Butler v. Exxon Corp.
Decision Date | 16 November 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 6644,6644 |
Citation | 559 S.W.2d 410 |
Parties | Ted BUTLER et al., Appellants, v. EXXON CORPORATION, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
This case involves the question of whether or not additional royalties are due to the lessors under gas royalty provisions of four oil and gas leases which were executed in 1966. The trial Court denied any additional recovery. We affirm in part and in part reverse and remand.
The basic dispute results from the fact that the price of natural gas in the intrastate market in Texas rapidly escalated from the time the gas discovered under these leases was sold for less than 20cents per mcf in 1970 to over $2.00 per mcf by early 1975. Relying primarily upon Texas Oil & Gas Corporation v. Vela, 429 S.W.2d 866 (Tex.1968), Appellants contend that they should have been paid a gas royalty based on market value when the gas was delivered to the purchaser. See: Kelly, "What Price, Gas?", 7 St. Mary's L.J. 333 (1975).
The four leases cover lands which form a part of the Atkinson Gas Field in Karnes and Live Oak Counties. In 1970, after the first wells were drilled, the lessee executed contracts to sell the gas for the next twenty years. On the gas produced from Units Nos. 2 and 4, the initial price was 18cents per mcf. On Unit No. 5, the price was 181/2cents. In addition, another 11/2cents per mcf was paid for processing rights for the extraction of liquid hydrocarbons. Each of the gas contracts had a provision for a price escalation of 1cents per mcf every five years. From the beginning of production in 1970 until it assigned the leases to a third party on October 1, 1975, Exxon made royalty payments to the lessors based upon the amount realized from such sales.
The two principal leases, being Exxon Leases Nos. 510294 and 510296 which cover nearly 80% of the Butler acreage involved in this suit, contained the following royalty clause:
"The royalties to be paid by Lessee are: (a) on oil, one-eighth of that produced and saved from said land, the same to be delivered at the wells or to the credit of Lessor into the pipe line to which the wells may be connected; Lessee may from time to time purchase any royalty oil in its possession, paying the market price therefor prevailing for the field where produced on the date of purchase; (b) on gas, including casinghead gas or other gaseous substance, produced from said land and sold or used off the premises or for the extraction of gasoline or other product therefrom, the market value at the well of one-eighth of the gas so sold or used, provided that on gas sold at the wells the royalty shall be one-eighth of the amount realized from such sale; * * * and (c) on all other minerals mined and marketed, 1/8 either in kind or value at the well or mine * * *."
Lease No. 510292 contains a very similar clause except for a provision for payment to two different royalty owners, the lessors and the State. See: Gregg, "Analysis of the Usual Oil and Gas Lease Provisions", 5 S.Tex.L.J. 1 at 13 (1960).
Lease No. 510266, which covers 26.11 acres and 3.2% of the Butler acreage involved in this suit, contains a clause which requires the lessee to pay to the Veterans' Land Board and to deliver to the credit of the lessor "one-sixteenth of the market value at the well of all gas produced and saved from the leased premises."
After gas was discovered in the Atkinson Field, parts of these leases were unitized pursuant to Railroad Commission Regulations to form parts of three one-well units. Following production, the Butlers executed a series of division orders which provided:
"Settlements for gas sold at wells or at a central point in or near the field where produced shall be based on the net proceeds at the wells. * * * "
After Hattie L. Butler, Appellant's mother, died in September, 1973, a new division order, dated November 1, 1973, was executed which provided for settlements on oil and gas to be in accordance with the royalty provisions of the leases. The original division orders were revoked on April 1, 1975, and a new division order was signed to require payments for oil and gas in accordance with the royalty provisions in the leases.
Much of the testimony in the case consists of opinion evidence of expert witnesses. Each side used a consulting petroleum engineer to develop their theory of the case. Mr. Max Powell, testifying as an expert witness for the Appellants, commenced with a tabulation of gas sales in a seven-county area of South Texas, and ultimately reached a conclusion as to the market value of gas in the Atkinson Field for each quarter from October, 1972, until October, 1975. These prices ranged from 32.9cents per mcf at the beginning to $2.06 per mcf at the end. Basically, he averaged the top three sales in Live Oak and Karnes Counties each quarter to determine market value during such period. He said all sales which he finally used were comparable in quantity, quality, and availability of gas. He concluded that the Butlers had been underpaid in the amount of $187,881.55, plus interest of $27,407.29. He readily admitted that this determination was based on new gas coming into the market under current market conditions. Mr. Powell testified, and the trial Court found, that the gas was delivered to the purchaser at the tailgate of a centralized separation, dehydration, and compressing facility of Exxon which was located approximately 100 feet west of the west fence line on the Butler property and thus was off the leased premises. Mr. Powell concluded that there could be a sale at the well even though delivery was made to the purchaser several hundred feet from the well head. But he said a sale off the premises, as in this case, was not in his opinion a sale at the well. In this regard, he said:
Mr. H. J. Gruy testified as an expert witness for the Appellee and said that in his opinion Exxon was required to execute long term contracts to sell the gas in 1970, and that in his opinion they got fair market value and the best price available at the time of sale. He said sales after 1970 were not comparable and could not be considered in determining market value. Mr. Gruy considered the sale by Exxon to be at the well. He testified:
Q Normally what would you consider to be a well head sale?
