Rulings on Four Dormant Mineral Act Cases Before Ohio Supreme Court Should Offer Clarity

By -
From Gas & Oil:
There are currently four ODMA cases pending before the Ohio Supreme Court, and the Court could decide to hear additional cases in the next few months. 
  • Dodd v. Croskey is an appeal from Ohio’s Seventh Appellate District, which includes the majority of counties experiencing Utica development.  The propositions of law on which the Court will rule are: (1) Whether the recitation of a prior mineral reservation constitutes a title transaction under Ohio’s Dormant Minerals Act (“ODMA”); and (2) Whether a mineral interest owners filing of a preservation affidavit after a notice of abandonment acts to “cure” prior activity with respect to the mineral interest rather than only giving a right to “contest” the abandonment.  The Court’s ruling in this case will significantly alter how lower courts interpret the ODMA and could dramatically shift the playing field in favor of surface owners.
  • Chesapeake v. Buell is a case in which the Ohio Supreme Court accepted certified questions of law from the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio.  Those questions are: (1) Is the recorded lease of a severed subsurface mineral estate a title transaction under the ODMA; and (2) Is the expiration of a recorded lease and the reversion of the rights granted under that lease a title transaction that restarts the 20-year forfeiture clock under the ODMA from the time of reversion.  Again, a ruling by the Supreme Court could expand on instances that could be interpreted as “savings events” under the ODMA, thus favoring the rights of mineral owners.
  • Corbin v. Chesapeake, LLC is another case in which the Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear certified questions from the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio:  (1) Does the 2006 version or the 1989 ODMA apply to claims asserted after 2006 alleging the rights to oil and gas and other minerals automatically vested in the surface landowner prior to the 2006 amendments as a result of abandonment; and (2) Is payment of the delay rental during the primary term of an oil and gas lease a title transaction and a “savings event” under the ODMA.
  • Walker v. Noon is another appeal from Ohio’s Seventh Appellate District.  The propositions of law to be decided by the Court all involve the ODMA interplay between the 1989 version and the 2006 version of the ODMA and whether surface owners can bring claims under the 1989 ODMA subsequent to the 2006 amendment of the ODMA.  Rulings in the Corbin and Walker cases could dramatically swing the balance of power under the ODMA in favor of the rights of surface owners.
 In addition to the foregoing cases, discretionary appeals to the Ohio Supreme Court have been sought in these cases:

Read this entire article by clicking here.

Connect with us on Facebook and Twitter!

Popular posts from this blog

Fracktivist in Dimock Releases Carefully Edited Video, Refuses to Release the Rest

By -
Image
From Energy in Depth: There is something very strange going on along Carter Road, in Dimock, Pennsylvania, and I’m not speaking of natural gas, methane migration, contamination, litigation or even the extensive water testing there by the EPA and others.  No, I’m talking about a new “Watergate” conspiracy, complete with 18 minutes of missing tape (well, video, actually). It seems the ever-present Green Party member and  naturist   Vera Scroggins  (a/k/a  Vera Duerga ) has posted a video of Craig Sautner meeting with the EPA.  Mysteriously, the video is but 14 seconds in length, cutting off conversation in what is obviously mid-stream.  It raises a question Craig Sautner, like  Ronald Reagan in Kings Row , might have asked, “Where’s the rest of me?’  Carter Road, isn’t Kings Row, of course, (at least not until you arrive at  the mansion Scott Ely, one of the Dimock litigants, is building with his royalty money ), but there appears to be...
Read more

The Second Largest Oil and Gas Merger - Cabot and Cimarex

By -
Image
       Due to investor pressure, the U.S shale drillers are being pushed to improve financial and operational performance after a few years of poor returns. Even though the industry has improved its numbers, when compared to last year, investors still want more to be done for them to earn more money.      That's why two mid-tier shale drillers, Cabot and Climarex, have decided to merge in order to eliminate $100 million in annual costs, which means more money for the investors. This all-stock transaction is valued at about $7.4 billion, which is relatively high for the oil and gas sector.      The new entity will be renamed and the headquarters located in Houston, Texas. Cabot shareholders will own 49.5 percent of the new entity, and Climarex the rest.       The Cimarex-Cabot merger will address the investor's demand for a higher amount of returning cash. The initial plan is to pay a 50-cent-per-share special dividen...
Read more

Do You Know The History of Fracking?

By -
Image
  In 2018, 59% of total oil production in the U.S came from hydraulic fracking, which means it accounted for more than two-thirds of domestically manufactured gas. By 2024, fracking will reach an astounding $68 billion market value! Of course, fracking is not a new drilling method as you can trace it back hundreds of years. That's why we want to consider the history of hydraulic fracturing (fracking). We will be stating historical facts about it and focusing on the major historical occurrences that have influenced modern-day fracking. Pre-Fracking Days The idea of fracking started back in 1862 when Edward A.L. Roberts (Civil War veteran) witnessed Confederate soldiers exploding artillery rounds into a canal that obstructed a battlefield. At the time, Edward A.L. Roberts called it superincumbent fluid tamping. On April 26th, 1865, Edward A.L. Roberts began experimenting with exploding torpedoes, which consisted of lowering a torpedo containing an amount of powder from fifteen to tw...
Read more