. “I guess we’re expected to just take whatever they want to give us.”

Like every landowner who signs a lease agreement to allow a drilling company to take resources off his land, Feusner is owed a cut of what is produced, called a royalty.

In 1982, in a landmark effort to keep people from being fleeced by the oil industry, the federal government passed a law establishing that royalty payments to landowners would be no less than 12.5 percent of the oil and gas sales from their leases.

From Pennsylvania to North Dakota, a powerful argument for allowing extensive new drilling has been that royalty payments would enrich local landowners, lifting the economies of heartland and rural America. The boom was also supposed to fill the government’s coffers, since roughly 30 percent of the nation’s drilling takes place on federal land.

Over the last decade, an untold number of leases were signed, and hundreds of thousands of wells have been sunk into new energy deposits across the country.

But manipulation of costs and other data by oil companies is keeping billions of dollars in royalties out of the hands of private and government landholders, an investigation by ProPublica has found.

An analysis of lease agreements, government documents and thousands of pages of court records shows that such underpayments are widespread. Thousands of landowners like Feusner are receiving far less than they expected based on the sales value of gas or oil produced on their property. In some cases, they are being paid virtually nothing at all.

In many cases, lawyers and auditors who specialize in production accounting tell ProPublica energy companies are using complex accounting and business arrangements to skim profits off the sale of resources and increase the expenses charged to landowners.

Deducting expenses is itself controversial and debated as unfair among landowners, but it is allowable under many leases, some of which were signed without landowners fully understanding their implications.

But some companies deduct expenses for transporting and processing natural gas, even when leases contain clauses explicitly prohibiting such deductions. In other cases, according to court files and documents obtained by ProPublica, they withhold money without explanation for other, unauthorized expenses, and without telling landowners that the money is being withheld.

Significant amounts of fuel are never sold at all – companies use it themselves to power equipment that processes gas, sometimes at facilities far away from the land on which it was drilled. In Oklahoma, Chesapeake deducted marketing fees from payments to a landowner – a joint owner in the well – even though the fees went to its own subsidiary, a pipeline company called Chesapeake Energy Marketing. The landowner alleged the fees had been disguised in the form of lower sales prices. A court ruled that the company was entitled to charge the fees.

Costs such as these are normally only documented in private transactions between energy companies, and are almost never detailed to landowners.

“To find out how the calculation is done, you may well have to file a lawsuit and get it through discovery,” said Owen Anderson, the Eugene Kuntz Chair in Oil, Gas & Natural Resources at the University of Oklahoma College of Law, and an expert on royalty disputes. “I’m not aware of any state that requires that level of disclosure.”

To keep royalties low, companies sometimes set up subsidiaries or limited partnerships to which they sell oil and gas at reduced prices, only to recoup the full value of the resources when their subsidiaries resell it. Royalty payments are usually based on the initial transaction.

In other cases, companies have bartered for services off the books, hiding the full value of resources from landowners. In a 2003 case in Louisiana, for example, Kerr McGee, now owned by Anadarko Petroleum, sold its oil for a fraction of its value – and paid royalties to the government on the discounted amount – in a trade arrangement for marketing services that were never accounted for on its cash flow statements. The federal government sued, and won.

The government has an arsenal of tools to combat royalty underpayment. The Department of Interior has rules governing what deductions are allowable. It also employs an auditing agency that, while far from perfect, has uncovered more than a dozen instances in which drillers were “willful” in deceiving the government on royalty payments just since 2011. A spokesman for the Department of Interior’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue says that over the last three decades, the government has recouped more than $4 billion in unpaid fees from such cases.

There are few such protective mechanisms for private landowners, though, who enter into agreements without regulatory oversight and must pay to audit or challenge energy companies out of their own pockets.

ProPublica made several attempts to contact Chesapeake Energy for this article. The company declined, via email, to answer any questions regarding royalties, and then did not respond to detailed sets of questions submitted afterward. The leading industry trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, also declined to comment on landowners’ allegations of underpayments, saying that individual companies would need to respond to specific claims.

Anderson acknowledged that many landowners enter into contracts without understanding their implications and said it was up to them to do due diligence before signing agreements with oil and gas companies.

“The duty of the corporation is to make money for shareholders,” Anderson said. “Every penny that a corporation can save on royalties is a penny of profit for shareholders, so why shouldn’t they try to save every penny that they can on payments to royalty owners?”



Gas flows up through a well head on Feusner’s property, makes a couple of turns and passes a meter that measures its volume. Then it flows into larger pipes fed by multiple pipelines in a process the industry calls “gathering.” Together, the mixed gases might get compressed or processed to improve the gas quality for final sale, before feeding into a larger network of pipelines that extends for hundreds of miles to an end point, where the gas is sold and ultimately distributed to consumers.