The trial Court filed extensive Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. In addition to the undisputed facts set forth above concerning the leases and gas contracts, the Court found that in 1970 a prudent operator would make every reasonable effort to market the gas from Units Nos. 2, 4, and 5 as quickly as possible so as to prevent drainage from other wells in the field. The Court also found that in 1970 gas could only be sold on long term contracts with minimal price escalation provisions, and that the contracts for this gas were bona fide arms length transactions with a price as good or better than any prices being paid for gas in Karnes and Live Oak Counties at that time. The Court also found that Exxon had attempted diligently but unsuccessfully to renegotiate the contracts.
With regard to payments called for by the lease provisions and those actually made, the Court found:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Piney Woods Country Life Sch. v. Shell Oil Co.
...analysis of the issue. The Vela court's solution for calculating market value was criticized and rejected in Butler v. Exxon Corporation, 559 S.W.2d 410, 416 (Tex.Civ.App.1977). The court in Butler disapproved of Vela's volume-weighted average formula, and instead, accepted market value fig......
-
Piney Woods Country Life School v. Shell Oil Co.
...market area. This technique is the same one that Powell used, and that the court approved without contest, in Butler v. Exxon Corp., 1977, Tex.Civ.App., 559 S.W.2d 410. It is similar to the method used in Exxon v. Middleton, 1981, Tex., 613 S.W.2d 240. The district court, however, found Pow......
-
First Nat. Bank in Weatherford v. Exxon Corp.
...of "proceeds" received by the producer. We discussed the basis for and our opinion as to the effect of a division order in both Butler v. Exxon Corporation, supra, and Amoco Production Company v. First Baptist Church of Pyote, supra. They were also considered by the Court in Middleton v. Ex......
-
Amoco Production Co. v. First Baptist Church of Pyote
...and arrived at a price which they consider to represent fair market value at a given time. See Butler v. Exxon Corporation, 559 S.W.2d 410 (Tex.Civ.App. El Paso 1977, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Exxon Corporation v. Middleton, 571 S.W.2d 349 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (14th Dist.) 1978, writ pending);......
-
CHAPTER 1 ROYALTY INTERESTS IN THE UNITED STATES: NOT CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH
...1966); Arkansas Natural Gas Co. v. Sartor, 78 F.2d 924, 927 (5th Cir. 1935), cert. denied, 296 U.S. 656 (1936); Butler v. Exxon Corp., 559 S.W.2d 410 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.). [56] Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Bynum, 155 F.2d 196, 201 (5th Cir. 1946), cert. denied, 329 ......
-
CHAPTER 4 INTERPRETING THE ROYALTY OBLIGATION BY LOOKING AT THE EXPRESS LANGUAGE: WHAT A NOVEL IDEA?
...235, 238, 79 0.&G.R. 244(5th Cir. 1984); J.M. Huber Corp. v. Denman, 367 F.2d 104, 25 O.&G.R. 347 (5 Cir. 1966); Butler v. Exxon Corp, 559 S.W.2d 410, 59 0.&G.R. 529 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.). There may be limits on who can testify as to market value after Daubert v. Merrel......
-
CHAPTER 6 DIVISION ORDER ISSUES IN THE 1990s: STATE POLICING OF AN UNRESPONSIVE INDUSTRY
...Pipe Line Co., 17 So.2d 200 (Miss. 1944). [70] See, e.g., Exxon Corp. v. Middleton, 613 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1981); Butler v. Exxon Corp., 559 S.W.2d 410 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977). See Hollimon, supra note 52, at 322-24, for one author's challenge of the Texas courts' rationale in declaring gas div......
-
CHAPTER 2 GAS MARKETING ROYALTY ISSUES IN THE 1990s
...905 F.2d 840 (5th Cir. 1990). [78] Supra note 9. [79] Supra note 21. [80] Supra note 14. [81] Supra note 15. [82] Supra note 6. [83] 559 S.W. 2d 410 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977). [84] Kingery v. Continental Oil Co., 434 F. Supp. 349 (W.D. Tex. 1977); rev'd on other grounds, 626 F.2d 1261 (5th Cir.......