assignment of working interest

Home   |   Members   |  Resources   |  About

MYOKBar Login

Oklahoma Bar Journal

Interpreting assignments of the oil and gas lease.

By Jereme M. Cowan

Under Oklahoma law, an oil and gas lease grants a cluster of rights in land,1 forming an estate in real property with the nature of fee.2 Like many of the sticks in the metaphorical bundle, the estate created under the oil and gas lease is freely assignable and divisible.3 As a result, oil and gas leaseholds can be transferred, in whole or in part, by the holder of the oil and gas lease, such practice being a central element to oil and gas development.4 Furthermore, the transfers of leasehold are usually executed and delivered by legal instruments ubiquitously titled “assignments,” which are filed of record in the same manner as any instrument affecting title to real property.5 Given the history of Oklahoma’s oil booms,6 not to mention Oklahoma’s current role in the U.S. shale boom, assignments inundate many of the county clerk records where oil and gas exploration is prevalent. Therefore, it is likely that an examination of oil and gas land titles in one of these counties will require the interpretation of assignments. BASIC RULES OF CONSTRUCTION Assignments are a contract and a conveyance.7 As such, they are to be read in accordance with the basic rules of contractual interpretation,8 which comprise not only those findings in Oklahoma’s case law but also the statutory provisions of 15 O.S. §§151-178. In a nutshell, Oklahoma’s rules on interpreting assignments begin with prioritizing the true intent of the parties, as gathered from the four corners of the instrument.9 If the assignment is unambiguous, then the written instrument will govern,10 along with all technical terms in the assignment being interpreted as commonly understood among persons in the oil and gas industry.11 However, if there is an ambiguity, then the contractual interpretation can be aided by extrinsic evidence in order to resolve the intrinsic uncertainties of the assignment.12

These rules make it imperative for an attorney conducting a title examination to understand the business and terminology of the oil and gas industry as it pertains to the transfer of leasehold, not to mention understanding general rules of land titles and the law of oil and gas. The purpose of this article is not to give a complete account of the oil and gas industry nor an account of all rules governing the transfer of oil and gas rights in the record title. Rather, the purpose is to give an introductory and cursory overview, presented on a step-by-step basis, for an attorney who may find themselves, either willingly or unwillingly, examining assignments of oil and gas leases filed in Oklahoma. STEP 1: WHAT TYPE OF INTEREST? First and foremost, the title examiner needs to determine the type of interest being assigned (or reserved) in the leasehold. More often than not, if the assignment is transferring an interest in a lease without overriding royalty language or net profits language, then a working interest is being assigned. When there is ambiguity, the title examiner should remember that a working interest is the right to  work  on the leased property — searching, developing and producing oil and gas. On the other hand, an overriding royalty interest is share in production attributable to a particular lease. STEP 2: WHAT AMOUNT OF INTEREST? Working interests tend to be relatively straightforward. Either the assignor is purporting to assign all of its right, title and interest under a lease, all of a lease (read 100 percent) or a fractional interest in a lease. Digressing a bit, now would be a good moment to discuss the difference between all right, title and interest  of the assignor  and 100 percent of a lease. All of the assignor’s right, title and interest could be 100 percent or could be some fractional interest. It depends on what the assignor owns of record. If an assignor assigns a lease without any fractional limitations or without the foregoing language limiting it to the assignor’s right, title and interest, then the assignor is purporting to assign 100 percent of the lease. The prudent examiner notes the distinction.

Overriding royalty interest can sometimes not be as straightforward. Often, the assignor decides to use a formula for the computation of the assigned or reserved overriding royalty interest. For example, a recitation in the assignment reads as follows: an overriding royalty interest equal to the difference between 20 percent and lease burdens. Here, the overriding royalty interest would be calculated by first adding up all the lease burdens, such as a one-eighth landowner’s royalty and a previously conveyed one-thirty-second overriding royalty interest, and then subtracting that number from 20 percent, which is represented mathematically as: 20% - (1/8 + 1/32) = 4.375%.

There are various business reasons for computing an assigned or reserved overriding royalty interest with the subtraction of lease burdens from a certain percentage, the most prominent being that assignments of leases typically cover a block of leases, which contain various lease net revenue interests. Showing the overriding royalty interest as a formula rather than a specific number allows the assignor to either retain or convey the leases at certain net revenue interest. In the prior example, assuming the assignor was assigning the overriding royalty interest, it was retaining an 80 percent net revenue interest in all the leases covered by the assignment except, of course, those leases which were already burdened greater than 20 percent. STEP 3: WHAT LEASE IS COVERED? All leasehold interests derive from a lease. Therefore, it is imperative that the examining attorney determine what lease is covered by an assignment. If the assignment covers one or just a few leases, then the lease(s) will probably be described somewhere in the body of the instrument. If the assignment covers multiple leases, then typically they will be described in an exhibit “A” attached thereto. However, it should be noted that in some cases an assignment may not describe a particular lease or leases but instead will include language that it is the intent to assign all leasehold rights in a particular tract of land, usually the unitized area. For example, an assignment may read that all of the assignor’s rights in the leasehold covering the SW/4 are transferred to the assignee without giving further explanation as to the underlying leases.  In this particular example, the assignor is conveying whatever leasehold rights it may own from whatever source such rights might derive as to the SW/4.

STEP 4: WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS TO THE ASSIGNED INTEREST? By far the most challenging (and often most ambiguous) aspect of an assignment is the limitations to the assigned interest. Like land itself, a lease is a bundle of sticks. A lease can be cut and carved any which way, limited only by the imagination of the oil and gas industry. If an assignor wants to assign a lease insofar as that lease covers a particular formation in the strata, then the assignor can do so. The following are standard limitations that the examining attorney should recognize.

An assignment can be limited to the wellbore of a well. A wellbore limitation means that the assignor is assigning only those rights to production from the wellbore of a certain well, arguably at the total depth it existed at the time of the assignment. All interest outside the wellbore are excluded from the assignment, entailing that a wellbore assignee can produce from shallower formations in the wellbore but cannot produce from deeper formations or lands outside the wellbore.

The central problem with wellbore only assignments is determining when in fact there is a wellbore only assignment. The title examiner should be aware that a wellbore assignment is the narrowest of assignments. Very limited rights to the lease are being assigned. It can be argued that the lease or unit and the lands covered by the lease or unit need only be described for informational purposes, as it is rights to the wellbore being assigned. Furthermore, the fact that a well or unit is mentioned in the description of the lease does not entail that the assignor intended to convey wellbore rights only. More often than not, a reference to a well or unit in Oklahoma is for informational purposes.

Some assignments are limited to certain depths or to a particular formation. For instances, an assignment may limit the assigned leases “insofar as said leases cover the Woodford Formation” or “insofar as from the surface to a depth of 8,100 feet.” Depth limitations are usually more prominent than wellbore limitations and are considerably less ambiguous. Furthermore, title examiners should always read an assignment thoroughly to determine whether a depth limitation is pertinent. Many times, such a limitation is buried in one of the numerous special provisions of the assignment or placed in one of the exhibits attached thereto.

In order to accommodate the formation of units, leases will often be assigned only as to a portion of the lands covered thereby. For example, a participant enters into a joint operating agreement with the operator that has proposed the drilling of a 40-acre unit well located in the NW/4 NW/4. If the participant owns all of a certain lease covering the N/2 NW/4, the participant may decide to assign only that portion of the lease covering the NW/4 NW/4, thereby retaining all rights in the NE/4 NW/4. Therefore, assignments may contain limitations as to the area acreage being conveyed.

CONCLUSION The foregoing steps serve as an introduction to interpreting assignments of oil and gas leases. Most certainly, each step of analysis could be accompanied by a more detailed explanation. That said, the key point to be made here is that the interpretation of assignments in oil and gas land titles requires a familiarization of the business practices of the oil and gas industry, not just an understanding of the governing law.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jereme M. Cowan is a managing partner at Cowan & Fleischer PLLC. Mr. Cowan’s practice fo-cuses on oil and gas land titles. He has planned, moderated and spoken at a number of oil and gas seminars sponsored by the Oklahoma Bar Association.

1.  See Hinds v. Phillips Petroleum Company , 1979 OK 22, 591 P.2d 697, 698 (1979) (stating that “[t]he cluster of rights comprised within an instrument we refer to ‘in deference to custom’ as an ‘oil and gas lease’ includes a great variety of common-law interests in land”). 2.  See Shields v. Moffitt , 1984 OK 42, 683 P.2d 530, 532-33 (1984) (finding that “the holder of an oil and gas lease during the primary term or as extended by production has a base or qualified fee,  i.e. , an estate in real property have the nature of a fee, but not a fee simple absolute”). 3.  See Hinds  at 699 (concluding that leasehold interests are freely alienable “in whole or in part”); Eugene Kuntz,  Kuntz, a Treatise on the Law of Oil and Gas , Volume Five, §64.1, 259 (1987) (asserting that the oil and gas lease is freely assignable “in the absence of a provision to the contrary”);  see also Shields  at 533 (holding that a lease clause restricting alienation was void). 4. John S. Lowe,  Oil and Gas Law in a Nutshell , Sixth Edition (2014). 5. Joyce Palomar,  Patton and Palomar on Land Titles , 3rd Edition, Volume One, 3 (2003). 6. Kenny A. Franks,  The Oklahoma Petroleum Industry  (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1980). 7.  See Plano Petroleum, LLC v. GHK Exploration, L.P. , 2011 OK 18 (2011). 8.  K & K Food Servs. v. S & H, Inc. , 2000 OK 31, 3 P.3d 705, 708. 9.  See Messner v. Moorehead , 1990 OK 17, ¶8, 787 P.2d 1270, 1272. 10.  Messner  at 1273. 11. 15 O.S. §161. 12.  Crockett v. McKenzie , 1994 OK 3, ¶5, 867 P.2d 463, 465.

Originally published in the  Oklahoma Bar Journal --  OBJ 88 pg. 285 (Feb. 11, 2017)

The Oil and Gas Report

What Are the Types of Interests in Federal Oil and Gas Leases and How Are They Assigned?

Federal oil and gas leases are administered by the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (“MLA”), and the implementing federal regulations. Federal leases have a slightly different ownership scheme than fee oil and gas leases. As to fee leases, the lessee owns a leasehold interest that includes the right to drill for and produce the leased substances, subject to royalty payments to the lessor. The term “working interest” is commonly used and is generally considered synonymous with the lessee’s interest and the term “leasehold interest.” As to federal leases, the lessee’s leasehold interest includes both record title and operating rights. Initially, these two types of interests are merged together as  the record title interest, but the operating rights interest can be severed from the record title interest by assignment.  The record title interest includes the obligation to pay rent and the rights to assign and relinquish the lease. [1] The operating rights interest authorizes the holder to drill for and conduct operations and produce the leased substances. [2] When all or a portion of the operating rights have been severed from the record title, the operating rights interest owner is primarily liable for its pro rata share of payment obligations under the lease while the record title interest owner is secondarily liable. [3] At the extreme, if all of the operating rights as to all depths are severed by assignment from the record title interest, the lessee owns “bare” record title interest and has no rights to drill for and produce the leased substances. The term “working interest” is generically associated with the operating rights interest unless said operating rights interest has not been severed from the record title interest, then it is associated with the record title interest. Otherwise, the range of interests that may be created out of federal leases is nearly the same as fee leases.

The interests in federal leases are generally conveyed by a “transfer,” being defined in the federal regulations as “any conveyance of an interest in a lease by assignment, sublease or otherwise.” [4] Set forth below is a discussion of the different types of interests that may be transferred in federal leases and whether the instrument transferring the interest must be filed with and approved by the BLM. [5]

Record Title Interests

The MLA and federal regulations use the term “assignment” for a transfer of all or a portion of the lessee’s record title interest in a lease. [6] All assignments of record title interests must be on the currently approved BLM form Assignment of Record Title Interest in a Lease for Oil and Gas or Geothermal Resources, Form 3000-003. [7] Record title interests may be transferred as to all or part of the acreage in the lease or as to either a divided or undivided interest therein. [8] Record title interests may not be transferred as to limited depths or horizons, separately as to either oil or gas, less than part of a legal subdivision, [9] or less than 640 acres (outside of Alaska). [10]

Upon receipt of the assignment, the BLM will engage in an “adjudication” process whereby the BLM will determine and identify the owners of interests and their percentage interest in the lease as a consequence of the assignment and approve the assignment if it meets all statutory and regulatory requirements. The rights of the assignee will not be recognized by the BLM until the assignment has been approved. [11]

Operating Rights Interests

The MLA and federal regulations use the term “sublease” for a transfer of a non-record title interest in a lease, including a transfer of operating rights. All transfers of operating rights interests must be on the currently approved BLM form Transfer of Operating Rights (Sublease) in a Lease for Oil and Gas or Geothermal Resources, Form 3000-3a. [12] For transfers of operating rights interests, the MLA and federal regulations do not contain any limitations on such transfers other than it must be as to “all or part of the acreage in the lease.” [13]

Upon receipt of the transfer, the BLM will engage in the adjudication process to determine and identify the owners of interests and their percentage interest in the lease as a consequence of the transfer and approve the assignment if it meets all statutory and regulatory requirements. The rights of the transferee will not be recognized by the BLM until the transfer has been approved. [14]   However there was a period of time where most state offices of the BLM did not adjudicate transfers of operating rights.

Beginning in 1985, the BLM issued internal guidance, Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 1986-175 (Dec. 30, 1985) (“IM 1986-175”), stating that it was not necessary for the BLM to “adjudicate” operating rights assignments [15] on the grounds that they are third-party contracts. The BLM adjudicators were instructed to stop adjudicating operating rights transfers, and to instead “rubber stamp” them within 30 days of their submission when there was no “evidence to the contrary regarding qualifications and proper bonding.” [16] Accordingly, most BLM offices began accepting transfers of operating rights and “approved” the transfers without confirming and determining the ownership of the operating rights interests. In 2013, the BLM issued Instruction Memorandum No. 2013-105 (April 4, 2013) (“IM 2013-105”), directing all BLM offices to immediately begin again adjudicate transfers of operating rights interests. [17]  Understanding that there would be a backlog to carry this out this directive, IM 2013-105 provides a priority schedule for adjudicating existing and future transfers of operating rights as follows: if first production occurs on or after October 1, 2012, adjudicate all transfers of operating rights immediately; if first production occurred prior to October 1, 2012, adjudicate as necessary to enable the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (“ONRR”) to issue appropriate orders to the owners; and adjudicate all remaining unadjudicated operating rights transfers when time and staffing allows.

Obviously, the BLM offices are faced with trying to adjudicate and determine the current operating rights interest owners based on over thirty years of potentially incomplete and possibly erroneous transfers contained in the BLM lease files. A survey was conducted in 2017 of the following BLM State Offices to determine how they were implementing IM 2013-105 and adjudicating transfers of operating rights. [18]

For leases occurring prior to 2012, the Colorado State Office is only conducting reviews for leases with production at the request of ONRR. When it discovers discrepancies, it considers those transfers null and void from their inception and does not provide or send out unapproved operating rights decision letters because the transfers were never adjudicated. Colorado is not willing to accept county records or other outside sources to assist in curing title deficiencies. For leases occurring after October 1, 2012, the Colorado Office will adjudicate all transfers accordingly.

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah [19]

The Montana and Utah State Office never stopped adjudicating transfers of operating rights; accordingly, IM 2013-105 did not change how they are adjudicating such transfers.

New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas [20]

The New Mexico State Office is conducting a piecemeal review of its lease files. Initially, when the New Mexico State Office received a new assignment and could not account for the purported interest to be assigned, they retroactively denied previously approved transfers either (a) all the way back until the title examiner could account for the purported interest; or (b) through 1991. It appears that recently, the New Mexico State Office has become willing to consider outside records in examining title to fill in gaps in currently filed assignments, such as recorded assignments, evidence of corporate successions, etc.

The Wyoming State Office adjudicates operating rights for all new leases, as well as any adjudications requested by ONRR. It also has plans to adjudicate operating rights for all producing leases according to staff availability. The Wyoming State Office is currently using the Lease Interest Worksheet to chain title retroactively and adjudicate operating rights at the request of the ONRR. During this review, and when any new transfer is filed, if the State Office examiner cannot account for the purported interest to be assigned, they stamp the Lease Interest Worksheet “discrepancy.” Thereafter, the Wyoming State Office will not approve any subsequent transfer until the problem in the chain of title is resolved. No notice of the discrepancy is provided to the parties who received interests through transfers now marked with a discrepancy, so without review of the current BLM case file for each lease or subsequently denied transfer, parties who believed they previously owned operating rights are not aware their rights have been called into question. This requires the Wyoming State Office to deny any subsequent transfers for leases containing a discrepancy, and to disregard any assignments occurring before the discrepancy that were previously approved.

In an attempt to complete a chain of title, bring current its files, and resolve any discrepancies, the Wyoming State Office is accepting a certified copy of an assignment recorded in the county records and attached to a BLM form Transfer of Operating Rights that is completed by general references to the attached county assignment. The Wyoming State Office will issue a decision stating that its records are incomplete and in order to complete its records, it is accepting and approving the assignment.

Overriding Royalty Interests, Production Payments, and Other Interests

The federal regulations make specific reference to only two other types of interests, overriding royalty interests and production payments. [21] Transfers of these interests must be filed with the BLM and will be included in the lease file, but are not subject to BLM approval. [22] While they can be filed on either a BLM form assignment, [23] any form of assignment may be used.

While net profits interests and carried interests are not expressly mentioned in the regulations governing assignments of interests, such interests are included in the definition of “interest.” [24] The usual practice is to follow the same filing procedures prescribed from assignments of overriding royalty interests and production payments above.

Liens and Security Interests under Mortgages and Other Financing Instruments

Liens and security interests in federal leases created under mortgages and other financing instruments do not fall within the definition of “interests” under the regulations and are not required to be accepted for filing under the regulations. Most BLM offices will discourage or even reject the filing of mortgages and other financing instruments. As a result, mortgages and other financing instruments are typically only filed in the county records.