Each section of pipeline is owned and managed by a different company. These companies buy the gas from Chesapeake, but have no accountability to Feusner. They operate under minimal regulatory oversight, and have sales contracts with the well operator, in this case Chesapeake, with terms that are private. Until Chesapeake sold its pipeline company last winter, the pipelines were owned by its own subsidiaries.

As in many royalty disputes, it is not clear exactly which point of sale is the one on which Feusner’s payments should be based – the last sale onto the open market or earlier changes in custody. It’s equally unclear whether the expenses being charged to Feusner are incurred before or after that point of sale, or what processes, exactly, fall under the term “gathering.” Definitions of that term vary, depending on who is asked. In an email, a spokesperson for Chesapeake declined to say how the company defines gathering.

Making matters more complicated, the rights to the gas itself are often split into shares, sometimes among as many as a half-dozen companies, and are frequently traded. Feusner originally signed a lease with a small drilling company, which sold the rights to the lease to Chesapeake. Chesapeake sold a share of its rights in the lease to a Norwegian company, Statoil, which now owns about a one-third interest in the gas produced from Feusner’s property.

Chesapeake and Statoil pay him royalties and account for expenses separately. Statoil does not deduct any expenses in calculating Feusner’s royalty payments, possibly because it has a different interpretation of what’s allowed.

“Statoil’s policy is to carefully look at each individual lease, and to take post-production deductions only where the lease and the law allow for it,” a company spokesman wrote in an email. “We take our production in kind from Chesapeake and we have no input into how they interpret the leases.”

Once the gas is produced, a host of opaque transactions influence how sales are accounted for and proceeds are allocated to everyone entitled to a slice. The chain of custody and division of shares is so complex that even the country’s best forensic accountants struggle to make sense of energy companies’ books.

Feusner’s lease does not give him the right to review Chesapeake’s contracts with its partners, or to verify the sales figures that the company reports to him. Pennsylvania – though it recently passed a law requiring that the total amount of deductions be listed on royalty statements – has no laws dictating at what point a sale price needs to be set, and what expenses are legitimate.

Concerns about royalties have begun to attract the attention of state legislators, who held a hearing on the issue in June. Some have acknowledged a need to clarify minimum royalty guarantees in the state, but so far, that hasn’t happened.

“If you have a system that is not transparent from wellhead to burner tip and you hide behind confidentiality, then you have something to hide,” Jerry Simmons, executive director of the National Association of Royalty Owners (NARO), the premier organization representing private landowners in the U.S., told ProPublica in a 2009 interview. Simmons said recently that his views had not changed, but declined to be interviewed again. “The idea that regulatory agencies don’t know the volume of gas being produced in this country is absurd.”

Because so many disputes come down to interpretations of contract language, companies often look to courts for clarification. Not many royalty cases have been argued in Pennsylvania so far, but in 2010, a landmark decision, Kilmer v. Elexco Land Services, set out that the state’s minimum royalty guarantee applied to revenues before expenses were calculated, and that, when allowed by leases, energy companies were free to charge back deductions against those royalties.

Since then, Pennsylvania landowners say, Chesapeake has been making larger deductions from their checks. (The company did not respond to questions about this.) In April, Feusner’s effective royalty rate on the gas sold by Chesapeake was less than 1 percent.

Paul Sidorek is an accountant representing some 60 northeastern Pennsylvania landowners who receive royalty income from drilling. He’s also a landowner himself – in 2009, he leased 145 acres, and that lease was eventually sold to Chesapeake. Well aware of the troubles encountered by others, Sidorek negotiated a 20 percent royalty and made sure his lease said explicitly that no expenses could be deducted from the sale of the gas produced on his property.

Yet now, Sidorek says, Chesapeake is deducting as much as 30 percent from his royalties, attributing it to “gathering” and “third party” expenses, an amount that adds up to some $40,000 a year.

“Now that the royalties are flowing, some people just count it as a blessing and say we don’t care what Chesapeake does, it’s money we wouldn’t have had before,” Sidorek said. But he’s filed a lawsuit. “I figure I could give my grandson a first-class education for what Chesapeake is deducting that they are not entitled to, so I’m taking it on.”

Landowners, lawyers, legislators and even some energy industry groups say Chesapeake stands out for its confusing accounting and tendency to deduct the most expenses from landowners’ royalty checks in Pennsylvania.

“They’ve had a culture of doing cutthroat business,” said Jackie Root, president of Pennsylvania’s chapter of the National Association of Royalty Owners.

Chesapeake did not respond to questions on whether its approach differs from that of other companies.

Root and others report good working relationships with other companies operating wells in Pennsylvania, and say that deductions – if they occur at all – are modest. Statoil, which has an interest in a number of Chesapeake wells, does not deduct any expenses on its share of many of the same leases. In an email from a spokesperson, the company said “We always seek to deal with our lease holders in a fair manner.”

Several landowners said that not only do deductions vary between companies using the same gas “gathering” network – sales prices do as well.

On Sidorek’s royalty statements, for example, Chesapeake and Statoil disclose substantially different sales prices for the same gas moved through the same system.

“If Statoil can consistently sell the gas for $.25 more, and Chesapeake claims it’s the premier producer in the country, then why the [censored] can’t they get the same price Statoil does for the same gas on the same day?” Sidorek wondered.

He thinks Chesapeake was giving a discount to a pipeline company it used to own. Chesapeake did not respond to questions about the price discrepancy.

Chesapeake may be the focus of landowner ire in Pennsylvania, but across the country thousands of landowners have filed similar complaints against many oil and gas producers.

In dozens of class actions reviewed by ProPublica, landowners have alleged they cannot make sense of the expenses deducted from their payments or that companies are hiding charges

Publicly traded oil and gas companies also have disclosed settlements and judgments related to royalty disputes that, collectively, add up to billions of dollars.

In 2003, a jury found that Exxon had defrauded the state of Alabama out of royalty payments and ordered the company to pay nearly $103 million in back royalties and interest, plus $11.8 billion in punitive damages. (The punitive damages were reduced to $3.5 billion on appeal, and then eliminated by the state supreme court in 2007.)

In 2007, a jury ordered a Chesapeake subsidiary to pay $404 million, including $270 million in punitive damages, for cheating a class of leaseholders in West Virginia. In 2010, Shell was hit with a $66 million judgment, including $52 million in punitive fines, after a jury decided the company had hidden a prolific well and then intentionally misled landowners when they sought royalties. The judgment was upheld on appeal.

Since the language of individual lease agreements vary widely, and some date back nearly 100 years, many of the disagreements about deductions boil down to differing interpretations of the language in the contract.

In Pennsylvania, however, courts have set few precedents for how leases should be read and substantial hurdles stand in the way of landowners interested in bringing cases.

Pennsylvania attorneys say many of their clients’ leases do not allow landowners to audit gas companies to verify their accounting. Even landowners allowed to conduct such audits could have to shell out tens of thousands of dollars to do so.

When audits turn up discrepancies, attorneys say, many Pennsylvania leases require landowners to submit to arbitration – another exhaustive process that can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Arbitration clauses can also make it more difficult for landowners to join class action suits in which individuals can pool their resources and gain enough leverage to take on the industry.

“They basically are daring you to sue them,” said Aaron Hovan, an attorney in Tunkhannock, Pa., representing landowners who have royalty concerns. “And you need to have a really good case to go through all of that, and then you could definitely lose.”

All of these hurdles have to be cleared within Pennsylvania’s four-year statute of limitations. Landowners who realize too late that they have been underpaid for years – or who inherit a lease from an ailing parent who never bothered to check their statements – are simply out of luck.

Even if a gas company were found liable for underpaying royalties in Pennsylvania, it would have little to fear. It would owe only the amount it should have paid in the first place; unlike Oklahoma and other states, Pennsylvania law does not allow for any additional interest on unpaid royalties and sets a very high bar for winning punitive penalties.

“They just wait to see who challenges them, they keep what they keep, they give up what they lose,” said Root, the NARO chapter president. “It may just be part of their business decision to do it this way.”
Birch812 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 13 (permalink) Old 08-29-2013, 11:18 AM
Sage
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,360
Back To Top
Re: Frackers slash billions in payments to landowners

A big problem for many in this county....

wmu 3A
timberdoodle is offline  
post #3 of 13 (permalink) Old 08-29-2013, 08:41 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: springfeild twp,mercer co
Posts: 11,894
Back To Top
Re: Frackers slash billions in payments to landowners

sign a bad lease, shame on you. just like buying a car, hiring a contractor, or selling timber. when you're dealing with professionals, get a competent professional to negotiate for you.

Pence/Putin 2024
yellodog is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 13 (permalink) Old 08-30-2013, 03:54 AM
Sage
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Franklin County
Posts: 24,796
Back To Top
Re: Frackers slash billions in payments to landowners

PROPUBLICA


News for the left wing progressives.

Also those that oppose anything oil or gas related.


Might be something to this story, but from this source i chalk it up to.... more of the same.

Is your position a short term gain - or a long term loss? Separate the issues.
Bluetick is offline  
post #5 of 13 (permalink) Old 08-30-2013, 08:58 AM
Sage
 
DennyF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cumberland County 5A
Posts: 25,072
Back To Top
Re: Frackers slash billions in payments to landowners

Pretty much? Kinda like getting all of your news from Aljazerra now on cable TV, although its predecessor, Current TV, wasn't much better?