Transfers by Operation of Law

The regulations identify two types of transfers by operation of law: death and corporate reorganization. When an owner dies, his or her rights will be recognized as having been transferred to the heirs, devisees, executor, or administrator of the estate, upon the filing of a statement that all parties are qualified to hold an interest in a federal lease. [25] The BLM office will typically also require, along with the statement, supporting information concerning the demise of the owner.

In the case of corporate name change, merger, or conversion, no assignment is required unless otherwise required by state law. The regulations require that notification of the name change, merger, or conversion be furnished in the proper BLM office. [26]

_____________________

Prior to filing any transfer with the BLM, it is always to the advantage of the parties to the transfer to make inquiry of the oil and gas adjudication personnel at the applicable BLM office to confirm that the parties have prepared the transfer in compliance with the office’s policies and procedures.

[1] 43 CFR § 3100.0-5(c). Record title is the ownership in a federal lease as recognized by the BLM.  Therefore, it has no connection to the title or leasehold ownership reflected in the applicable county records.

[2] 43 CFR § 3100.0-5(d). The term “operating rights” should not be confused with the right to serve as operator on the ground. An operator is the person or entity that is responsible under the terms and conditions of the lease for operations being conducted on the leased lands; it can include, but is not limited to, the lessee record title interest owner or operating rights interest owner. See 43 CFR § 3160.0-5

[3] See 43 CFR §§ 3106.7-6(b), 3216.12.

[4] Id. § 3100.0-5(e).

[5] Not addressed herein are the qualifications to own an interest in a federal lease and the specific filing requirements.

[6] Id. § 3100.0-5(e).

[7] Most recent revision date is August 1, 2015.

[8] Id. § 3106.1(a). Note, the assignment of the entire interest in a portion of the leasehold will result in a segregation of the lease.

[9] Generally, requiring all of a governmental lot or quarter-quarter section under the Public Land Survey System.

[10] 30 USC § 1987a; 43 CFR § 3106.1. The 640 acre limitation was added to Section 30A of the MLA in 1987 pursuant to the Federal Oil and Gas Onshore Leasing Reform Act. Assignments of record title of less than 640 acres will be approved if the assignment constitutes the entire lease or is demonstrated to further the development of oil and gas.

[11] 43 CFR § 3106.1(b).

[12] Most recent revision date is August 1, 2015.

[13] 43 CFR § 3106.1. There is no written guidance defining “part of the acreage” or addressing this apparent acreage requirement. It appears that at least some minimal amount of acreage must be transferred to comply. Accordingly, although some BLM State offices will accept transfers of operating rights for less than 40 acres, they will not accept for approval, or even for filing purposes only, transfers of operating rights in a wellbore only.

[14] Id. § 3106.1(b).

[15] The term “assignment” is used generically in the IM applying to an assignment of either a record title interest or an operating rights interest.

[16] IM 1986-175.

[17] IM 2013-105 was issued in direct response to the 1996 amendment to Section 102(a) of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act, 30 USC § 1712(a), providing that the owner of the operating rights shall be primarily liable for its pro rata share of payment obligations under the lease and the owner of the record title interest (if different from the owner of the operating rights interest) became secondarily liable. The federal regulations at 43 CFR Section 3016.7-6 and 3216.12, reflect these same principals. Furthermore, the BLM form Transfer of Operating Rights (Sublease) in a Lease for Oil and Gas or Geothermal Resources specifically provides that the transferee’s signature “constitutes acceptance of all applicable terms, conditions, stipulations, and restrictions pertaining to the lease… (Part B, paragraph 3) and “upon approval of a transfer of operating rights (sublease), the sublessee is responsible for all lease obligations under the lease rights transferred to the sublessee” (Part C, paragraph 8).

[18] See Jared A. Hembree and Uriah J. Price, Holding a Wolf by the Ears – A Look into BLM’s Policy on the Retroactive Adjudication of Operating Rights, 63 Rocky Mt. Min. L. Inst., Paper 11 (2017) (not yet published).

[19] The Montana State Office administers federal lands in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The Utah State Office administers federal lands in Utah only.

[20] The New Mexico State Office administers federal lands in New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

[21] 43 CFR § 3106.1.

[22] 43 CFR § 3106.1(b).

[23] Both of the current BLM forms include a box that can be checked to indicate that it is for an overriding royalty interest assignment.

[24] 43 CFR § 3000.0-5(1).

[25] Id. § 3106.8-1.

[26] Id. § 3106.8-3.

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Commodities

Working Interest: Meaning, Overview, Advantages and Disadvantages

James Chen, CMT is an expert trader, investment adviser, and global market strategist.

What Is Working Interest?

Working interest is a term for a type of investment in oil and gas drilling operations in which the investor is directly liable for a portion of the ongoing costs associated with exploration, drilling, and production. As part of the investment, working interest owners also fully participate in the profits of any successful wells. This stands in contrast to royalty interests , in which an investor's cost is usually limited to the initial investment, also resulting in a lower potential for large profits .

Key Takeaways

• A working interest is a type of investment in oil and gas operations.
• In a working interest, investors are liable for ongoing costs associated with the project but also share in any profits of production.
• Both the costs and risks of a working interest are extremely high.
• There are certain tax benefits related to costs and losses in a working interest.

Understanding Working Interest

Working interest, also referred to as operating interest, provides investors with a percentage ownership of the drilling operation, functioning as a lease, providing the investor a right to participate in drilling activities and a right to the resources produced from that activity. Along with deriving an income from the production of the resource, the investors are also responsible for a percentage of the expenses related to its acquisition.

There are two types of working interest: operated and non-operated. Operated working interest has a designated operator that makes all operational decisions. The operator selects wells, determines drilling, and handles all the day to day operations.

A non-operated working interest member is not involved in daily operations but is consulted on production decisions. The well operator, after operating expenses have been covered, divides any additional funds between those holding a working interest, creating the source of income. Those holding a working interest may deduct certain costs, such as those associated with the depreciation of equipment.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Working Interest

With all types of investments, there are going to be advantages and disadvantages. Investing in a working interest related to oil and gas, the advantages and disadvantages are as follows:

• The upside for financial gain is large. If wells prove successful, profits are sizable and can last for years.
• Tax benefits exist as losses are seen as active income and can be offset against other income.
• Tax incentives where certain costs are tax-deductible. Sometimes 65%-80% of the costs of a well's funding.
• An active investment where decision making is in your hands.

Disadvantages

• The upfront investment is extremely high as one is paying for the costs of production.
• There is a greater risk of loss as the costs of investing are high.
• Investors may be liable for on the job calamities, such as employee injuries or damage to the environment.

Tax Implications of Working Interest Income

Since most working interest income is treated as self-employment income because the investor is part of a partnership, it will generally be taxed as such, meaning that an investor will not be held to net investment income surtax but to Social Security and Medicare. Since regular income tax payments are not automatically withheld from these funds, investors are responsible for making estimated tax payments based on the current Internal Revenue Service (IRS) standards and rates. As of 2020, the self-employment tax rate is 15.3% in the United States.

Additionally, if the investor receives free resources, such as natural gas service to his property from the company with the associated leasing rights, these amounts may also qualify as income and may be taxed as such.

Investors with working interests are eligible for certain tax deductions based on the operating costs associated with the business. This can include business expenses of a tangible or intangible nature, such as equipment costs or utility payments.

Risks of Working Interest

As there is a potential downside for financial loss and other liabilities due to investing in a working interest, an individual should take steps to reduce that risk. It is recommended that when entering into a working interest investment, an individual sets up a limited liability company (LLC) or other tax partnerships. The main reason to do so is to be protected from any liability. An LLC can protect investors from risks incurred in the working interest. Conversely, it can protect the working interest from liabilities incurred by the investor.

On the other hand, individuals can look to investing in royalty interests that may provide an opportunity to participate in oil and gas investments with a lower level of risk than a working interest. While working interest investments require continuous input from investors in regards to expenses, risking larger losses if expenses outweigh income, royalty interests generally require no additional funding from those investors, making additional losses beyond the initial investment less likely.

Internal Revenue Service. " Self-Employment Tax (Social Security and Medicare Taxes) ." Accessed June 16, 2021.

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

• Acquisitions
• Mineral Management

What is Working Interest in Oil and Gas and How to Calculate It

Working interest refers to an investor’s responsibility for costs related to exploration, drilling, and production of natural resources. A working interest owner participates fully in all profits from the well due to their investment. In contrast, an investor with royalty interests is usually limited to their initial investment, which leads to a lower potential for large profits.

A working interest provides investors with a percentage ownership of the production profits, a right to the drilling activities, and the resources produced. In addition to receiving income from resource production, investors also bear the responsibility for a percentage of the acquisition costs.

In this article, we will talk about different types of working interests, their benefits and disadvantages and how they are calculated and taxed.

What is a Working Interest in Oil and Gas?

With a working interest , oil and gas developers can obtain a lease allowing them to explore, drill and produce oil and gas from a piece of land.

Working interest owners have to contribute a portion of the costs for leasing, drilling, and operating the oil or gas wells. In addition to the royalty payments due on royalty interests , the owner of a working interest receives a corresponding percentage of the revenues from production.

So, if a property has a royalty interest of 20%, the owner of a 100% working interest would be expected to pay 100% of the drilling costs while retaining 80% of the production profits. The remaining 20% is due to the holder of the royalty interest. If there are multiple owners, they share 80% of the profit among themselves according to the size of their investments.

Note that none of the above depends on the productivity of the oil well. One geographic area may be more productive than another, but that will not affect the net revenue division. The calculation is still the same.

In oil and gas production , working interests may be a lease , well , or drilling unit . Purchasing and maintaining one costs thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars at the outset. A working interest is a substantial upfront investment initially.

Working Interest vs. Mineral Ownership

Working interests and mineral interest ownership are two types of oil and gas rights. Let’s examine the difference between both.

Working interests are a lease agreement that grants oil and gas companies rights to explore, drill, and produce natural resources from a land. Mineral interest ownership is a recorded property document outlining the legal owner of natural resources below surface level.

The mineral owner and the holder of the working interest must adhere to the terms of the lease for it to be effective. An inactive well typically ends the agreement once the well no longer produces oil or gas, or when the lease with the oil and gas companies expires. Like any form of real estate, minerals can be owned forever. Despite this, states such as Louisiana enforce Napoleonic Law that reverts mineral rights to the original landowner. These are just a few of the differences between the two types of ownership rights.

Types of Working Interest

There are 3 main types of working interest:

• Operating working interest – Other working interest owners include the person who runs the operation as an oil or gas investment. The operating working interest owners handle the costs of operations and the payments to holders of royalty interests.
• Non-operating working interest – this type comprises an ownership interest in the well, lease, or other production areas with no responsibility to operate or pay the operation cost of a producing unit.
• Carried working interest – this type comprises a partnership between different parties who own a working interest in a well. Several parties can share their working interests through a joint venture, a partnership in which a group provides the required finance to keep a well functioning. Investors are not required to participate in daily activities. They pay upfront, and when the production starts making profits receive a share of the revenue generated.

How to Calculate Working Interest in Oil and Gas Investments?

To calculate the working interest owned, you have to know the Net Revenue Interest. This interest is the share of production revenue an investor receives after investing in the working interest. To calculate the net revenue interest , you deduct the royalty interests from the total amount generated from production.

To calculate the net revenue of the working interest, you subtract the RI share from the total percentage of the working interest. Then multiply the remaining shares by the sum of the subtraction.

So, for example, a group of people invests in a working interest investment in a well, with the following shares:

• Joe, royalty owner – 15%
• John, working interest – 10%
• Larry, overriding royalty – 5%
• Megan, working interest – 12.5%
• Moe, working interest – 12.5%
• Jack, working interest – 20%
• Joseph, working interest – 10%
• Mary, working interest – 15%

Among these working interests, the total royalty owners amount to 20% (15% + 5%).

Subtract the royalty owners’ percentage from the profits generated by the well.

So, 100% – 20% = 80% left from the 100% profits from the well.

Multiply each investment by the percentage of profit:

• Joe, royalty owner – 15% * 80% = 12% NRI
• John, working interest – 10% * 80% = 8% NRI
• Larry, overriding royalty – 5% * 80% = 4% NRI
• Megan, working interest – 12.5% * 80% = 10% NRI
• Moe, working interest – 12.5% * 80% = 10% NRI
• Jack, working interest – 20% * 80% = 16% NRI
• Joseph, working interest – 10% * 80% = 8% NRI
• Mary, working interest – 15% * 80 = 12% NRI

Aside from the royalty interest owners, the total NRI of the working interest owners is 80%. The formula is the same regardless of the quantity of interest or the number of decimals it contains.

What are the Benefits of Being a Working Interest Owner?

As with all types of investments, there are benefits. The benefits of investing in working interest include:

• If the well becomes a success, profits are likely to be substantial and can last for years.
• Since tax benefits are seen as a loss and losses are considered active income, they can be offset by other income.
• It is an active investment where you take part in production decisions.
• Working interest owners sometimes receive tax incentives. It can be worth around 65% – 80% of the cost of a working interest investment.

Are there any Disadvantages and Risks?

Apart from the benefits, there are also downsides to this type of investment. Here are some risks of taking part in this type of investment:

• Initially, the investment is high since you must pay for the cost of production.
• Due to the high cost of investment, there is a high chance of running at a loss.
• On-the-job calamities, such as employee injury or environmental damage, may place investors at risk.

How is Working Interest Taxed in the Oil and Gas Industry?

For tax purposes, most working interest income is treated as passive income because the investment is part of a partnership and, as such, will generally be taxed.

As a result, the investor has a taxpayer’s liability for investment income tax. Investors must pay the estimated tax based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax rules and rates, as the tax on regular investment income is not automatically withheld. In the United States, the self-employment tax rate is 15.3%.

If an investor receives resources as a gift, such as lease rights to an oil well, these may qualify as taxable income. Working interest investors are eligible for tax benefits based on the operating costs of their investment. These may include tangible drilling costs or intangible drilling costs , such as equipment costs or utility payments.

How Do You Report Working Interest?

Schedule C is used to show the operating expenses, depletion, and gross receipts of working interest. As a working interest owner, you will see your gross receipts. Operating expenses, direct and indirect, should be noted in Schedule C. They include a dry hole, overheads, administrative and legal, taxes, and other operational costs related to oil and gas development.

Although a working interest is exempt from net investment income tax, it is subject to self-employment taxes, as reflected in Schedule SE.

The above is all the necessary information you need to know about investing in a working interest in oil and gas in case you want to become an investor. If you have no trusted broker to negotiate a working interest deal or ask for more information, count on Pheasant Energy. We are industry experts in oil and gas rights with more than 70 years of experience and a trustworthy broker for buyers and sellers of working interests. Get in touch with us today.

1. What is the difference between working interest and royalty interest?

Working interests are oil and gas investments that give owners the right to exploit the resources on a property. Royalty interests are the rights belonging to the landowner who leased out the property to the working interest owner.

2. Is a working interest real property?

No! A working interest is an agreement that grants its owner certain rights over a property.

3. Is working interest passive income?

Yes. Holding a working interest in the oil and gas industry may be a passive activity. Sometimes the investors are a group of people, and not all of them are actively involved with the production process.

Related Articles

One response to “What is Working Interest in Oil and Gas and How to Calculate It”

[…] Most often, taxpayers will report royalty income on Schedule E, either as rents and royalties or working interest. Sometimes, they may opt to report it as both and do so on Schedule […]

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Farmout Agreements: The Basics, Negotiations and Motivations

Posted by: Austin Brister in Primers and Insights , The Deal Corner

The Basics:

A Farmout Agreement is an agreement with a working interest owner (“Farmor”) whereby the Farmor agrees to assign working interest to the Farmee in exchange for certain contractually agreed services. Typically these services include drilling a well to a certain depth, in a certain location, in a certain timeframe, and also typically stipulates that the well must obtain commercial production. After this contractually agreed service is rendered, the Farmee is said to have “earned” an assignment. This Assignment comes after the services were completed, and is subject to the reservation of an overriding royalty interest in favor of the Farmor.

This overriding royalty interest is usually said to be a “convertible override.” This means that upon payout, which is the point where the drilling costs have been recouped from production from the well, the Farmor can elect to convert this override into a portion of the working interest. This decision whether to convert or not depends on whether the Farmor wishes to join in production costs in exchange for the possibility of a larger return on NRI. If the Farmor does not wish to take the risks associated with the cost-bearing working interest, he will choose not to convert the override. If the Farmor is comfortable with the project costs and proceeds from the well, he will decide to convert his override into working interest. All of these terms are negotiable in the Farmout Agreement.

Here’s an example. You are working as a landman for David Oil Co. You have retained a small battalion of field landmen and leased up a nice large area your geologist believes will be productive. This gives you 100% of the working interest. You pay 100% of the expenses, and receive 100% of the net revenue interest (all the proceeds less royalty burdens, overriding royalty burdens, tax, etc.). Your geologist is excited and believes the geology is ripe to provide a high return. However, given the particular geology, you will need to drill directionally to a deep formation. The deeper the formation, the more it’s going to cost, and you’re not sure you have enough in your budget to pay for it.

In comes Goliath Oil Co., who was late to the play and wasn’t able to lease your area. Goliath has a lot of money and it wants in because its geologists agree that there is a lot of money to be made in your area. Rather than wait around for your leases to expire, Goliath chooses to approach you and offer to “farm in” to your working interest. It is willing to drill the well(s) for you and pay the drilling costs (what is known as a “drilling carry”), in exchange for you assigning them a percentage of your working interest. Another way to think of it is obtaining drilling services where the consideration is an assignment of working interest rather than cash.

Negotiating the Farmout Agreement

As with all negotiations, understanding the other party’s interests and motivations is key to effective negotiation and properly structuring a complete deal. You could Consider negotiation skills training to equip your people to negotiate with confidence and success to help in this aspect. You should be able to better estimate how far the other party will be willing to give and take in negotiating the terms of the Farmout Agreement. Knowing this will also help you understand the other party’s best alternative to the negotiated agreement . The following are the most common interests motivating Farmors and Farmees.

Interests Motivating the Farmor :

• Drilling so as to maintain the lease (satisfy primary term, avoid Pugh clause consequences, satisfy continuous drilling obligations, etc.);
• Monetizing an abandoned prospect;
• Sharing risk;
• Obtaining geological information from the farmee and the farmee’s operations; and

Interests Motivating the Farmee :

• Quickly obtain acreage;
• Obtain acreage without leasing operations, and without expending capital on buying leases;
• Utilize equipment and personnel that would otherwise not be utilized;
• Gain interest in a prospect area that is already leased, but the farmor is not developing; and

Thoroughly understanding both your motivations and the other party’s motivations are essential to effective negotiation and deal-making. This is crucial so that you understand you and your adversary’s must-haves and true bargaining room. Every good negotiator does this whether they consciously think of it or not . Understanding your motivations and alternatives are important to keep your head on straight and to ensure you are picking the right battles. On the other hand, understanding the other party’s motivations and alternatives is crucial for two main reasons: (1) you will better know how far you can push the other side to obtain favorable terms and conditions, (2) you will better understand and anticipate which terms the other side will insist on, and (3) you can make the other side’s alternatives less attractive, harder to implement, or less valuable, all of which may help your side of the negotiations.

In my experience, including when I was in the heavy construction industry, knowing what the other party was truly after made negotiations much easier. It is not always possible, but when we can closely narrow in on our motivations and confidently estimate the other side’s motivations, we seldomly fight tooth and nail over every provision, and are able to focus in on what actually matters to each party. In the end, we have better agreements.

If you want to know more, make sure to check out Key Provisions of a Farmout Agreement .

I’d love to hear your thoughts, comments, stories, and suggestions in the comments! What were the factors motivating your most recent Farmout Agreement?

• Latest Posts

Austin Brister

Latest posts by austin brister ( see all ).

• Miscellaneous Case Updates - June 25, 2020
• Strip and Gores Doctrine Extends Conveyance to Include Adjacent Severed Mineral Interest - June 22, 2020
• Can Emails Form a Purchase Contract? Texas Supreme Court Tackles the Issue in Two Recent Cases - June 18, 2020

Footnotes [ + ]

MRP 43: Overriding Royalty Interests

• Post author: Matt
• Post published: January 10, 2020
• Post category: Podcast

Please Share This Share this content

• Opens in a new window

In this episode, we talk about Overriding Royalty Interests, also sometimes called Overrides or ORRI’s.  We cover everything you need to know about Overrides if you have inherited them, are looking to invest in ORRI’s, or just want to know more. 

Using the embedded player above, you can download the episode to your computer or listen to it here!  Be sure to also subscribe on iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts and please leave us an honest rating and review.  We read every one of them and sincerely appreciate any feedback you have. To ask us a question to be featured on an upcoming episode, please leave a comment below or send an email to [email protected] .

What is an Overriding Royalty Interest?

• An Overriding Royalty Interest is a type of royalty interest that is carved out of the Working Interest in a property and does not affect the mineral owner.
• These are often used in the industry as a form of payment to geologists, landmen, engineers, or brokers who are involved in putting together an oil and gas prospect.
• It is also sometimes used when selling a lease, the seller may retain an override in the property
• An ORRI is an undivided interest in the proceeds from the sale of oil and gas, similar to a typical oil and gas royalty that a mineral owner receives.  Like other royalties, they are not burdened with drilling or operating costs 
• A unique element to an Override is that it is limited to a specific tract of land covered by an oil and gas lease and if that lease is allowed to expire, the ORRI expires with it.  Since they can expire when the lease is up, they aren’t perpetual in nature like mineral rights so while a mineral owner could lease their minerals again, the Override simply goes away.

Other Payments Carved Out of the Working Interest:

• Also, a notable difference vs. other types of Royalty Interests is the ownership is a percentage of production or production revenue produced by the acreage described in the lease, also that it is free of all costs of drilling and producing.
• There are also other similar forms of non-operated interests such as a production payments which is basically the same concept as an override but the production payment terminates when the specific amount of production or money has been received by the owner of the production payment. 
• Another type is a net profits interest which like it sounds pays the owner the net amount based on net production after specific costs have been deducted. 
• All 3 types are carved out of the Working Interest (the percentage ownership in an oil and gas lease that grants the owner the right to drill a well), but we are going to focus on Overrides today.
• If you are investing in Overriding royalties, this is potentially a more risky investment and you should value them accordingly.  In many cases, if investing in an override it may only make sense to pay based on existing production. In some cases where the lease is solidly held by production (say by vertical well) and there is a lot of horizontal drilling nearby then it may make sense to value based on potential future wells in addition to existing production.
• The scenario where there is only one well holding the lease, if operational issues come up or it is no longer economic to operate, the operator may plug & abandon the well and the ORRI could go away sooner than expected.
• Or, worst case scenario if you sell a lease and retain an override you have no control over the operator’s decisions whether or not to drill a well or to let the lease expire. This is unlike the scenario where the mineral owner can re-lease minerals to someone else if the lease expires.
• That said, some states have protections in place to protect non-operated interest owners from this situation if the operator lets the original lease expire and then leases the same tracts of land from the same lessor just so that it is free and clear of the original overriding royalty interest.  To protect yourself from this situation, (sometimes referred to as a “washout”) you might be able to include language in grants or assignment documents to protect you. Saying this for info purposes only…If you get into this situation, consult a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction.
• If you had a relative that worked in the oil & gas industry, you inherited mineral rights, it might be that your relative owned overrides as well

How to Find Out if You Own an Overriding Royalty Interest

• There are basically two ways to do this, 1st to hire a landman to search county records where you have inherited minerals to see if any grants or assignments were made to the person you inherited other property from.
• 2nd is to perform the title search yourself, either in person in the county courthouse or as is the case with many counties, you can often do this online.  We cover more about how to perform a title search in episode 10 ).
• Basically the steps would be to search the county grantor/grantee index for the name of your relative to see if there are Assignment documents that grant them an override.  Your relative may be either the grantor, as in the case where they owned the lease and assigned it to someone else but retained an override, or they might show up as the grantee if they received an override as a form of payment for some other type of work.
• Another thing to do is search by legal description.  In this case, you may need to look at any leases that might have been taken in the time of your relative to see if there is anything.

How to Interpret an Overriding Royalty Interest

• A caveat here is that since laws vary from state to state, it is best to consult with a qualified attorney to help interpret lease and assignment documents so that you can understand exactly what is covered and how big the override is.
• That said, will cover few scenarios to illustrate the point that overrides are very dependant on language.
• For example, Override may include proportionate reduction language.  To describe this means will talk about a mineral lease where language is included to proportionally reduce the landowner royalty interest in the ratio of  the mineral interests covered by the lease to the full mineral interest in the covered lands. In other words, if you own ½ of the minerals under a specific tract and have a 1/8th landowner royalty interest, your interest would be reduced to reflect the mineral interest covered by the oil and gas lease or in other words, you would get ½ of 1/8th and could also be further reduced based on the tract factor if the spacing unit for a covered well isn’t 100% on your lands.
• Similar to oil and gas lease, an override can be reduced proportionate to the mineral interest covered by the applicable oil and gas lease.
• In another scenario the override may only be reduced proportionate to the working interest being assigned (if it is not 100%).  So even if the lease covers minerals where the lessor owns less than 100% of the minerals under the specified tracts of land (called the “leased premises” in lease), if the language in the assignment document for the override says that “⅛ of 8/8ths Overriding Royalty Interest” is reserved without mentioning anything specific to the covered lands or the lease then the owner of the override would receive an undivided ⅛ of 8/8ths override that isn’t proportionately reduced, even if the covered lessor only owned ½ of the minerals like our earlier scenario.
• So, overriding royalty interests may be interpreted literally so language becomes very important and this is where it is critical to have an attorney review any assignment documents.
• Language in the lease (e.g. all the things we mention in the oil and gas leasing episode – Episode 6 ).  For example, if the lease only covered oil and gas and other minerals down to but not below a specific formation, any wells would need to be in the covered interval.  Any other wells producing from deeper formations might not apply to you.
• Proportionate reduction language in the assignment doc
• What expenses are to be borne by the override?
• What happens to the override if the covered il and gas lease is modified or renewed?
• Are there any drilling obligations other than those already covered by the oil and gas lease?  
• How is pooling or unitization covered and does it require consent from the owner of the override?
• When in doubt, get it in writing!

How to tell if the Oil and Gas Lease (and the Override) is Still Active:

• Look for release of oil and gas lease recorded with county, this will tell you definitively that lease has expired.
• In absence of this, look at state oil and gas commission website to identify if there are any producing wells on the leased land.
• Remember, you will need to check what depths and/or formations the producting wells were drilled into if there are any depth restrictions associated with the governing oil and gas lease. It could be that the producing wells are in a different formation and your lease may no longer be active.

Thanks for Listening!

To share your thoughts:.

• Leave a comment or question below (we read each one and your question may be featured in a future episode)!
• Ask a question or leave us feedback via email or voicemail: (720) 580-2088.

To help out the show:

Subscribe and leave a review on iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts – we read each one and greatly appreciate it.  Plus, you can get a shout out on a future episode!

Thanks again – until next time!

You Might Also Like

MRP 203: How to Navigate Inheritance Issues with Minerals and Royalties

MRP 69: Tim Pawul, Host of the Minerals and Royalties Podcast

MRP 233: How to Find Oil & Gas Info for Utah

Akers & Thompson LLC

Serving the Rocky Mountain Oil and Gas Industry for over 30 years

• Mission Statement
• Articles & Publications

OVERRIDING ROYALTY INTERESTS: PITFALLS, PRECEDENT, AND PROTECTION

The following article was presented by John K. H. Akers, Jr., Attorney at Law, at the Fiftieth Annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute (July 22, 23 & 24, 2004)

See 50 Rocky Mt. Min. L. Inst. 21-1 (2004)

Available in a PowerPoint Presentation or a Word Document .

§ 21.01   Introduction

[1]   The Definition and Nature of an Overriding Royalty Interest

[2]   Other Forms of Nonoperating Interests

§ 21.02   “Extension or Renewal” Clauses Applicable to Overrides

[1]   Washout Protection in the Absence of an “Extension or Renewal” Clause

[2]   Washout Protection Under the “Oklahoma Rule”

[3]   Interpretation of the “Extension or Renewal” Clause in Other Jurisdictions

[4]   Miscellaneous “Extension or Renewal” Clause Cases

[5]   Application of the Rule Against Perpetuities

§ 21.03   Calculation of Overriding Royalty Interests

§ 21.04   Enforcement of Express and Implied Covenants by the Overriding Royalty Interest Owner

[1]   Enforcement of Implied Covenants as “Running With the Land”

[2]   Enforcement of Implied Covenants Arising Out of Express Covenants in the Assignment

§ 21.05   Pooling and Unitization

§ 21.06   The Nonoperating Interest and Bankruptcy

§ 21.07   Matters to Be Considered in Drafting an Assignment or Reservation of an Overriding Royalty Interest

§ 21.01  Introduction

An adversarial relationship, the result of conflicting economic interests, exists between the operating and nonoperating interest owners in an oil and gas lease. Owners of operating interests, the cost-bearing working interest, must bear, in addition to the risks of geological misinterpretations, mechanical failures, environmental obstructionists, and confiscatory taxation, the financial burden of nonoperating interests. Owners of the latter, consisting of overriding royalty interests, production payments, net profits interests, and the like, expect their allotted share of oil and gas free of the expense of exploration, development, and operation-“freeloaders” as perceived by the burdened operating interest owners.

The owners of nonoperating interests, in their simplest form, have no control over the decisions that dictate whether the lease that is burdened by their interest will be drilled or abandoned. Since nonoperating interests, absent contractual protection or special circumstances, expire or terminate at the same time as the lease that they are carved out of, there are thousands of sad stories of landmen and geologists who assigned a lease to an operator in exchange for an overriding royalty interest, then watched helplessly as their lease expired, without any effort on the part of the operator to develop it, only to discover that the operator had taken a new lease from the same lessor, covering the same lands, but free and clear of their overriding royalty interest.

It doesn’t have to be that way. The courts have never hesitated to enforce written provisions in grants and assignments of nonoperating interests which give the owners a say in the operation of a lease. Even in the absence of a written agreement, the courts have been able, with some regularity, to recognize the difference between a shrewd operator and an unscrupulous one, and to construct rules and remedies designed to protect the nonoperating interest owner from the latter.

This paper will highlight the advantages and disadvantages of the nonoperating interest, and summarize recent court decisions that have altered the rights and liabilities traditionally associated with ownership of such interests. Wishing to show no preference for the burden or the burdened, the author will also discuss the protection that current laws afford to both the nonoperating interest owner who seeks to ensure the perpetuation of his or her interest and the operating interest owner who seeks to limit the influence that the nonoperating interest owner can exert over operations.

[1]       The Definition and Nature of an Overriding Royalty Interest

An overriding royalty interest is a nonoperating interest that is carved out of the working interest of an oil and gas lease, rather than the royalty interest. It can be created through a conveyance, but it is more commonly created by a reservation in the assignment or transfer of an oil and gas lease. It is a nonpossessory interest that attaches only when its share of oil and gas is reduced to possession, giving the owner no right, absent an agreement to the contrary, to participate in decisions with regard to the development and operation of the burdened lease. [1] Since an overriding royalty interest is “carved out” of the leasehold interest, it is limited in duration to the term of the burdened lease. [2]

Unless the grant or reservation of the interest provides otherwise, the owner of an overriding royalty interest is entitled to its specified share of oil or gas produced under the terms of the lease free and clear of drilling, completing, and operating costs. [3] However, it is almost universally accepted that the overriding royalty interest owners will bear their proportionate share of production and severance taxes. [4]

Whether a jurisdiction classifies an override as real or personal property will usually depend on how the jurisdiction classifies a landowner’s royalty interest. [5] In most jurisdictions an overriding royalty interest is regarded as real property. [6] The notable exceptions are Kansas and Oklahoma, where an overriding royalty interest is considered personal property before and after it is produced. [7] It is too simplistic to state that a jurisdiction will only classify an overriding royalty interest as either real or personal property. In reality, courts will usually characterize an override as an interest in real property for purposes that affect the land involved, and as a personal property interest for purposes of payments that arise from the interest. [8]

Since an overriding royalty interest is a nonpossessory right that attaches only when the oil and gas is brought to the surface, it cannot be adversely possessed or partitioned, [9] and the owner is not entitled to possessory remedies like trespass to try title (an action to regain possession from a trespasser). [10] Conversely, a lessee cannot bring a partition action in an attempt to extinguish an overriding royalty interest that the lessee claims has overburdened the working interest to the extent that further production, development, or sale of a lease is impossible. [11] The realty/personalty distinction that applies to an override allows the owner to bring a quiet title action to perfect title to the owner’s interest in a lease (real property) but to also maintain a conversion action for revenues due as a result of actual production (personal property). [12]

When the circumstances dictate that the overriding royalty interest is real property: (1) the Statute of Frauds will apply to any instrument creating an override, requiring at minimum a written memorandum signed by the party who bears the override, describing the agreement in enough detail that parol evidence will not be necessary to prove up any substantive terms; [13] (2) specific performance is available as a remedy to compel an assignment or conveyance of the interest [14] assuming that the terms of the contract are clear, and that there has been partial performance of the contract by the party seeking such a remedy; [15] and (3) state recording statutes will apply to the instrument creating the override, and will mandate that the instrument be recorded to ensure priority as against subsequent bona fide purchasers for value without actual notice. [16]

[2]  Other Forms of Nonoperating Interests

Although this chapter focuses primarily on the creation and protection of overriding royalty interests, there are other forms of nonoperating interests that are similar to overrides. With the exceptions noted below, the legal precedents set forth in the cases discussed herein will apply interchangeably to all nonoperating interests.

A production payment (sometimes referred to as an “oil payment,” especially if limited to oil production) is “a share of the oil [or gas] produced from described premises, free of the costs of production at the surface, terminating when a given volume of production has been paid over or when a specified sum from the sale of such oil [or gas] had been realized.” [17]

[T]he only significant difference between an overriding royalty interest and a production payment is that an overriding royalty interest continues for the entire term of the lease, whereas a production payment terminates when the specified amount of production or money has been received by the owner of the production payment. Thus, in any state where an overriding royalty is considered to be realty, a production payment should also be a present interest in land. [18]

The production payment is gaining popularity as a way to finance oil and gas operations and purchases, but it differs from a mortgage secured by production so long as no personal obligation exists on the part of the burdened party to pay the stated amount. [19]

A net profits interest differs from an overriding royalty interest to the extent that the former is to be paid out of net production after specified costs have been recovered by the burdened party. [20] Under the usual net profits arrangement, the burdened party pays all costs of exploration and development, then after recouping these costs from its share of production distributes to the owner of the net profits interest the latter’s agreed share of the “profits.” [21]

Although some commentators have argued that the net profits interest should be viewed as an interest in real property, [22] the nature of a net profits interest is such that many jurisdictions have interpreted it as an interest in the proceeds of production and therefore personal property, rather than an interest carved out of the working interest in a lease, like an override or production payment, which is generally considered real property. [23]

The only thing that can be said with any assurance [with regard to the question whether a net profits interest is real or personal property] is that a net profits interest may or may not be an interest in land and that the nature of the interest and the rights of its owner must be determined from the provisions of the instrument which created it. [24]

Overriding royalty interests, production payments, and net profits interests in an unadulterated form share the following characteristics: (1) they are carved out of the lessee’s working interest in an oil and gas lease and are consequently limited to the term of the burdened lease; (2) the burdened working interest owner has no personal obligation as the interest is only payable out of production; (3) they are nonpossessory interests granting the owner the right to a share in the minerals when produced, but carrying no right to participate in the operation of the burdened lease; and (4) they do not bear any of the costs of developing and operating the lands subject to the interest. [25]

§ 21.02            “Extension or Renewal” Clauses Applicable to Overrides

An “extension or renewal clause” for purposes of this discussion is a provision in an assignment or reservation of an overriding royalty interest or other nonoperating interest that protects the owner against a “washout.” [26] A “washout” is the elimination of the nonoperating interest as a result of the termination or surrender of the burdened lease, and the subsequent reacquisition of a lease on the same lands by the lessee or its agent with the intention of taking the lease free of the burden of that nonoperating interest. [27] An example of an extension or renewal clause is as follows:

The overriding royalty interest reserved by Assignor in the leases subject to this assignment (the “subject leases”) shall apply to every extension, renewal or modification of any of the subject leases, or any portion thereof, taken by Assignee or its successors, assigns, agents or employees (hereinafter referred to as the “Assignee”), and to any new lease taken by Assignee on the lands, or any portion of the lands, covered by the subject leases within one year of the expiration, termination or surrender of any of the subject leases.

Because an overriding royalty interest is usually considered an interest in real property, the Statute of Frauds requires that a grant or reservation of an override be in writing. Absent circumstances supporting equitable relief such as reliance and part performance, an oral agreement that an override reserved by an assignor will attach to any extension or renewal of the burdened lease is unenforceable. [28]

An “extension” of an existing oil and gas lease is usually defined as an instrument that prolongs or continues the term of an existing oil and gas lease. [29]

Renewal and extension are concepts closely allied to one another, normally involving a continuation of the relationship on essentially the same terms and conditions as the original contract. [30]

[I]n determining whether a subsequent lease constitutes an “extension or renewal” a court must consider the circumstances surrounding the execution of the leases, the relationship of the parties, whether new consideration was given for the subsequent lease, and the significant similarities and differences in the terms and conditions of the leases. [31]

There appear to be no hard and fast rules to distinguish an “extension or renewal” lease from a “new” lease, primarily because the classification of a lease as one or the other often has more to do with equity than fact. The Tenth Circuit, applying Kansas law, held that five “replacement” leases taken by the lessee at a bonus cost of $130,000, covering (collectively) the same lands included in the single prior lease, each subject to a primary term and landowner royalty that was different from the prior lease, were “new” leases, and not “extensions or renewals.” [32] However, the Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that a lease that covered more land than a prior lease, had a one-year primary term rather than the three-year term of the prior lease, and was taken 13 months after the prior lease expired was an “extension or renewal” of the prior lease. [33] The U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming recently ruled that leases taken two and one-half months after the prior leases had expired, which covered different formations under less acreage, had a larger landowner royalty, a shorter primary term, a shorter continuous drilling clause, and more rigid pooling requirements, among other variances with the prior leases, were “new” leases not “extensions, renewals or substitute[s].” [34] A new lease entered into one year after the expiration of a prior lease, costing $27,000 in new bonus consideration, which had a different primary term, delay rental obligation, and continuous drilling obligation, was a “new” lease, not a renewal, according to the Texas Supreme Court. [35]

[1]       Washout Protection in the Absence of an “Extension or Renewal” Clause

As a general rule, an overriding royalty interest carved out of the working interest in a lease will be limited in duration to the term of the burdened lease. Absent an “extension or renewal” clause that applies to the override, and absent circumstances of fraud, breach of a fiduciary relationship, or bad faith in the conduct of the lessor or lessee, the expiration, surrender, or termination of an oil and gas lease burdened by an override will result in the extinguishment of the override without recourse by its owner. [36] The reservation of an overriding royalty interest in an assignment of an oil and gas lease, without more, does not create a fiduciary relationship between the assignor and the assignee. [37]

Professor Kuntz writes that “as a matter of theory,” an overriding royalty interest burdening an oil and gas lease should apply to any modifications or extensions of the lease that are made while the original is still in full force and effect, with or without an extension or renewal clause. [38] However, there appears to be little support in the case law for Professor Kuntz’s proposition.

In the absence of an extension or renewal clause in the assignment that reserves the override, or circumstances creating a fiduciary duty between the overriding royalty owner and the lessee, the courts are reluctant to extend an overriding royalty beyond the term of the burdened lease, even when the lessee takes a new lease prior to expiration or surrender of the old. This is especially true when, as is often the case, the burdened lease contains a provision that the lessee can surrender or abandon it at any time. [39] Since most oil and gas leases give the lessee the option during the primary term to drill, pay delay rentals, or surrender the lease, the foregoing rule of law is applied with some frequency.

The courts will grant an assignor/overriding royalty interest owner the same rights in a new lease taken by the assignee when the circumstances of the relationship between the parties creates a fiduciary relationship that requires one to exercise a duty of good faith and fair dealing towards the other. Such was the situation confronting the Oklahoma Supreme Court in the case of Rees v. Briscoe . [40] Rees had assigned his leases to Briscoe in exchange for the reservation of an override and an oral promise by Briscoe to drill each of the leases before they expired. No other consideration was involved. Briscoe drilled one of the three wells promised, then proceeded to obtain “extensions” of two of the leases assigned by Rees, which were executed before the prior leases expired, and which Briscoe proceeded to drill after the prior leases expired, without giving Rees his override. The court held that under the circumstances presented, Rees and Briscoe had a fiduciary relationship and that Briscoe’s failure to grant Rees an override in the extension leases was a breach of the duties that flowed from that relationship, prompting the court to declare that Rees held a constructive trust against the new leases in the amount of his original override. [41]

In Brannan v. Sohio Petroleum Co. , [42] the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, [43] having determined that the assignment from Brannan to Sohio which reserved an override was not subject to any drilling commitment, and that Brannan had received a cash bonus as well as the override in exchange for the assignment, ruled that Sohio owed no fiduciary duty to Brannan. Consequently, Brannan was not entitled to apply his override to a “top” lease that Sohio took prior to the expiration of Brannan’s lease covering the same lands as Brannan’s lease, which Sohio successfully drilled after the Brannan lease expired. [44]

The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that the assignor of a lease who reserved an override was entitled to the same override in a subsequent lease covering the same premises taken by the assignee/lessee when the assignee/lessee and the mineral owner/lessor colluded to fraudulently cancel the original lease in order to eliminate the override. [45]

On bona fide forfeiture or surrender of an oil and gas lease, the overriding royalty created thereunder falls with the lease. But if such forfeiture or surrender is obtained by fraud or collusion between the landowner and the lessee for the purpose of avoiding or cutting out the overriding royalty interest holder and the substitution of a new lease directly to the lessee, then a court of equity may grant relief to the overriding royalty holder against such forfeiture or surrender. [46]

[2]  Washout Protection Under the “Oklahoma Rule”

Anyone who depends on the income generated by an overriding royalty interest should rank the “extension or renewal” clause as second only in importance to the magnitude of one’s interest, especially in Oklahoma. Overriding royalty owners in Oklahoma are the beneficiaries of a generous rule of law, unique to that jurisdiction, which provides that the existence of an “extension or renewal” clause in an assignment creating an overriding royalty interest, by itself, gives rise to a fiduciary duty between the parties to the assignment and their successors.

The “Oklahoma rule” was first established in the case of Probst v. Hughes , [47] which interpreted an assignment of an oil and gas lease from Probst to Hughes that reserved an override and that provided: “[t]his reservation shall likewise apply as to all modifications, renewals of such lease or extensions that the assignee, his successor and assigns, may secure.” [48] It is unclear from the opinion whether Hughes allowed the Probst lease to expire before taking a new lease from the landowner, or whether the new lease was taken four months after the original lease terminated because of a cessation of production. It is clear that the new lease had different terms than the original lease. Although the record contained evidence sufficient to support a determination that Hughes owed a fiduciary duty to Probst (i.e., testimony by Hughes that he believed a deeper, potentially productive sand was located on the leased premises, but did not think the term of the original lease allowed him enough time for further exploration), its ruling focused instead on the “renewal or extension” clause in the assignment:

[u]nder the terms of [Probst’s] assignment , defendants were under the obligation to exercise the utmost good faith to secure a renewal or an extension of the lease if they desired to continue to further prospect the property for oil or gas. . . . [49]

Having determined that Hughes owed Probst a fiduciary duty to obtain a renewal or extension, the variances between the old and new lease were deemed immaterial.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals followed the rule of Probst when it held that a “protection” lease covering lands in Oklahoma, taken three months after the irreparable collapse of the casing in the only producing well holding a proof lease, was subject to the “extension or renewal” clause in an assignment of the original lease from Union Oil Company to Independent Gas & Oil Producers, Inc. wherein Union reserved an override. [50] Earlier testimony established that the only consideration Union received for its assignment was the override and Independent’s commitment to drill the failed well. It was also established that at the time Independent took the protection lease, it still believed the prior lease had value.

The facts of this case bring [the protection lease] squarely within the purview of the principles previously outlined [in Probst]. The parties’ lease assignment expressly subjects renewals and extensions of [the original lease] to the overriding royalty interest held by Union and thus triggers operation of the fiduciary rule. The propriety of the rule’s application here is unquestionable inasmuch as the reserved royalty was an important part of the consideration received by Union for the assignment and Independent believed the lease to be lucrative despite temporary cessation. [51]

[3]       Interpretation of the “Extension or Renewal” Clause in Other Jurisdictions

Outside of Oklahoma, there are no cases to be found holding that the “extension or renewal” clause in an assignment or grant of an overriding royalty creates, of its own accord, a fiduciary duty between the parties. The courts in these jurisdictions will still impose fiduciary duties on the assignor and assignee if circumstances of bad faith or illicit conduct exist. How­ever, absent bad acts on the part of the assignee/lessee, most courts are inclined to interpret the extension or renewal clause in an agreement “on the basis of a definitional approach which applies accepted legal distinctions between the terms extension or renewal and new leases.” [52]

Some commentators have opined that the Kansas Supreme Court decision in Reynolds-Rexwinkle Oil, Inc. v. Petex, Inc. [53] adopted the Oklahoma rule with regard to an “extension or renewal” clause, but a close reading of the case has led the author to conclude that the ruling in Reynolds has more to do with the applicability of the extension or renewal clause than its existence. The issue confronted was whether an extension or renewal clause in an assignment of an oil and gas lease from Reynolds to Petex, wherein Reynolds reserved an override, applied to a “substantially similar” “top” lease obtained by Petex prior to the expiration of Reynold’s lease. What appears to have persuaded the court to grant Reynolds an override in the new Petex lease was a finding that the new lease taken by Petex fit the definition of “extensions or renewals” as defined in the assignment and the fact that the relationship between the parties created a duty of “fair dealing:”

[T]he fact [that] Petex took the second lease while the original lease it held was still in full force and effect requires a ruling that the overriding royalty of Reynolds attaches to the later lease. But, this is because of the extension and renewal language in the assignment and not due to any finding of bad faith on Petex’s part. [54]

[A] duty of fair dealing exists under the facts of this case. This duty, coupled with the “extension or renewal” wording of the assignment, and the taking of the subsequent lease while the first one was in full force and effect compels a ruling, as a matter of law, that [Rexwinkle’s] overriding royalty interest . . . applies to and burdens the second oil and gas lease upon which production was obtained. [55]

The “confidential relationship” between an assignor/over­riding royalty interest owner and an assignee/lessee was the focus of an earlier decision by the Kansas Supreme Court in Howell v. Cooperative Refinery Ass’n. [56] The case involved an oil company (CRA) and an independent geologist (Howell) who agreed that CRA would provide the financing for Howell to acquire four leases covering a prospect he had generated, and that Howell would subsequently assign the leases to CRA, reserving an overriding royalty interest that would apply to any extension or renewal of the leases. CRA drilled three of the four leases acquired by Howell, but refused (for no apparent reason) to drill on the last lease, which it released upon the expiration of its primary term. CRA then proceeded to take a new lease on the undrilled tract, but refused to assign Howell any override. The court held that the circumstances of the agreement between CRA and Howell created a confidential relationship between the parties that entitled Howell to an override in the new lease:

While . . . “Confidential relation” may be defined as meaning a relationship between business associates that would lead an ordinarily prudent [person] in the management of [his] business to repose that degree of confidence in [another] which results in the substitution of the [other’s] will and judgment for [his] in material matters involved, it has been defined in the law as any relation existing between the parties to a transaction wherein one party [the oil company] is bound to act with utmost good faith for the benefit of the other party [geologist]. [57]

Absent a fiduciary or confidential relationship between the assignor and assignee, the courts can be conservative in their evaluation of a lease as an “extension or renewal.” In the case of Lillibridge v. Mesa Petroleum Co . [58] the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that in spite of an “extension or renewal” clause in Lillibridge’s assignment of a lease to Mesa which reserved an override, Lillibridge was not entitled to the same override in five “top” leases taken by Mesa covering the same lands as the original “bottom” lease. Noting that the “top” lease consisted of five separate leases, rather than one lease, that each of the five leases had a different landowner royalty rate than the original lease, and that the assignee/lessee paid an additional bonus of $130,000 for the top leases, the court ruled that they were “new” leases rather than “extensions or renewals.” The commentators have not been impressed:

Lillibridge greatly narrows the scope of protection provided by an express extension or renewal clause, at least in the Tenth Circuit. Unless the terms and conditions of the second lease are essentially the same as those of the original lease, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals will not give effect to the extension or renewal clause. [59]

Texas has also declined to adopt the Oklahoma rule. In Sunac Petroleum Corp. v. Parkes [60] the Texas Supreme Court considered whether a party owning an override in a lease (which was thought to be in its secondary term) was entitled to the same override in a “protection” lease taken by the lessee in response to the lessor’s allegation that the prior lease had expired at the end of the primary term. It was ultimately determined that the lessor was correct and that the prior lease had expired more than a year prior to the execution of the protection lease, as a result of an innocent mistake with regard to pooling. The court found no evidence that either party occupied a position of confidence or trust in relation to the other. Noting that the assignment creating the override granted the assignee/lessee the right to surrender the lease without the overriding royalty owner’s permission, the court ruled that the protective lease was a “new” lease to which the override did not extend. [61]

According to the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, interpreting Wyoming law in the case of Sawyer v. Guthrie , [62] the inclusion of a clause reserving an overriding royalty interest, in an assignment made pursuant to a farmout agreement, which states that the override is subject to “any and all extension, renewal and substitute leases” does not, by itself, create a fiduciary relationship between the parties:

This is not to say that there would never be a time where a fiduciary relationship could have been created, but in the present case, the inclusion of boiler plate language [i.e., an “extension or renewal” clause] in a document negotiated at arms’ length between virtual strangers is not such a situation. . . . [T]he Court will not take pity on an experienced, albeit partially unsuccessful oil and gas investor. . . . [63]

The Sawyer v. Guthrie case is worthy of further elaboration regarding Sawyer’s argument that, in spite of the fact that the farmout did not require continuous drilling by the assignee/lessee prior to the end of the primary term (only the requirement that the lessee must release, at the end of the primary term, any of the leased lands not included in a 40-acre producing unit), the duty of good faith and fair dealing that is implied in every Wyoming contract (and every contract in most jurisdictions in the United States) obligated Guthrie and the other working interest owners to establish paying production, or prosecute continuous drilling and reworking operations, on Sawyer’s leases in order to perpetuate all of the acreage under said leases. Sawyer alleged that the penalty for such malfeasance should be the extension of his override to the new leases taken by Guthrie.

The court rejected Sawyer’s argument, stating:

[Sawyer] attempts to imply that it was the duty of Defendants to drill on every section of land covered by the [prior leases] so that the Leases would never expire as long as oil or gas was available in the leased lands. Such a provision does not appear in the Leases or other contracts relating thereto, and the Court will not imply such a provision under the duty of good faith and fair dealing. . . . [64] An implied duty to not let any . . . part of the land covered by the [prior leases] remain undrilled would eviscerate the actual contractual language which only includes a duty to drill one test well. . . . Rather than imposing an absolute duty to drill otherwise, the Express Farm­out states that Defendants “shall continue to have the right to drill additional wells on the acreage.” . . . This language uses the word “right” as opposed to creating a duty to drill ad infinitum . [65]

A breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing occurs when a party interferes with or fails to cooperate in the other party’s performance. [66]

The covenant of good faith and fair dealing may not, however, be construed to establish new, independent rights or duties not agreed upon by the parties. In other words, the concept of good faith and fair dealing is not a limitless one. The implied obligation must arise from the language used or it must be indispensable to effectuate the intention of the parties. In the absence of evidence of self-dealing or breach of community standards of decency, fairness or reasonableness, the exercise of contractual rights alone will not be considered a breach of the covenant. [67]

. . . The Court will not contradict the express language of the Agreements by interpreting a duty of good faith and fair dealing on the contracts to mean that Defendants are required to drill on and on, on every portion of the land, until all possible minerals are extracted from the land covered by the [prior leases]. [68]

[4]       Miscellaneous “Extension or Renewal” Clause Cases

An assignor who reserves an overriding royalty interest in an assignment that is subject to an “extension or renewal” clause is not entitled to the same override in a subsequent lease taken by a third party who has no previous relationship with the assignee/lessee, even if the third party assigns the new lease to the assignee/lessee, so long as the assignee/lessee is under no obligation to the overriding royalty interest owner to extend the prior lease. [69]

The problem of applying an “inclusive” overriding royalty interest to an extension or renewal lease was addressed by the Texas appellate court in the case of EOG Resources, Inc. v. Hanson Production Co. [70] Hanson and EOG entered into an agreement wherein Hanson agreed to assign six oil and gas leases to EOG in exchange for an overriding royalty interest in each lease equal to the difference between 25% and “existing lease burdens.” However, the actual assignment of the leases from Hanson to EOG, prepared in accordance with the agreement, provided that Hanson would reserve:

[a]n overriding royalty equal to the difference between the aggregate of the basic royalties, overriding royalties and similar burdens chargeable to Assignor’s leases existing on the effective date of this Assignment and twenty five percent (25.00%). The overriding royalty reserved herein shall burden any extensions or renewals taken within one (1) year of termination of the subject leases. . . . [71]

Two of the six leases that Hanson assigned expired prior to drilling. EOG negotiated renewal leases that provided for a landowner royalty (LOR) of 25.0% rather than the 16.67% LOR that burdened Hanson’s leases. After the renewal leases became productive, EOG informed Hanson that because of the 25% LOR, Hanson would not receive any overriding royalty interest. Hanson argued and the court agreed that his override was to be calculated on the basis of the terms of the assignment, i.e., the difference between a 16.67% LOR (the “burdens existing on the effective date of this Assignment”) and 25%, and not on the difference between the new 25.0% LOR and 25%, i.e., 0%. [72]

An extension or renewal clause which provides that an assignor’s reserved overriding royalty interest will apply to other oil and gas leases secured by the assignee/lessee in an area of mutual interest does not apply to fee mineral interests subsequently acquired by the assignee/lessee in such area. [73]

[5]  Application of the Rule Against Perpetuities

The rule against perpetuities prohibits a grant of an interest “unless the interest must vest, if at all, no later than 21 years after the death of some person alive when the interest was created.” [74] “The rule against perpetuities is not a rule of construction, but is a positive mandate of law, to be obeyed irrespective of question of intention.” [75]

The rule does not invalidate a provision that grants the owner of an overriding royalty in a lease the right to receive the same override in “renewals, extensions or modifications” of the lease. [76]

Significantly, the [rule against perpetuities] touches only contingent future interests; a presently vested interest is not subject to the rule. . . .

. . . Union’s property interest in any renewals or extension of [the lease in which it owned an ORI] vested at the time of [the original assignment creating the ORI] and the rule against perpetuities is not operable in such a situation. [77]

The rule does invalidate a provision that grants the owner of an overriding royalty in a lease the right, without a time limitation, to the same override in a “new lease or leases” covering the same lands. [78] In the case of Cities Service Oil Co. v. Sohio Petroleum Co. , [79] Cities assigned an Oklahoma lease to a third party, reserving an override that was to apply to “[a]ny renewal, extension or new lease or leases covering the lands assigned.” 79.1 The lease was eventually drilled by George Post, resulting in a dry hole, and was left to expire at the end of its primary term. Two years later, Post obtained a new lease on the same property which was eventually assigned to and drilled by Sohio. Cities sued claiming it was entitled to its override in the new lease. The U.S. District Court for the District of Western Oklahoma ruled against Cities, holding that since the right to apply the override to a new lease, being a future interest, might not vest less than 21 years after some life in being at the creation of the reservation, the “extension or renewal” clause, as it pertained to “new” leases, violated the Oklahoma rule against perpetuities and was void. [80]

A rule against perpetuities “savings” clause, like the one that follows, should ensure that any extension or renewal clause drafted, including one that pertains to new leases, will not be rendered void and unenforceable:

Any other provision hereof to the contrary notwithstanding, any right granted or reserved herein to receive a future interest in a [overriding royalty interest/production payment/net profits interest] shall, in any event, terminate one day prior to the expiration of 21 years after the death of the survivor of all descendants of Joseph P. Kennedy, father of the late President of the United States, who are living on the effective date of this assignment. [81]

§ 21.03  Calculation of Overriding Royalty Interests

An overriding royalty interest is the creation of a contract between an assignor and an assignee, and the language of the contract will determine the nature and quantum of the interest conveyed or reserved. [82] “[N]obody acquires . . . an overriding interest merely by virtue of ownership of mineral rights. It is acquired only by contract, and is payable in the amount and to the person designated by the contract. . . .” [83]

In the absence of ambiguity, courts and title examiners are compelled by the legal canons of construction to determine the intention of the parties to a contract from the “four corners” of the document. The plain meaning of the words that the parties have chosen to describe the nature and magnitude of their interest will control.

Reservations, if made, may be worded as the parties please. If they provide that the grantor shall have a named fraction of the oil produced on all of the described land, that is one thing; if they provide that he shall have a fraction of what is produced from the interest conveyed by the particular lease, it is another thing. The courts will enforce either agreement as made. [84]

The single biggest impediment to the title examiner’s ability to determine the size of the override that the parties intended is the failure of the parties to recognize that there are two ways in which an interest can be proportionately reduced: (1) a reduction proportionate to the mineral interest covered by the oil and gas lease in question (as illustrated in Clause A below); and (2) a reduction proportionate to the amount of working interest that is being assigned (as illustrated in Clause B):

The overriding royalty interest (reserved/assigned) in each lease that is the subject of this assignment shall be proportionately reduced in the ratio that the mineral interest covered by the lease bears to the full mineral interest in the lands covered by the lease.

The overriding royalty interest (reserved/assigned) in each lease that is the subject of this assignment shall be proportionately reduced in the ratio that the working interest assigned in each lease bears to the full working interest in the lands covered by the lease.

If the only proportionate reduction language included in an assignment is that contained in Clause A, then an assignment conveying a 20% federal operating rights (i.e., working interest) in a federal oil and gas lease, covering all of the minerals under the leased premises, reserving a “5% overriding royalty interest,” cannot be reduced to the 1% of 8/8ths overriding royalty interest that was probably intended. The same problem occurs if the only proportionate reduction language used in an assignment reserving the same override is that appearing in Clause B, and the assignment conveys all of the working interest in a lease that covers only 20% of the minerals under the leased premises.

The “lesser interest” clause of an oil and gas lease operates to reduce the royalty of the lessor if the lessor owns less than all of the minerals under the leased premises, but it cannot be used to reduce an overriding royalty interest that has been reserved in the lease unless (to restate a now familiar mantra) there is an express agreement to do so. [85] This rule has been applied even in situations where the lessor under an oil and gas lease reserves an overriding royalty interest in the lease that is in addition to the landowner’s royalty. In fact, some of the case law available to illustrate how courts have interpreted the quantum of an overriding royalty interest granted or reserved in an instrument pertains to overrides reserved by lessors, for instance:

(1)  The reservation, in an oil and gas lease covering less than 100% of the minerals under the leased premises, of a “1/8th of 8/8ths Overriding Royalty Interest” (without reference to leases or lands) in addition to a 1/8th landowner royalty interest, reserves an undivided 1/8th of 8/8ths override that is not proportionately reduced. [86]

(2)  The reservation, in an oil and gas lease covering ¼ of the minerals under the leased premises, of an “[o]verriding royalty of 1/32nd of 7/8ths of all oil and gas produced and saved under and by virtue of this oil and gas lease in addition to a 1/8th landowner royalty interest, reserved an undivided ¼ of 1/8th of 7/8ths overriding royalty, i.e., proportionately reduced to reflect the mineral interest covered by “this oil and gas lease.” [87]

(3)  The reservation, in an oil and gas lease covering 7/12ths of the minerals under the leased premises, of a production payment of “$15,000.00 out of one-eighth (1/8th) of seven-eighths (7/8ths) of oil, if as and only when produced, saved and marketed from said land under this lease ,” in addition to a 1/8th landowner royalty interest, reserved a $15,000 production payment payable out of an undivided 1/8th of 7/8ths of production, without proportionate reduction. [88]

The literal analysis applied in the cases cited above has also been used to determine the quantum of overriding royalty interest reserved in assignments of an oil and gas lease. The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that the reservation of a “[t]hree sixty-fourths (3/64ths) over-riding royalty out of the Seven-eighths (7/8ths) working interest” in an oil and gas lease that covered only three-quarters of the minerals under the leased premises results in the reservation of an undivided 3/64ths of 7/8ths overriding royalty interest, without proportionate reduction. [89]

In First National Bank v. Kinabrew , [90] the Texas Civil Court of Appeals was asked to construe an assignment transferring “ONE EIGHTH of EIGHT EIGHTS [sic] (1/8 of 8/8) of All the Oil, Gas, and other minerals which may be produced, marketed and saved from the herein described premises .” The assignment did not contain a legal description of any lands, but rather seven oil and gas leases. Each of the oil and gas leases contained a legal description of the same 120.3-acre production unit. These leases combined covered less than 100% of the minerals underlying the unit. The court ruled that the assignment was unambiguous and that the assignee was entitled to a net 1/8 of 8/8ths ORI in production from the lands described in the leases, [91] rejecting the assignor’s argument that the wording of the assignment required that the court look to the leases, determine the combined percentage of minerals that the leases covered, and reduce the 1/8th of 8/8ths ORI accordingly. [92]

Lest the reader come away with the impression that there is a logical consistency to the rules construing grants and reservations of overriding royalty interests, ponder the decision of the Wyoming Supreme Court in Wadi Petroleum, Inc. v. Ultra Resources [93] interpreting the reservation of a “3-1/8% of 8/8ths overriding royalty” in a federal-form assignment of an undivided 20% of 8/8ths working interest in a federal oil and gas lease. The court, without any mention of the decisions discussed above or the legal principles behind them, held that the reservation was ambiguous “due to a lack of clarity and incompleteness of expression” [94] and allowed the admission of extrinsic evidence, in the form of a “more-or-less” contemporaneous agreement and the expert testimony by title attorneys, to persuade it that the parties to the assignment intended that the 3.125% override would be reduced by a fraction of 20/100ths, i.e., a net 0.625% of 8/8ths override. What is mystifying to those who can only evaluate the propriety of the decision from the written opinion is that the “more-or-less” contemporaneous agreement that the court considered specified that Wadi’s predecessor in interest was to reserve (1) an “undivided 1/16th of 8/8ths overriding royalty” in certain leases that were not the subject of the suit, “ [ w]hich overriding royalty shall not be proportionately reduced if El Paso owns less than the entire leasehold interest [emphasis added];” and (2) a “3-1/8th overriding royalty” in the leases that were the subject of the suit, with no language concerning proportionate reduction. [95] Seizing on the missing proportionate reduction language, the court held that: “at a minimum, the silence creates an ambiguity which requires reference to evidence outside the four corners of the principal documents.” [96]

The court mentions that Wadi “essentially paid nothing” [97] for the leases in question, and that “Wadi did not diligently research exactly what it bought,” [98] but also felt compelled to mention that these matters were not material to its determination, but simply “part of the ‘whole story.’ ” [99] The outsider is left with the impression that the “whole story” has much to do with the fact that before Hondo sold out to Wadi, Hondo had executed division orders certifying that it owned a 0.625% ORI in the subject leases and accepted payments pursuant to those division orders, [100] a fact that the court also felt compelled to explain was “not used to ‘alter or amend’ the terms of the assignments but only to assist the trial court in resolving the inherent ambiguity in the assignments.” [101] Wadi may prove to be a classic example of the right decision for the wrong reasons.

Although the Wadi decision may be an aberration, it is also an effective illustration of the reason why the use of the “8/8ths” suffix to indicate that the interest being assigned is a “net interest,” not to be proportionately reduced is no longer sufficient. For example, if the desired result is that the division credit a party with a 0.03000000 overriding royalty interest, the grant or reservation should refer to a “net 3.0% of 8/8ths” overriding royalty reservation in the “lands covered by the leases which are the subject of the assignment” that is “not to be proportionately reduced in any way, regardless of the working interest in the leases included in this assignment, or the mineral interest covered by said leases.” If the intent of the parties is that the override be proportionately reduced to reflect the mineral interest covered and the working interest assigned, the drafter should avoid any terminology relating to a “net” or “8/8ths” interest, should ensure that the override is reserved in the “production attributable to the leases” that are the subject of the assignment, and should include proportionate reduction language that addresses both the mineral interest and the working interest.

§ 21.04            Enforcement of Express and Implied Covenants by the Overriding Royalty Interest Owner

Implied covenants between lessors and lessees of oil and gas leases have been recognized for over a hundred years. Although there is some disagreement among the commentators as to the reasons for the evolution of these implied covenants, [102] there seems to be a consensus that they arose from the principle of cooperation as defined in contract law, i.e., the requirement that the parties to a contract must cooperate with one another in order to ensure that the purpose of their contract is achieved.

The bare bones of the [oil and gas] leasing transaction are the transfer to the operator of the exclusive privilege of exploring, drilling on, and extracting minerals from the premises. In return for this exclusive privilege, the lessee promises to pay the lessor royalty on minerals produced and saved from the land. Pecuniary return to the landowner depends upon diligent operation of the premises by the lessee. If he permits oil and gas to be drained away from the land, the lessor’s return is diminished or destroyed. If the product is not marketed, there is no return. If the lessee fails to develop known, producing formations, return is delayed indefinitely. In each of these cases, as in others, the principle of cooperation requires that the lessee conduct operations calculated to accomplish the purposes of the lease agreement, namely, the exploitation of the mineral resources of the land. [103]

Generally, the implied covenants that apply to the contemporary oil and gas lease are:

(1)  the implied covenant to drill;

(2)  the implied covenant of reasonable development after discovery;

(3)  the implied covenant to protect the lease from drainage (also known as the offset well covenant or protection covenant); and

(4)  the implied covenant to operate diligently and prudently (which includes the duty of the lessee to market oil and/or gas from the lease). [104]

Recent legal decisions holding that an assignor or assignee of an oil and gas lease who retains an overriding royalty interest has legal standing to enforce implied covenants are still maligned in some jurisdictions as an attempt to rewrite assignments, but embraced in others as a logical extension of the duties that a lessee owes a lessor in order to effectuate the intent behind the lease. The editors of W.L. Summers’s The Law of Oil and Gas have expressed a strong aversion to the idea that an assignor-overriding royalty interest owner can enforce implied covenants, arguing that it violates “the privity concept on which the implied covenants between lessor and lessee sides of the leasing transaction is based.” [105]

Professor Eugene Kuntz has taken a more moderate approach, recognizing that the propriety of allowing overriding royalty interest owners to enforce implied covenants under an oil and gas lease depends on whether the override was created by grant or by reservation:

[T]he grant of an overriding royalty by the owner of the lease as distinguished from an exception or reservation bears no resemblance to a leasing or subleasing transaction. The relation is that of grantor and grantee, and there is no basis for concluding that the parties contemplated that the grantor would owe the grantee any duties regarding development. Accordingly, covenants usually implied in oil and gas leases should not be implied in this instance. . . . In the absence of an express covenant to develop and in the absence of special circumstances which reveal that development is the object of the sale, the covenants implied in oil and gas leases should not be implied in the grant of an overriding royalty interest.

Where an overriding royalty is reserved on the transfer of an oil and gas lease, the transaction bears a certain resemblance to a leasing transaction. The grantor has granted full operating rights and has retained a nonoperating interest that can only be enjoyed if the operating rights are exercised by the grantee. [106]

In Professor Kuntz’s opinion, the principles described above also apply to the grant or the reservation of a production payment. [107]

The weight of authority is to the effect that a covenant to drill a well is not to be implied from the severance of an overriding royalty or oil payment. [108] In the absence of an express provision in an assignment of a lease requiring the assignee/lessee to commence a well prior to expiration of the primary term, an assignor who reserves a production payment cannot enforce an implied drilling covenant against the assignee/lessee if the latter has the contractual choice, during the primary term of a lease, to either drill or pay delay rentals and has chosen to pay rentals. [109] If the assignor of a lease reserves an override and the assignment does not, by its express terms, require the lessee to drill on the lease during the primary term, the assignor cannot force the lessee to drill by asserting the implied covenant to protect the lease from drainage. [110]

Generally, covenants will be implied with respect to a nonoperating interest if the transaction giving rise to such interest creates a continuing relationship between the parties and the benefits of one party are dependent upon the development or operations of another. The covenants primarily recognized are the covenants of protection against drainage, of reasonable development, and of fair dealing and good faith. [111]

[1]       Enforcement of Implied Covenants as “Running With the Land”

The decision by the Fifth Circuit, in the case of Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Taylor , [112] was one of the first to recognize that the owner of a reserved overriding royalty interest in a lease has standing to enforce the lessee’s implied covenant to protect the lease from drainage. Applying Texas law, the court held that:

an overriding royalty, created by assignment, is an interest in real estate regarded as a covenant running with the land as between the assignor and assignee, and enforceable by the assignor against the assignee. [113]

Under the facts of this case, the only interest to be enforced by [the assignor-override owner] was the overriding royalty. The oil having been drained, the only recourse by which his injury could be compensated lay in a suit for damages. His interest being a covenant running with the land, and enforceable as such, it certainly follows that his protection and the administration of justice require that the right to sue be awarded to him. . . . [114] [A] contract which requires the assignee to advance money for drilling implies a covenant to develop. The same reasoning . . . raises an implied covenant in this case where the duty [to protect from drainage] was owed to the lessor and where the only consideration moving to the assignor for a conveyance of minerals . . . was an overriding royalty from the first oil produced. Unless such an obligation be imposed, the conveyance is wholly without consideration. [115]

The Texas Supreme Court has since ruled that the assignor of an oil and gas lease who retains an overriding royalty has the right to enforce the implied covenant to protect its lease from drainage. In Bolton v. Coats [116] the court held that: “[u]nless the assignment provides to the contrary, the assignee of an oil and gas lease impliedly covenants to protect the premises against drainage when the assignor reserves an overriding royalty.” [117]

In the case of Garman v. Conoco, Inc ., [118] the Colorado Supreme Court held that an implied covenant to market gas (i.e., “to engage in marketing efforts which ‘would be reasonably expected of all operators of ordinary prudence, having regard to the interests of both lessor and lessee’ ” [119] ) extends to a Colorado overriding royalty interest owner, thereby excusing that owner from paying any share of post-production costs necessary to make that owner’s share of gas marketable. The rationale behind the ruling is obscure:

Implied lease covenants related to operations typically impose a duty on the oil and gas lessee. Accordingly, the lessee bears the costs of ensuring compliance with these promises. . . . The purpose of an oil and gas lease could hardly be effected if the implied covenant to drill obligated the lessor to pay for his proportionate share of drilling costs. In our view the implied covenant to market obligates the lessee to incur those post-production costs necessary to place gas in a condition acceptable for market. Overriding royalty interest owners are not obligated to share in these costs. [120] [121]

The mystery of the Garman decision dwells in footnote 23 where­in the court acknowledges that “[s]ome question exists whether the implied covenants under an oil and gas lease extend to overriding royalty owners. However, the rationale for application of the covenants to protect the lessor similarly extends to the interest of an overriding royalty owner.” [122] Whether this footnote is tantamount to a ruling that Colorado overriding royalty interest owners can enforce any and all implied covenants against a lessee remains to be established.

The Tenth Circuit has ruled that the assignor of a federal oil and gas lease located in New Mexico, who retained an overriding royalty interest in an assignment of that lease, has the right to enforce an implied covenant to protect against drainage against the assignee-lessee. [123]

[2]       Enforcement of Implied Covenants Arising Out of Express Covenants in the Assignment

The Oklahoma courts will extend the protection of implied covenants in an oil and gas lease to an assignor who retains an override, but only when the instrument creating the override contains an express provision that gives rise to an implied covenant. In Kile v. Amerada Petroleum Corp. , [124] Kile took a lease on 20 acres of land which provided, among other terms, that the lessee could extend the lease through the primary term by either drilling or paying annual delay rentals. Kile assigned the lease to Amerada, reserving a 1/8th overriding royalty interest. The assignment did not contain any requirements concerning drilling or development. Kile subsequently sued Amerada for damages resulting from the alleged drainage of his lease by offsetting production. The court, ruling in favor of Amerada, held that “[t]he relationship thus created between [Kile] and [Amerada] was purely contractual . . . [and] . . . the rights of the parties hereto must be governed entirely by the provisions of the contract of assignment [of the override].” [125] The court specifically rejected Kile’s argument that the obligation to drill an offset well was implied from the obligation to pay him an override.

The implied obligation is to diligently develop where there is some express obligation to drill assumed by the lessee, and, in such case, to protect the [lease] lines from drainage by offset wells. . . . [126] There must be some express covenant entered into upon which to base the implied obligation, and, if the court should undertake to supply the primary framework of the agreement which the parties themselves have omitted, it would constitute an invasion of the domain of private contract reserved to individuals under the law. . .

The contract involved here was an ordinary assignment of an oil and gas lease, reserving to the assignor a certain interest out of the working interest assigned, but without any specific agreement or covenant on the part of the assignee to drill on the premises covered by the assignment. [127]

In a subsequent opinion, [128] the Oklahoma Supreme Court confronted the same issue decided by the Colorado Supreme Court in Garman concerning an overriding royalty owner’s right to assert that its assignee-lessee had breached the implied covenant to market oil and gas by deducting from the revenues generated by the override the “post-production” costs incurred by the lessee to render the gas “marketable.” The court discussed in detail the evolution of the laws in Colorado [129] and Texas [130] granting overriding royalty interest owners the right to enforce selective implied covenants in an oil and gas lease. Unfortunately for SMR, the override owner, its interest was created pursuant to a grant, not a reservation. [131] Citing the above-quoted statement of Professor Kuntz that an override created by a grant, as opposed to a reservation, should not reap the benefit of implied covenants in a lease, [132] the court reaffirmed its ruling in Kile [133] that the right to enforce the implied covenants of an oil and gas lease does not extend to an overriding royalty interest owner absent an express provision in the instrument creating the override giving rise to the implied covenant. [134]

Like its neighbor to the west, Arkansas does not permit the owner of an overriding royalty interest or a production payment to enforce implied covenants against a lessee. [135] The Arkansas Supreme Court refused to accept “as a matter law” an implied duty of the assignee-lessee to reasonably develop an oil and gas lease and protect it against drainage when the only consideration for the assignment of the lease was the reservation of an override. Instead, it followed its earlier ruling in Henderson Co. v. Murphy , [136] which involved an oil payment, and held that Arkansas does not recognize the right of an overriding royalty interest owner to enforce the implied covenants under a lease. [137] “In assignments, such as these in the instant case, the assignor and assignee are usually experienced in the oil business and knowledgeable enough to make certain any uncertainty by inserting provisions which protect the assignor’s interest if he deems it necessary.” [138]

Another of the objections raised in W.L. Summers’s The Law of Oil and Gas with regard to the enforcement of implied covenants in an oil and gas lease by an overriding royalty owner was the advantage that the owner would have in any determination of the economic viability of development:

It [permits] an interest owner who has further diminished the production entitlement of the leasehold working interest to enforce his claims in terms of a standard of paying quantities in the case of the drainage and development covenants, which was larger than the working interest entitlement after its diminishment by retention of an overriding royalty. [139]

A solution to this potential inequity has been suggested by Williams & Meyers:

Both the lessor and the owner of an override, suing on an implied covenant to protect against drainage, may be required to prove that an offset well, if drilled, would have been profitable. In proving profitability, the lessor would need [to] prove only that the return from production after deducting landowner royalty would have been sufficient to yield a profit to the lessee; the owner of the override would be required to deduct the override as well as the landowner royalty in determining whether an offset well would have been profitable. [140]

For obvious reasons, any instrument creating an overriding royalty interest should include a provision stating that any and all implied covenants in the lease will run to the owners, successors, and assigns of operating or nonoperating interests in the lease. [141] A provision in an assignment such as that which follows, prohibiting the owner of an override or production payment from asserting any rights arising out of implied covenants, is also enforceable. [142]

Development of, and operations on the premises, if any, and the extent and character thereof, as well as the preservation or forfeiture of the leasehold, shall be solely at the will of said [operator] or its successors or assigns, and, upon termination of the leases covering the lands above described, for any cause whatsoever, there shall be no further liability hereunder. [143]

§ 21.05  Pooling and Unitization

The formation of voluntary units, federal exploratory units in particular, is tedious and time consuming. Once the operator has obtained the necessary percentage of committed working interest ownership in a proposed unit area required by the authorizing governmental agency, the tendency is to pull back on efforts to ensure the commitment of the remaining owners, especially owners of royalty and overriding royalty interests. Unfortunately, once the unit has been approved, sophisticated overriding royalty interest owners may not consider subsequent joinder to be in their best economic interest. By failing to secure the commitment of nonoperating interests in the unit area, the operator runs the risk of becoming obligated to pay uncommitted overriding royalty interest owners on a “lease” basis (i.e., based upon their ownership in the drillsite lease), while paying committed owners on a “unit” basis (i.e., according to their proportionate interest in a spacing unit or a participating area). As a result, the working interests may find themselves forced to bear out of their share of production a disproportionately large burden of landowner and overriding royalties.

“Unilateral” pooling and unitization provisions in an oil and gas lease give the lessee the right to pool or unitize the royalty interest in the lease without the necessity of the lessor’s consent. There is a common belief that the nonoperating interests in a lease that contains a unilateral pooling and/or unitization provision, including overriding royalty interests, are also subject to the provision, obviating the need for their consent.

Even in Texas, we think a persuasive argument can be made that the owner of a working interest burdened by a nonoperating interest does have the power to pool the nonoperating interest if the oil and gas lease contains a pooling clause, unless the assignment or other instrument creating the nonoperating interest clearly negates the [working interest owner’s] ability to do so. [144]

A decision by the Texas Court of Appeals in Union Pacific Resources Co. v. Hutchison [145] supports the proposition that a lessee can pool or unitize the royalty interest in an oil and gas lease pursuant to a unilateral pooling or unitization clause, and thereby pool or unitize any overriding royalty interests burdening that lease without the necessity of the owner’s consent. [146]

In an assignment dated one day after the lease, [the assignor] assigned the leasehold in its entirety . . . except for her overriding royalty, vesting in [assignee-lessee] by her own act all executive rights.

Nothing in the assignment purports to reserve in [assignor] any executive rights and nothing purports expressly to prohibit pooling of the mineral estate without [assignee’s] consent.” [147]

[Assignor] assigned the leasehold in its entirety to [assignee], except for her overriding royalty. . . . The legal effect of her unqualified assignment was to vest in [assignee] . . . the identical rights, privileges and benefits [assignor] possessed under the . . . Lease. [148]

Unfortunately, the Wyoming Supreme Court has turned conventional thinking on its ear with its decision in Moncrief v. Harvey [149] concerning the calculation of an overriding royalty interest in a State of Wyoming oil and gas lease within a federal exploratory unit. Harvey, the original lessee under the state lease which covered 560 acres, assigned the lease to Texaco, reserving a 5% of 8/8ths overriding royalty interest. There was no applicable language in the assignment from Harvey to Texaco with regard to unitization, but a provision in the lease gave the state the right “ with consent of the lessee , to commit the [lease] in a unit . . . and to establish, alter, change or revoke the drilling, producing, and royalty requirements of the lease to conform therewith.” 149.1 Texaco and the State of Wyoming voluntarily committed their interests in the lease to the unit, but Harvey refused. A producing well was drilled on the subject lease resulting in the creation of a participating area (PA) covering 1,440 acres, including the 560 acres in the subject lease. Moncrief and Texaco, the working interest owners of the well, argued that under the terms of Harvey’s lease, the fact that the State and Texaco had committed their interests to the unit resulted in the commitment of Harvey’s override, with or without his express consent. Consequently, Harvey’s override should be paid on the basis of the PA, meaning that his 5% overriding royalty interest would be proportionately reduced by a fraction of 560/1440ths. Harvey countered with the allegation that his override could not be committed without his express consent, and claimed that he was entitled to a full 5% of 8/8ths override, payable on a “lease” basis.

Citing the fact that “[c]ommitment of a tract to unitization obviously involves a calculated weighing of the benefits and detriments involved in unitizing the subject lands,” [150] the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled in favor of Harvey, holding that:

[T]he word “lessee” as used in the unitization clause was intended to cover lessee/assignors who retain an interest in the lease. A lessee/assignor who retains an interest is subject to many of the same risks as the assignee if the leasehold is unitized without his consent. . . . We hold that the unitization clause could not unitize Harvey’s overriding royalty interest without his consent, and his consent was never given. [151]

In another decision, [152] the Wyoming Supreme Court held that an overriding royalty interest in a lease with no unitization clause that had been committed to the unit by the lessor but not by the owner of the overriding royalty will still be deemed “committed” to the unit when the override is to be “computed and paid on the same basis, in the same manner, at the same time and on the same products, substances and elements, as is the royalty payable to the Lessor .” [153] According to the court, the language concerning the payment of the override was clear and unambiguous. Since the lessor had joined the unit, and the landowner royalty was being paid on a prorated unit basis, the same method of payment should apply to the override. [154]

§ 21.06  The Nonoperating Interest and Bankruptcy

Section 541(a)(1) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code defines a bankrupt’s estate as “all legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property as of the commencement of the case.” [155] This provision has protected owners of overriding royalty interests whenever the working interest owner who bears the override files bankruptcy (assuming that the conveyance creating or reserving the override has been properly executed and recorded). Section 541(b)(4)(B)(i) of the Bankruptcy Code specifically excludes an interest that the debtor has conveyed “pursuant to a written conveyance of a production payment to an entity that does not participate in the operation of the property from which such production payment is transferred.” [156]

The case of Boyd v. Martin Exploration Co. , [157] a U.S. district court decision applying Louisiana law, illustrates the Bankruptcy Court’s traditional approach towards overriding royalty interests created prior to a bankruptcy filing. Martin Exploration Co. (MECO) had an incentive program, embodied in an “Employee ORI Agreement,” which provided that key employees would receive overriding royalty interests in all nonproducing oil and gas leases that the company acquired. Initially, assignments of these overrides were made to the key employees as soon as the leases were acquired, but as the business grew and the demands on the employees’ time increased, the assignments were neglected. In an effort to fix the problem, the company started transferring the overrides due key employees to a nominee, pursuant to a nominee agreement, to be administered on the employees’ behalf. Nevertheless, some overrides were never assigned to the employees or the nominee. When the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, the key employees initiated an adversary proceeding seeking assignment of the overrides that had never been conveyed.

The overriding royalty interests that had actually been assigned to the employees were never an issue since MECO had no legal or equitable claim to them. With regard to the overrides that had been assigned to the nominee, or were earned under the Employee ORI Agreement but never assigned to the employee or nominee, the district court held that: (1) the Employee ORI Agreement was sufficient to transfer title to the overrides provided for in the agreement from the company to the employees, citing Louisiana law holding that “[a]ll sales, contracts and judgments affecting immovable property, which shall not be recorded, shall be utterly null and void, except between the parties thereto ”; [158] and (2) MECO did not have any beneficial interest in the overrides assigned to the nominee since the overrides were being held “in trust” for the employees, and both MECO and the nominee were under a fiduciary duty to assign those interests to the employees. [159]

The antithesis of Boyd is an opinion by the Colorado Court of Appeals in the case of Grynberg v. Waltman , [160] which upheld a Bankruptcy Court’s decision discharging not only a debt owing for unpaid production revenues attributable to an overriding royalty interest, but the overriding royalty interest itself. The case was originally filed by Grynberg in the Denver district court, subsequent to the approval of this Chapter 11 reorganization plan by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that overriding royalty interests previously assigned to Waltman while he was employed as exploration manager for Grynberg were extinguished as a result of confirmation of the plan. Waltman had left Grynberg’s employ sometime prior to the bankruptcy filing, whereupon Grynberg stopped paying Waltman the overrides he had been assigned, and informed Waltman that no further overrides would be paid. After his filing for Chapter 11 protection, Grynberg named Waltman as a creditor with a disputed claim. Waltman knew about the bankruptcy proceeding, and even testified in hearings related to the case, but failed to file a proof of claim with regard to the disputed override in spite of an order from the court instructing every creditor to do so. Grynberg’s plan was eventually approved free of any further obligation to Waltman.

Waltman acknowledged that payments due on production prior to the bankruptcy petition were personal property, and dischargeable as a debt, but argued that the overriding royalty interests that had been assigned to him were his own real property interests not subject to discharge in Grynberg’s bankruptcy. The district court and the Colorado Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that “according to 11 U.S.C. §1141(b)(1994), upon confirmation of a bankruptcy plan, all property of a debtor’s estate is vested in the debtor free and clear of any claim or interests of the creditors . . . [and that] [u]nder 11 U.S.C. §1141(d)(1)(B) (1994), confirmation of such plan terminates all disputed rights and interests of equity security holders. . . .” [161]

Here, [Waltman] has acknowledged in his motion for summary judgment that both parties were aware that the ownership of the overriding royalty interests was in dispute at the time of plaintiff’s bankruptcy proceedings. [Grynberg’s] bankruptcy estate included the oil and gas leaseholds and necessarily dealt with the overriding royalty interests connected with them .

Once the claim to royalty payments based on the overriding royalty interests was disputed, the ownership of that interest was called into question and was, therefore, before the bankruptcy court. . . . Subsequently, by operation [of] 11 U.S.C. §1141(b) (1994), plaintiff’s estate, including the oil and gas leases, vested in him free of defendant’s contested royalty interests when the bankruptcy plan was confirmed. [162]

The downfall of Waltman appears to have been his failure to file a proof of claim.

A proof of claim is a written statement that apprises the court of the existence, nature, and amount of the claim. . . . A creditor whose claim is not listed on the [debtor’s] schedules or whose claim is listed as disputed, contingent or unliquidated must file a proof of claim by the claims “bar date” or he may not vote on a plan of reorganization or share in any distribution of property of the debtor’s estate. . . .

By filing a claim against a bankruptcy estate, a creditor triggers the process of allowance and disallowance of claims, thereby subjecting himself to the bankruptcy court’s equitable power. Thus, once the creditor files a proof of claim, neither the debtor nor the creditor is entitled to a jury trial. [163]

A production payment, like an overriding royalty interest, is usually classified as an interest in real property. But a “hybrid” production payment, created under a “Production Payment Loan Agreement,” secured by a lien on the assignor’s mineral interest and classified as a “loan” for federal tax purposes, can be deemed a secured loan in a bankruptcy proceeding. If so, the owner of the “hybrid” will be deemed a “secured creditor” by the Bankruptcy Court, and can be held liable for administrative expenses incurred by the bankrupt’s estate that are necessary to maintain the secured creditor’s collateral. The foregoing set of facts was behind the ruling in the Fifth Circuit case captioned In re Senior-G & A Operating Co. v. Aguillard , [164] [165] wherein the court held that under the terms of the Production Payment Loan Agreement between Senior-G & A Operating Co. (the assignor of the production payment) and PSI, Inc. (the holder of the production payment), “Senior mortgaged—it did not transfer—its mineral interest in the well to PSI (and also pledged its production), and under Louisiana law, PSI must be classified as a secured creditor as opposed to a royalty owner.” [166]

When PSI asserted rights against Senior’s interest in the well pursuant to the loan agreement it became part of the “ ‘process of allowance and disallowance of claims’ [or] the restructuring of debtor-creditor relations” under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, and was liable for its proportionate share of “administrative expenses” under 11 U.S.C. § 506(c). [167]

§ 21.07            Matters to Be Considered in Drafting an Assignment or Reservation of an Overriding Royalty Interest

Honorable people will abide by commercially reasonable provisions included in a grant or reservation of an overriding royalty interest or other form of nonoperating interest. In the absence of honor, commercially reasonable terms written in clear, concise, and unambiguous language usually can be enforced in a court of law, assuming money is no object. In the absence of honor or money, the parties to a grant or reservation of a nonoperating interest have nothing to lose by defining their respective rights and obligations. The following is a checklist of items to be considered in conjunction with grants or assignments of overrides, production payments, and net profits interests: [168]

(1)       How is the nonoperating interest to be calculated?

(2)       What expenses, if any, are to be borne by the interest?

(3)       How should the interest that the parties intend to reserve or convey be expressed to allow for, or avoid, proportionate reduction?

(4)       Will the interest attach to: (a) extensions, renewals, and/or modifications of the original lease and/or (b) new leases taken by the assignee, its agents, or assigns within a specified time after the expiration of the original lease? Is a rule of perpetuities savings clause necessary with regard to future rights in “new” leases?

(5)       Should the instrument creating or reserving the interest give the owner the right to enforce all implied covenants under the burdened lease?

(6)       Should the instrument creating or reserving the interest contain express drilling and development obligations, especially with regard to the primary term, that go beyond those implied in an oil and gas lease?

(7)       Is the interest entitled to share in advance payments or “take-or-pay” payments received by the lessee under gas purchase and processing agreements?

(8)       Is the owner of the interest entitled to take production in kind and, if so, how will revenues be calculated on (a) the share of the owner’s oil and gas that is used to produce the well, (b) the share of the owner’s oil and gas that is lost in the course of production, and (c) the share of the owner’s oil and gas that may be reinjected into the well for pressure maintenance and other purposes?

(9)       Can the assignee/lessee pool or unitize the interest without the owner’s consent and, if so, how?

(10)     Should any dispute with regard to the interests be subject to binding arbitration, mediation, or other methods of alternative dispute resolution?

(11)     Should attorneys’ fees and costs be recoverable in the event of a dispute or litigation concerning the interest and, if so, from whom?

(12)     Should the instrument creating the interest contain a provision binding the burdened party and its successors from disputing the interest or claiming a right to the interest in a bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding affecting the burdened party?

In the event all efforts to include special provisions in an instrument creating an override or other form of nonoperating interest are rebuffed, just remember the words of Professor Kuntz, paraphrased for the proper effect, who said that “It is better to reserve than to receive.”

[1]    2 Howard R. Williams & Charles J. Meyers, Oil And Gas Law § 418.1 (2003); 5 Eugene O. Kuntz, A Treatise on the Law of Oil and Gas § 63.2, at 218 (1991); T-Vestco Litt-Vada v. Lu-Cal One Oil Co., 651 S.W.2d 284 (Tex. Civ. App.-Austin 1983); Garman v. Conoco, Inc., 886 P.2d 652, 656 (Colo. 1994); Campbell v. Nako Corp., 402 P.2d 771, 775 (Kan. 1985); Connaghan v. Eighty-Eight Oil Co., 750 P.2d 1321,1324 (Wyo. 1988).

[2]    2 Williams & Meyers, supra note 1, § 418.2, at 356; Campbell , 402 P.2d at 775.

[3]    5 Kuntz, supra note 1, § 63.2, at 218; De Mik v. Cargill, 485 P.2d 229, 239 (Okla. 1971).

[4]    Richard W. Hemingway, The Law of Oil and Gas § 9.9(b), at 637 (3d ed. 1991).

[5]    2 Williams & Meyers, supra note 1, § 418.1, at 354.

[6]    2 Kuntz, supra note 1, § 63.2, at 221; Page v. Fees-Krey, Inc., 617 P.2d 1188, 1194 (Colo. 1980); Team Bank v. Meridian Oil, Inc., 879 P.2d 779, 781 (N.M. 1994); Meeker v. Ambassador Oil Co., 308 F.2d 875 (10th Cir. 1962) (applying Oklahoma law); Tennant v. Dunn, 110 S.W.2d 53, 57 (Tex. App. 1937); Connaghan v. Eighty-Eight Oil Co., 750 P.2d 1321, 1324 (Wyo. 1988).

[7]    Campbell v. Nako Corp., 402 P.2d 771, 775 (Kan. 1965); Connell v. Kanwa Oil, Inc., 170 P.2d 631 (Kan. 1946); Barker v. Boyer, 794 P.2d 322, 324 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990). See 1 Williams & Meyers, supra note 1, § 214.2, at 175-78, for a discussion of the “inconsistent” court decisions in Oklahoma with regard to the realty-personalty classification of non-operating interests.

[8]    Grynberg v. Waltman, 946 P.2d 473, 476 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996); Kentucky Bank & Trust Co. v. Ashland Oil & Transp. Co., 310 S.W.2d 287 (Ky. 1958). See Ferguson v. Coronado Oil Co., 884 P.2d 971 (Wyo. 1994) (where this rationale was applied to a net profits interest).

[9]    De Mik v. Cargill, 485 P.2d 229 (Okla. 1971); T-Vestco Litt-Vada v. Lu-Cal One Oil Co., 651 S.W.2d 284 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1983); Connaghan , 750 P.2d at 1324.

[10]   Standard Oil Co. v. Marshall, 265 F.2d 46, 54 (5th Cir. 1959); T-Vestco Litt-Vada , 651 S.W.2d 284 (citing 2 Williams & Meyers, supra note 1, § 418.1, at 342).

[11]   De Mik , 485 P.2d at 235.

[12]   See Ferguson v. Coronado Oil Co., 884 P.2d 971 (Wyo. 1994) pertaining to a net profits interest.

[13]   Gruss v. Cummins, 329 S.W.2d 496, 502 (Tex. Civ. App.—El Paso 1959); John O. Schofield, Inc. v. Nikkel, 731 N.E.2d 915, 925 (Ill. 2000).

[14]   Globe Drilling Co. v. Cramer, 562 P.2d 762, 765 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977).

[15]   John O. Schofield , 731 N.E.2d at 925.

[16]   Page v. Fees-Krey, Inc., 617 P.2d 1188 (Colo. 1980).

[17]   2 Williams & Meyers, supra note 1, § 422, at 366.10. See also Standard Oil Co. v. Marshall, 265 F.2d 46, 53 (5th Cir. 1959) (applying Texas law); 5 Kuntz, supra note 1, § 63.3, at 243.

[18]   Frank W.R. Huber & James A. Taylor, “Creation and Conveyance of Oil and Gas Leasehold Burdens,” 31 Rocky Mt. Min L. Inst . 14-1, 14-8 (1985); see also Walker, “Oil Payments,” 20 Tex. L. Rev . 259, 269 (1942); 2 Williams & Meyers, supra note 1, § 422.3; Roberts v. Lone Star Producing Co., 369 S.W.2d 373 (Tex. Civ. App.—Eastland 1963); McMahon v. Christmann, 303 S.W.2d 341 (Tex. 1957).

[19]   Marshall , 265 F.2d at 53. But see In re Senior-G & A Operating Co. v. Aguillard , 957 F.2d 1290 (5th Cir. 1992), discussed in § 21.06 below, wherein a production payment secured by mortgage was determined to be a secured loan.

[20]   2 Williams & Meyers, supra note 1, § 424.

[21]   Id . § 424.1, at 439.

[22]   See id . at 440.

[23]   Ferguson v. Coronado Oil Co., 884 P.2d 971, 976-77 (Wyo. 1994).

[24]   5 Kuntz, supra note 1, § 63.5, at 254.

[25]   Huber & Taylor, supra note 18, at 14-4.

[26]   8 Williams & Meyers, supra note 1, at 371; Sawyer v. Guthrie, 215 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 1258 n.2 (D. Wyo. 2002); Otter Oil Co. v. Exxon Co., U.S.A., 834 F.2d 531, 534 (5th Cir. 1987); Sunac Petroleum Corp. v. Parkes, 416 S.W.2d 798, 804 (Tex. 1967).

[27]   Sawyer , 215 F. Supp. 2d at 1258; Otter Oil Co ., 834 F.2d at 533.

[28]   Thomas v. Whyte, 146 N.W.2d 721, 722 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966).

[29]   Sunac Petroleum Corp. , 416 S.W.2d at 802 (citing Mutual Paper Co. v. Hoague-Sprague Corp., 8 N.E.2d 802 (Mass. 1937)).

[30]   Sawyer , 215 F. Supp. 2d at 1264 (citing Williams Petroleum Co. v. Midland Cooperatives, Inc., 679 F.2d 815, 817 (10th Cir. 1982)).

[31]   Lillibridge v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 907 F.2d 1031, 1033 (10th Cir. 1990).

[32]   Lillibridge, 907 F.2d 1031; see also Sunac Petroleum Corp., 416 S.W.2d 798.

[33]   Howell v. Cooperative Refinery Ass’n, 271 P.2d 271 (Kan. 1954).

[34]   Sawyer , 215 F. Supp. 2d at 1264.

[35]   Sunac Petroleum Corp ., 416 S.W.2d at 803.

[36]   In re GHR Energy Corp., 972 F.2d 96, 99 (5th Cir. 1992); Wier v. Glassell, 44 So. 2d 882, 887 (La. 1950); De Mik v. Cargill, 485 P.2d 229, 233 (Okla. 1971); Campbell v. Nako Corp., 402 P.2d 771, 775 (Kan. 1965); S.W. Bardill, Inc. v. Bird, 346 S.W.2d 25 (Ky. 1961); 2 Williams & Meyers, supra note 1, § 418.2, at 356; 5 Kuntz, supra note 1, § 63.2, at 227.

[37]   Degenhart v. Gold King Petroleum Corp., 851 P.2d 304, 306 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993); Brannan v. Sohio Petroleum Co., 260 F.2d 621, 623 (10th Cir. 1958); Sunac Petroleum Corp ., 416 S.W.2d at 804; 5 Kuntz, supra note 1, § 63.2, at 232.

[38]   5 Kuntz, supra note 1, § 63.2, at 227-28.

[39]   Goocey v. Hopkins, 266 S.W. 1087 (Ky. Ct. App. 1925); Sasser v. Dantex Oil & Gas, Inc., 906 S.W. 2d 599 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1995).

[40]   315 P.2d 758 (Okla. 1957).

[42]   260 F.2d 621 (10th Cir. 1958).

[43]   Reserved.

[44]   Id . (applying Oklahoma law). See also Sunac Petroleum Corp. v. Parkes, 416 S.W. 2d 798 (Tex. 1967).

[45]   Campbell v. Nako Corp., 402 P.2d 771 (Kan. 1965).

[46]   Id . at 779.

[47]   286 P. 875 (Okla. 1930).

[48]   Id . at 876.

[49]   Id . at 878 (emphasis added).

[50]   Independent Gas & Oil Producers, Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 669 F.2d 624 (10th Cir. 1982).

[51]   Id . at 627.

[52]   Sawyer v. Guthrie, 215 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 1264 (D. Wyo. 2002).

[53]   1 P.3d 909 (Kan. 2000).

[54]   Reserved.

[55]   Id . at 920-21.

[56]   271 P.2d 271 (Kan. 1954).

[57]   Id . at 274 (citing 15 C.J.S . 821).

[58]   907 F.2d 1031 (10th Cir. 1990).

[59]   Reynolds-Rexwinkle , 1 P.3d at 919 (citing Ney, Note, “Protecting Overriding Royalty Interests in Oil and Gas Leases: Are the Courts Moving to Washout Extension or Renewal Clauses?” 31 Washburn L.J. 544, 563 (1992).

[60]   416 S.W.2d 798 (Tex. 1967).

[61]   See also Exploration Co. v. Vega Oil & Gas Co., 843 S.W.2d 123 (Tex. App.—Houston 1992).

[62]   215 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (D. Wyo. 2002).

[63]   Id . at 1266-67.

[64]   Reserved.

[65]   Id . at 1262-63.

[66]   Id. at 1262 (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts §205).

[67]   Reserved.

[68]   Sawyer , 215 F. Supp. 2d at 1262-63.

[69]   K&E Drilling, Inc. v. Warren, 340 P.2d 919 (Kan. 1959).

[70]   94 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002).

[71]   Id . at 700 (emphasis added).

[72]   Id . at 701, 703.

[73]   In re GHR Energy Corp. v. Transamerican Natural Gas Corp., 972 F.2d 96 (5th Cir. 1992).

[74]   Black’s Law Dictionary 1331 (7th ed. 1999).

[75]   Melcher v. Camp, 435 P.2d 107, 108 (Okla. 1967).

[76]   Independent Gas & Oil Producers, Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 669 F.2d 624 (10th Cir. 1982).

[77]   Id . at 628; see also Howell v. Cooperative Refinery Ass’n, 271 P.2d 271, 276 (Kan. 1954).

[78]   345 F. Supp. 28 (W.D. Okla. 1972).

79. 1             Id . at 29 (emphasis added).

[80]   Id . at 30-31.

[81]   Adapted from Hubert & Taylor, supra note 18, at 14-33.

[82]   Downen Enterprises v. Gem Oil & Gas Co., 476 N.E.2d 42, 43 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985); Williams v. Sohio Petroleum Co., 151 N.E.2d 645 (Ill. App. Ct. 1958); Wolter v. Equitable Res. Energy Co., 979 P.2d 948 (Wyo. 1999).

[83]   Barker v. Boyer, 794 P.2d 323, 325 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990) (citing Williams v. Sohio Petroleum Co., 151 N.E.2d 645 (Ill. App. Ct. 1958)).

[84]   Williams , 151 N.E.2d at 648 (citing Pollock v. McAlester Fuel Co., 223 S.W.2d 813, 815 (Ark. 1949)).

[85]   Fry v. Farm Bureau Oil Co., 119 N.E.2d 749, 751 (Ill. 1954); Williams , 151 N.E.2d 645, 648; see also Pollock , 223 S.W.2d 813.

[86]   Downen Enterprises , 476 N.E.2d at 44.

[87]   Williams , 151 N.E.2d at 646 (emphasis added); see also Pollock , 223 S.W.2d 813.

[88]   R. Lacy, Inc. v. Jarrett, 214 S.W.2d 692, 693 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1948) (emphasis added); see also Middleton v. Broussard, 504 S.W.2d 839 (Tex. 1974).

[89]   Fry , 119 N.E.2d at 751; see also Barker v. Boyer, 794 P.2d 322 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990).

[90]   589 S.W.2d 137, 149 (Tex. Civ. App. 1979) (emphasis added).

[92]   Id. at 149.

[93]   65 P.3d 703 (Wyo. 2003).

[94]   Id. at 710.

[95]   Id . at 706.

[96]   Id . at 707.

[100]               Reserved.

[101]               Wadi Petroleum , 65 P.3d at 711.

[102]               See 5 Williams & Meyers, supra note 1, at ch. 8 and 5 Kuntz, supra note 1, ch. 55, for a comprehensive discussion of the origin and purpose of implied covenants.

[103]               5 Williams & Meyers, supra note 1, § 802.1, at 11.

[104]               5 Williams & Meyers, supra note 1, § 815, at 70.1; Garman v. Conoco, Inc., 886 P.2d 652 (Colo. 1994).

[105]               3 W.L. Summers, The Law of Oil and Gas , § 554, at 74 (Supp. 2003).

[106]               5 Kuntz, supra note 1, § 55.3(e), at 34, 35 (emphasis added).

[107]               Id. § 55.3(f), at 37.

[108]               2 Williams & Meyers, supra note 1, § 420.1, at 363.

[109]               Simms Oil Co. v. Colquitt, 2 S.W.2d 421 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1928).

[110]               Kile v. Amerada Petroleum Corp., 247 P. 681 (Okla. 1925).

[111]               Hubert & Taylor, supra note 18, at 14-26. See also 5 Kuntz, supra note 1, § 55.3(e), at 36.

[112]               116 F.2d 994 (5th Cir. 1941).

[113]               Reserved.

[114]               Reserved.

[115]               Id . at 995-96. See also Cook v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 560 F.2d 978 (10th Cir. 1977).

[116]               533 S.W.2d 914 (Tex. 1976).

[117]               Id . at 916.

[118]               886 P.2d 652 (Colo. 1994).

[119]               Id . at 659 (quoting Davis v. Cramer, 808 P.2d 358, 363 (Colo. 1991)).

[120]               886 P. 2d 652, 659 (citations omitted).

[121]               Reserved.

[122]               Id . at 659 n. 23 (citing 2 Williams & Meyers, supra note 1, § 420 and Bolton v. Coats, 533 S.W.2d 914, 916 (Tex. 1975)).

[123]               Cook v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., 560 F.2d 978 (10th Cir. 1977).

[124]               247 P. 681 (Okla. 1925).

[125]               Id . at 682.

[126]               Reserved.

[127]               Id . at 683.

[128]               XAE Corp. v. SMR Property Mgmt. Co., 968 P.2d 1201 (Okla. 1998).

[129]               Garman v. Conoco, Inc., 886 P.2d 652 (Colo. 1994).

[130]               Bolton v. Coats, 533 S.W.2d 914 (Tex. 1975).

[131]               XAE Corp ., 968 P.2d at 1202.

[132]               5 Kuntz, supra note 1, § 55.3(e), at 34, 35.

[133]               Kile v. Amerada Hess Corp., 247 P. 681 (Okla. 1925).

[134]               XAE Corp ., 968 P.2d at 1207.

[135]               McNeill v. Peaker, 488 S.W.2d 706 (Ark. 1973).

[136]               70 S.W.2d 1036 (Ark. 1934).

[137]               McNeill , 488 S.W.2d at 707.

[138]               Id.

[139]               3 Summers, supra note 105, § 554, at 74.

[140]               2 Williams & Meyers, supra note 1, § 420.1, at 362-362.1.

[141]               2 Williams & Meyers, supra note 1, § 429, at 489.

[142]               Id.

[143]               Bond v. Midstates Oil Corp., 53 So. 2d 149 (La. 1951).

[144]               Hubert & Taylor, supra note 18, at 14-25.

[145]               990 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999).

[146]               Id . at 369.

[147]               Reserved.

[148]               Id . at 369, 371.

[149]               816 P.2d 97 (Wyo. 1991).

149.1            Id . at 103 (emphasis added).

[150]               Id . at 104.

[151]               Id . at 103.

[152]               Wolter v. Equitable Resources Energy Co., 979 P.2d 948 (Wyo. 1999).

[153]               Id . at 950 (emphasis added).

[154]               Id . at 952.

[155]               11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).

[156]               11 U.S.C. § 541(b)(4)(B)(i).

[157]               56 B.R. 776, 779 (E.D. La. 1986).

[158]               Id . at 779 (emphasis added).

[159]               Id . at 780-81.

[160]               946 P.2d 473 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

[161]               Id . at 477.

[162]               Id.

[163]               Tony M. Davis & Mary Millwood Gregory, “How to Prepare For and Survive a Producer’s Bankruptcy Filing: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You,” 44 Rocky Mt. Min. L. Inst . 16-1, 16-27 (1998).

[164] 957 F.2d 1290 (5th Cir. 1992).

[165]               Reserved.

[166]               Id . at 1297.

[167]               Id.

[168]               The author acknowledges the material contributions to this list of Hubert & Taylor, supra note 18, at 14-33, and Richard W. Hemingway, The Law of Oil and Gas , § 9.9, at 635 (West Practitioner Treatise Series 3d ed. 1991).

Return to top of page

© 2024 · Akers & Thompson LLC · Website Design by Interactive Builds

• Oil & Gas Investing
• DW’s Approach
• Partner Experience
• Tax Advantages
• Tax Deductions Example
• Mineral & Royalties
• Project Highlights eBook
• DW Insights
• Oil & Tax Policy
• Tax Benefits eBook
• Request Info

Oil and Gas Investment: Working Interest

Working interest refers to the financial responsibility an investor has for expenses related to the exploration, drilling, and production of natural resources. When someone holds a working interest, they are fully involved in the profits generated from the operation, reflecting their investment. Conversely, investors with royalty interests typically have limited potential for significant profits as they are usually restricted to their initial  oil and gas investment .

Having a working interest entitles investors to a percentage ownership of the profits derived from resource production. They also have the right to participate in drilling activities and benefit from the resources extracted. However, along with the income gained from resource production, investors also bear a proportionate share of the acquisition costs.

What is working interest in oil and gas?

A lease granting exploration, drilling, and production rights for oil and gas can be obtained by oil and gas developers through a  working interest .

Working interest owners are responsible for contributing a portion of the expenses associated with leasing, drilling, and operating oil or gas wells. In addition to the royalty payments received from royalty interests, working interest owners also receive a  corresponding percentage of the revenues  generated from production.

To illustrate, let’s consider a scenario where a property holds a 20 percent royalty interest. In this case, the owner who possesses a 100 percent working interest assumes the responsibility of financing the entire drilling expenses while retaining 80 percent of the generated profits from production. The remaining 20 percent is allocated to the holder of the royalty interest. In the event of multiple owners, they divide the 80 percent share of profits amongst themselves proportionate to the size of their respective investments.

contact dw energy

Want to learn more about oil & gas investing? Our expert team can provide you with more information or schedule a consultation to talk about diversifying your investment portfolio.

Notably, these divisions of net revenue are independent of the well’s productivity. While certain geographic areas may be more productive, it does not impact the allocation of revenue. The calculation remains the same.

In the world of oil and gas production, working interests can pertain to leases, wells, or drilling units. Acquiring and maintaining a working interest involves a substantial upfront investment.

Kinds of working interest

There are three primary kinds of working interest:

Operating working interest – This refers to the individuals or entities that are responsible for running the operations of an oil or gas investment. The owners of the operating working interest bear the costs associated with operations and make payments to holders of royalty interests.

Non-operating working interest – This type of working interest entails ownership rights in a well, lease, or other production areas, but without any obligation to operate or cover the operational costs of a producing unit. Non-operating working interest owners do not have direct involvement in the day-to-day operations.

Carried working interest – This kind of working interest involves a partnership between multiple parties who hold a working interest in a well. Through a joint venture or partnership arrangement, these parties pool their resources to finance the functioning of the well. Investors who hold a carried working interest are not required to participate in daily activities. Instead, they contribute upfront funds, and once production begins and profits are generated, they receive a share of the revenue.

Benefits of being a working interest owner

Just like any form of investment, investing in working interest offers several advantages:

Potential for substantial and lasting profits – If the well proves to be successful, the  profits can be significant  and last for an extended period of time.

Tax benefits and offsets – Tax benefits associated with working interest investments are treated as losses, which can be used to offset other income. This allows investors to potentially reduce their overall tax liability.

Active involvement in production decisions – Investing in working interest means actively participating in the decision-making process related to production activities. This provides investors with a sense of control and the opportunity to contribute to the success of the project.

Potential tax incentives – Working interest owners may qualify for tax incentives, which can amount to approximately 65 to 80 percent of the total investment cost. These incentives can further enhance the financial attractiveness of the investment.

The information provided above contains all the essential details you should be aware of if you are considering investing in a working interest in the oil and gas industry. Make an informed decision as an investor.

DW Energy Group, LLC is a non-operating oil and gas exploration company located in the Dallas, Texas metro area. Since 2008, DW has provided industry-leading  oil and gas investment  opportunities to qualified investors. DW is an expert at finding, developing, and managing the most lucrative domestic oil and gas investment opportunities for qualified and approved investors.

Contact dw energy

“Working Interest: Meaning, Overview, Advantages and Disadvantages,” Investopedia, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/working-interests.asp “Oil and Gas Ownership Interests: Calculating Working Interest,” Legacy Exploration, LLC.,  https://legacyexploration.com/oil-gas-ownership-working-interest/ “How oil and gas working interest investments work,” Baker Tilly,  https://www.bakertilly.com/insights/how-oil-and-gas-working-interest-investments-work “Risk and Return: Working Interests and Royalty Interests,” Mercer Capital, https://mercercapital.com/energyvaluationinsights/risk-and-return/

Related Posts

• Oil and Gas Investment: Navigating Recent Trends
• Unearthing Value: The States Dominating in Mineral Rights
• Innovating Energy: Emerging Technologies in Oil and Gas Production

Request More Info

Recent posts.

• Insightful Investing: Understanding the Oil Refining Sector
• Reduce Your Tax Liability with Oil and Gas Investments

Assignment of Oil and Gas Lease

An oil or gas lease provides the lessee with many rights regarding the use of the land and the minerals buried underneath it. When that lease is signed, it creates a real estate, which can be further divided or assigned to other parties. That’s where the term assignment comes from in the oil and gas industry. 

But the assignment of oil and gas lease can include the transfer or conveyance of various things. So for anyone involved in an oil or gas lease in any capacity, it’s beneficial to understand the meaning of assignment and its implications for the lease itself. 

Assignment of Oil and Gas Lease Meaning

The definition of assignment in real estate is the sale, transfer, or conveyance of a whole property ownership/rights or part of it to another party. 

The term in the oil and gas industry is used for sale, transfer, or conveyance of working interest, lease, royalty, overriding royalty interest, or net profit interest. 

Since real estate property rights or mineral rights in the case of oil and gas are divisible, mineral rights owners or lessees often sell or convey parts of the mineral rights to other companies. The legal instrument used for this purpose is called an assignment. 

The party assigning the rights is called the assignor, and the party receiving the rights is called the assignee. 

Assignments are filed in the same way as an oil and gas lease or a title deed to a property. These legal documents need to be drafted in accordance with the state requirements and filled with the relevant county or municipality authorities. 

Of the different assignment transactions in the oil and gas industry, the assignment of rights in the oil and gas lease is the most common. While the lease itself is the negotiable instrument in the scenario, the assignment establishes the successful transfer of the rights. 

It may look like a simple document, but the rights and duties of the different parties can make it complex. As a result of the assignment, the property interests, rights, and obligations of the lessor, lessee, and assignee may alter. 

On top of this, any local laws governing such a transfer also need to be accommodated. Now, federal regulations also impact the transfer of oil and gas interests. 

What Can Be Assigned?

The lessee of an oil or gas lease can assign the entire lease or part of it. In other words, the lessee can sell or transfer part of the estate or the entire estate to which they have the working rights. 

The assignee is assigned the working interest and lease obligations, including override royalty. The assignment document will state the percentage of override royalty, which is the percentage of the mineral removed from the land under lease and the net profits received by the assignee by the sale of the minerals. 

An overriding royalty interest is an undivided interest that gives the holder the right to receive a certain percentage of the revenue from the sale of the mineral. This differs from royalty interest in that the overriding interest cannot be divided and doesn’t grant ownership of the mineral rights once the assignment expires. 

In other words, the original mineral owner (the lessor) retains a royalty interest, whereas the lessee assigning the lease to an assignee gets the overriding royalty interest. 

Multiple Lease Assignments

Normally, the assignment mentions and describes the lease assigned to an assignee. 

However, an oil or gas company often may have multiple lease agreements with different mineral owners from the same field or formation. On the other hand, the leases involving different lessees may have undergone unitization to increase production and reduce competition. 

In such cases, the assignment may include multiple leases. If multiple leases are in an assignment, they are typically described in an exhibit with the document. However, in cases of unitization, the assignment may not necessarily list or describe the leases. Instead, it will just mention all the lease agreements in a particular unit or tract of land. 

It all comes down to the document’s language, as sometimes the focus is on the rights and obligations rather than the actual lease or property. 

Assignment Limitations

Oil and gas leases are pretty flexible regarding how they can be further leased or assigned. An assignor may choose to assign the lease as is or set limitations that may not exist in the original lease. An assignor may set the following limitations for the assignee:

• Wellbore Limits: The assignment may set the production to the wellbore only. In other words, the assignee can only produce the mineral from the wellbore of a particular well, and all the interests outside of this wellbore are not assigned. In such a case, the assignee cannot produce from deeper formations. 
• Depth Limits: The assignment may set the interest to a certain depth or a particular formation by mentioning the formation’s depth or name. For instance, the assignee may only have a working interest up to a depth of 8,000 ft. from the surface. These are more common in assignments than wellbore limitations. Such limitation may also automatically apply if the oil or gas lease also had depth limitations. 
• Horizontal Limits: The assignment may set horizontal limitations or, in other words, include only a part of the land. The assignee would not be able to produce from outside these parts of the land as described in the assignment, even if they are part of the actual lease. 

Assignment of oil and gas lease is a common instrument in the oil and gas industry in the US, used to assign lease rights and obligations to other companies. The companies with the lease can assign multiple leases to the same party. Similarly, they can divide a lease and assign it to different parties. 

The assignment procedure and documentation may vary based on state laws and the individual case. However, it’s a detailed document that specifies what is covered under the assignment, what duties befall the assignee, and what they need to pay the assignor. 

100 Crescent Court, Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75201

(469) 310-4970

Our team specializes in the acquisition of mineral rights, royalties, overriding royalty and non-operated working interests. Contact us to learn more about how we can assist you.

Our Company & Services

• Minerals/Royalties
• 1031 Exchange

Assignment Of Membership Interest

Jump to section, what is an assignment of membership interest.

An assignment of membership interest is a legal document that allows members of a Limited Liability Company (or LLC) to reassign their interest in the company to a different party. LLC laws are different from state to state, so what's required in an assignment of membership agreement changes.

Typically seen when a member wishes to exit a business, the assignment of membership interest agreement is used when transferring membership interest to another person. It is possible to transfer membership of an LLC to something like a revocable trust but requires those terms and conditions to be set in the assignment agreement.

Assignment Of Membership Interest Sample

Reference : Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database, EX-10.1.1.2 3 dex10112.htm ASSIGNMENT OF MEMBERSHIP INTEREST , Viewed October 13, 2021, View Source on SEC .

Who Helps With Assignments Of Membership Interest?

Lawyers with backgrounds working on assignments of membership interest work with clients to help. Do you need help with an assignment of membership interest?

Post a project  in ContractsCounsel's marketplace to get free bids from lawyers to draft, review, or negotiate assignments of membership interest. All lawyers are vetted by our team and peer reviewed by our customers for you to explore before hiring.

Meet some of our Assignment Of Membership Interest Lawyers

I am an experienced transactional attorney with substantial experience (10 years, including at a large national law firm and a public company) in the review/markup and drafting of a wide variety of commercial contracts. I am efficient and business-minded and am capable of taking an aggressive or more modest approach, depending on your preferences, leverage, and urgency. I look forward to working with you! https://www.linkedin.com/in/owenkirk/

Nicholas M.

Nicholas Matlach is a cybersecurity expert (CISSP) and an attorney who is dedicated to helping small businesses succeed. He is a client-focused professional who has a deep understanding of the challenges that small businesses face in the digital age. He also provides legal counsel to small businesses on a variety of issues, including formation, intellectual property, contracts, and employment law.

I am the Managing Partner of Adams Global Immigration, a Business Immigration Law firm focusing on nonimmigrant visa processing (H-1B, L-1, E-2, E-3, O-1, TN, etc.) and immigrant visa processing (EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, PERM, NIW, etc.). I have many years of business immigration experience, including legal work at Jackson and Hertogs, Fragomen, E&M Mayock, and as a Freelance Immigration Specialist. My specialization includes complicated Request for Evidence responses and high-volume nonimmigrant visa preparation. I can provide legal advice regarding employment visa preparation, unique international travel issues, and various other complex immigration matters. Prior to joining Jackson & Hertogs in 2018, I served as a Certified Law Clerk with the San Diego Public Defender office through Thomas Jefferson School of Law (TJSL). In this role, I argued over 40 hearings in state court for criminal juvenile matters, adult misdemeanors, and adult felonies. I subsequently joined the TJSL Removal Defense clinic, wherein I argued and won a full asylum trial in Federal Court for a Moroccan refugee fleeing severe LGBTQ persecution.

Attorney Steven Wax is ardent about helping his clients. Whether creating personalized estate plans, drafting and negotiating contracts or other legal matters. Steven’s goal is to assist and counsel his clients to protect them and their loved ones. Steven grew up on Long Island, New York. He attended the University of Massachusetts in Amherst earning a BS in Sport Management. He earned his paralegal certificate at Duke University and earned his Juris Doctorate from North Carolina Central University School of Law in Durham, NC. Steven has an extensive legal career in the life science sector, working for some of the world’s largest Contract Research Organizations since 2013. Steven has negotiated a broad range of contracts for both businesses and individuals. Steven participated in the NCCU Elder Law Project, where he prepared wills, durable powers of attorney, living wills, and health care powers of attorneys for low/fixed income clients in Durham and surrounding counties. Steven finds meaningful ways to share his skills and passion with his community. Steven volunteers his time to Wills for Heroes, which provides no-cost estate planning documents to first responders and their families, through the NC Bar Foundation.

Jocelyne U.

Jocelyne Uy graduated from law school in 2002 where she began her career in insurance defense where she practiced a wide range of issues relating to insurance policies and claims. Identifying a need for representation for those working cross border, Jocelyne understood the unique interplay of the laws of Canada and the U.S. and started her first firm in Michigan focusing on Canadian American immigration and tax law. Jocelyne and her partner realize that Nevada residents continuously face challenges in finding affordable and accessible representation to assist with their debt issues. Because of these challenges and continuous shifting economy, they are committed to assisting anyone who finds themselves struggling to handle the debt and credit cycle that often feels hopeless and endless. Jocelyne's firm has assisted clients in post-COVID financial crisis ranging from credit card debt, student loan debt, and COVID unemployment repayment hearings.

My name is Will, and I'm the Principal Attorney at Accelerate Law STL, a startup attorney who helps entrepreneurs and small businesses with everything from formation to IPO. Whether your small to mid-sized business needs help drafting or reviewing contracts, securing intellectual property, complying with government regulations, or even streamlining your business' internal policies, I'm prepared to help.

Find the best lawyer for your project

How it works.

Post Your Project

Get Free Bids to Compare

Hire Your Lawyer

Corporate lawyers by top cities

• Austin Corporate Lawyers
• Boston Corporate Lawyers
• Chicago Corporate Lawyers
• Dallas Corporate Lawyers
• Denver Corporate Lawyers
• Houston Corporate Lawyers
• Los Angeles Corporate Lawyers
• New York Corporate Lawyers
• Phoenix Corporate Lawyers
• San Diego Corporate Lawyers
• Tampa Corporate Lawyers

Assignment Of Membership Interest lawyers by city

• Austin Assignment Of Membership Interest Lawyers
• Boston Assignment Of Membership Interest Lawyers
• Chicago Assignment Of Membership Interest Lawyers
• Dallas Assignment Of Membership Interest Lawyers
• Denver Assignment Of Membership Interest Lawyers
• Houston Assignment Of Membership Interest Lawyers
• Los Angeles Assignment Of Membership Interest Lawyers
• New York Assignment Of Membership Interest Lawyers
• Phoenix Assignment Of Membership Interest Lawyers
• San Diego Assignment Of Membership Interest Lawyers
• Tampa Assignment Of Membership Interest Lawyers

related contracts

• Asset Acquisition Agreement
• Asset Acquisition Contract
• Asset Purchase
• Asset Purchase Agreement
• Asset Purchase Due Diligence Checklist
• Business Acquisition Agreement
• Business Acquisition Contract
• Business Acquisition Due Diligence Checklist
• Business Purchase Agreement

other helpful articles

• How much does it cost to draft a contract?
• Do Contract Lawyers Use Templates?
• How do Contract Lawyers charge?
• Business Contract Lawyers: How Can They Help?
• What to look for when hiring a lawyer

Quick, user friendly and one of the better ways I've come across to get ahold of lawyers willing to take new clients.

Contracts Counsel was incredibly helpful and easy to use. I submitted a project for a lawyer's help within a day I had received over 6 proposals from qualified lawyers. I submitted a bid that works best for my business and we went forward with the project.

I never knew how difficult it was to obtain representation or a lawyer, and ContractsCounsel was EXACTLY the type of service I was hoping for when I was in a pinch. Working with their service was efficient, effective and made me feel in control. Thank you so much and should I ever need attorney services down the road, I'll certainly be a repeat customer.

I got 5 bids within 24h of posting my project. I choose the person who provided the most detailed and relevant intro letter, highlighting their experience relevant to my project. I am very satisfied with the outcome and quality of the two agreements that were produced, they actually far exceed my expectations.

Want to speak to someone?

Get in touch below and we will schedule a time to connect!

Find lawyers and attorneys by city