And then there's still MSNBC or NPR, if one likes a hard leftist slant?


Some folks' learnin' curves just look like circles...3A Camp/also hunt 4B
DennyF is offline  
post #6 of 13 (permalink) Old 08-30-2013, 10:53 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 2A-Wash. Co.
Posts: 16,185
Back To Top
Re: Frackers slash billions in payments to landowners

Biased source or not, anybody that thinks these companies aren't what us common folk would call "shady", are missing it. In a business world, the term would be "shrewd". Like most, it's a cutthroat business, and there are umpteen companies all vying for the same thing, so profit maximization is paramount. I say this as a landowner that signed with Chesapeke 5 years ago. 5 years later (last month) as the lease was turning due, another lease check for the same anmount as the original came in the mail, 2 days before the lease expiration. We didn't think Chesapeke was still leasing, or re-upping in our area. Funny thing though, the check came from a company called EQT. Apparently Chesapeke sold some of their rights to EQT ? Of course, we knew nothing about it, and I guess it doesn't matter if we knew or not. What the heck can we do about any of it anyhow. These companies wheel and deal, even with each other. Nature of the game. The nicest you will get treated by any of em, is when the "landman" is at your door, trying to get your signature. As the legal gal said in the article, you can try to sue, but you better have all your duck's in line. And even at that, you're still likely to lose.

2A-Wash. Co.
Fleroo is offline  
post #7 of 13 (permalink) Old 08-30-2013, 11:11 AM
Sage
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Franklin County
Posts: 24,796
Back To Top
Re: Frackers slash billions in payments to landowners

There are several bills working in the PA GA to address royaly payments and issues such as this.

We have a new (much larger) industry here and it comes with growing pains. Couple that with people seeing money and signing before doing homework. No doubt some are having issues.

But, how much of it is shady gas companies, and how much of it is when and how fast one signed a contract and for what terms? Like most issues, there are a lot of issues involved. Many complaining are complaining because others are making much more now. Some folks got a lawyer or went in with a group of others and held out for a bigger all around payday.

There are shades of dimrock in this in terms of what is happening, ultimate goals, and political purposes.

I am in no way saying the gas companies are pure in this.

Is your position a short term gain - or a long term loss? Separate the issues.
Bluetick is offline  
post #8 of 13 (permalink) Old 08-30-2013, 11:23 AM
Sage
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,360
Back To Top
Re: Frackers slash billions in payments to landowners

Complaints are rampant in this county and centered around one drilling company, which by the way happens to be the largest in the State in terms of number of drilled wells.

Disclosure... I have no dog in the fight...Not leased with this company and satisfied with the treatment received thus far by the company I leased with.




wmu 3A
timberdoodle is offline  
post #9 of 13 (permalink) Old 08-30-2013, 01:58 PM
The Man
 
buzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bradford County
Posts: 8,129
Back To Top
Re: Frackers slash billions in payments to landowners

I took my time before signing a lease. I went to several seminars, listened to lawyers , and even Bill Capaulez tolk about NG. I read extensively, and tried to educate myself as much as possible on the subject. I took several months to do this, and turned down several offers, until I felt I had the best lease I could get.
To me the best lease was not necessarily the most money, it had way more to do with the protections I would have in my lease, and obviously money and royalty percentages played a part, but I could have gotten more money had I chose a crappy lease.
In the end, I signed what I felt was as good of a lease as there was as far as protections.

I just started receiving some royalty's this year, and that company "chk" is taking deductions from every check, last month they took 43%.
Mind you, my lease clearly states in 3 different areas that they can not deduct for gathering, compression or transportation.
On the sheet that comes with the check, and shows the deductions, they very clearly call the deductions for , gathering, compression and 3rd party. The 3rd party is the transportation.

Funny thing is, I also get a check from Stat oil, and they take no deductions.

This will ultimately be settled in the courts, there are several law firms putting cases together, some I believe are class action.

My whole point is that even if a person did their homework, and tried to get the best lease, CHK is still trying to find a loophole by selling the gas at the wellhead to a company they own, I believe it is called CHK Marketing inc. This company pays a lowered price to reflect the cost of compression, gathering, and transportation, then resells at market value. Thus the land owner royalty's are paid off the reduced price, and CHK gets their money through the subsidiarity company they own. Which means the land owner is paying those cost, even if their lease clearly states they don't have to.

I agree with Timber that this problem seems to be primarily with one company in our area.

Your never to old to learn something stupid
buzz is offline  
post #10 of 13 (permalink) Old 08-30-2013, 10:16 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Carbon County Pa/Kidder Township
Posts: 19,099
Back To Top
Re: Frackers slash billions in payments to landowners

I guess they feel they need to move fast here in Pa since the next gov. might not be so generous.
Birch812 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome