Mineral Rights Leases: Form and Function - Module 3 of 5
See Also:
Mineral Rights Leases: Form and Function
The mineral lease establishes legal rights for subsurface development in the United States oil, gas and mineral extraction industry. This module explains the general forms and functions of contracts common across oil, gas and mineral transactions. The discussion begins with the goals of a mineral rights lease and how the law has developed to meet these goals. We will then turn to the fundamental characteristics of a modern mineral rights lease and conclude with an explanation of several common savings clauses.
Purpose and Nature of Subsurface
Rights Leases
The owner
of valuable subsurface commodities - including fossil fuels, precious metals
and other commercially-valuable substances - has the right to economically
benefit from them. If these benefits are to be conveyed, they must be conveyed
through a legal arrangement. In the oil, gas, and mineral extraction industry,
this legal arrangement is commonly established by a mineral rights lease. A mineral rights lease is executed between
the owner of subsurface minerals and a developer and explains the terms and
conditions that both parties must adhere to during the extraction process.[1]
Mineral
leases differ from other real property leases in three important aspects.
First, the lessee has the right to use the land and to take substances of value
from it. The same cannot be said in a typical landlord-tenant arrangement,
which only entitles the tenant to possession of the property. Second, rights
conveyed in a mineral lease are not necessarily limited by time. Third, a lessee’s
rights to use and access the property where the subsurface minerals are located
must be shared with the surface owner.
While
leases are governed by the straightforward rules of property conveyances,
mineral leases are hybrids between contractual agreements and conveyances of
rights. A mineral lease is a property conveyance because the mineral owner
grants a transfer of possession, easements or other property rights through the
document. On the other hand, a mineral lease is a contract because it contains
legal promises regarding compensation, use and other aspects of the developer’s
use of the land.
Courts treat mineral leases differently depending on whether the state law tends to treat such leases under principles of property law or contract law. Some states, such as oil-rich Texas, see mineral leases as creating interests as fee-simple property estates on behalf of the developer-lessee. Other states, such as Oklahoma, Kansas and California, instead classify the lessee’s interest as a “profit á prendre,”[2] which is an agreement that creates rights to others’ lands to take value from them.[3] Courts in still other states treat oil and gas leases as both a conveyance of mineral rights and as a contract between the property owner and development company.
Interests Conveyed in Mineral
Leases
As a
minimum, a valid mineral lease must contain a granting clause and a habendum clause.
A granting
clause explains the rights a mineral owner grants to the lessee development
company. To meet common law requirements, a granting clause must identify the
size of the interest in the subsurface right granted, the specific substances
covered by the lease, uses permitted in the exploration and development of
these substances and a description of the land covered by the lease. A granting
clause typically allows the lessee the opportunity to search for, develop and
produce oil, gas or other valuable commodities without imposing a legal
obligation to do so.[4]
Mineral rights lessees are also obligated to abide by the accommodation
doctrine, which prohibits unnecessary damage to the lessor’s land by
prohibiting unreasonable interference with the surface of the land.
The habendum
clause, commonly referred to as the “term clause” of the mineral lease,
sets the duration of the lease. Habendum clauses encompass two important time
periods recognized by mineral leases: the primary term and the secondary term.
The primary term is the time in which the lessee may maintain its mineral rights
without attempting any extraction of the subsurface commodities.[5]
The purpose of this primary term is to give the lessee adequate time to make
full economic use of its claim. The length of the primary term is negotiable
and typically dictated by market conditions.
The secondary
term allows the lessee to maintain its rights under the lease so long as it is
producing minerals in an economically viable manner. The secondary term typically
extends for an indefinite time. The secondary term begins when the lessee
starts to extract minerals covered by the mineral lease, continues while the
lessee is productive and ends when production ceases. Temporary pauses in
production do not bring the secondary term to an end. [6]
Several cases
have addressed the starting and ending points for the secondary terms when the
lease agreement is ambiguous or subject to interpretation. For example, in Breaux
v. Apache Oil Corp, a developer installed an access road to a planned
extraction site during the primary term but did not commence extraction until
two days after the lease’s primary term expired. The Breaux court considered both the language of the lease and the
facts surrounding the dispute and decided that the lessee had commenced
operations sufficient to move the process forward into the secondary term.[7]
But, if the developer had done less – such as just securing permits and
contract to drill but not actually doing any work on the site or receiving any
royalties – he may have lost the rights to extract minerals.[8]
Breaux is one example of a case questioning
when production starts, triggering the secondary term of a mineral lease. Parties
also sometimes disagree regarding what legal standards apply to the cessation
of production that would end the secondary term. Courts in oil and gas
producing states have interpreted the production necessary to maintain the
secondary term as “production in paying quantities” or “PPQ.” In other words,
an extraction operation must bring in a certain threshold of revenue to
maintain production status.[9]
The Texas Supreme Court established a test for determining production in paying quantities in Clifton v. Koontz. In Clifton, the court held the mineral rights owner (seeking to end the lease) had the burden of showing that there had been no production in “paying quantities” on the property in question during the relevant period. If an extraction operation carried out under a mineral lease is profitable enough that a prudent operator would keep it running, it may continue indefinitely pursuant to its rights under the secondary term.[10] If it is not, however, the Clifton standard deems it unproductive and unable to support the secondary term.
Delay-Rental Clauses
With the
exception of Oklahoma and Louisiana, every state treats mineral rights leases
as creating property rights in favor of the lessee that terminate automatically
if the lessee fails to meet one or more conditions.[11]
Savings clauses are included in most mineral rights leases to afford the
lessee with needed flexibility in a system that values productive use of the land.
The first
essential savings term that should be included in most mineral leases is the delay-rental
clause. This provides the terms and conditions for payments of rentals from
the lessee to make up for delays in drilling during the lease primary term.
A
delay-rental clause allows a mineral rights holder to maintain its rights under
a lease even if it cannot immediately act on it. The purpose of this clause is
to ensure that the lessee does not lose the its rights merely by virtue of
failing to drill during the primary term. The clause allows the lessee to pay a
pre-negotiated fee to extend the time that it has to commence exploitation of
the resources. Notably, however, delay-rental clauses only allow for this
exchange to take place during the primary term. Once the secondary term begins,
delay-rental clauses cannot be used to extend the lease term after the economic
usage of the lease is stopped.[12]
There
are two common forms of delay-rental clauses. The most popular delay-rental
clause is structured to automatically terminate the lease “unless” the lessee
commences extraction operations or pays a delay rental fee prior to a specified
date. If the work doesn’t start and the fee isn’t paid, the lease interest ends
automatically.
The
less-popular but still common “or” delay-rental clause contractually obligates
the lessee to either drill a well, pay the delay rentals fee or surrender the
lease. Failure to do any of these three constitutes a breach of contract but
does not result in automatic termination of the lease.
The
latter, “or” delay-rental clause, allows the lessee more flexibility as it may
choose to not pay the fee and risk a breach of contract lawsuit for damages
rather than paying the fee. In fact, some courts have required repeated
failures on behalf of the lessee to pay rentals on time in order to justify
forfeiture of the lease.[13]
Delay-rental
clauses only apply to the primary term of a mineral lease, so developers often
negotiate other terms to help them preserve their rights under the lease if
they encounter a period of non-production in the secondary term. For example, a
pooling clause allows the mineral rights lessee to treat all adjoining
subsurface estates as a single resource, with each unit of land being entitled
to a proportional development right.
Comparable to delay-rental clauses are provisions for shut-in royalties. Shut-in occurs when valuable minerals are on the property but are not being sold or used due to temporary adverse conditions.[14] For example, this issue can arise when a lease holder has rights to more than one type of subsurface mineral, but temporarily holds off on pursuing one of them due to complications and expenses of setting up drilling operations for multiple substances.[15] Shut-in royalty provisions provide that the lessee’ rights under a mineral lease can be maintained by the payment of a shut-in royalty.
Other Savings Clauses
Pooling
clauses afford some flexibility because production off-site could potentially
maintain the lessee’s rights in the secondary term despite a lack of production
in paying quantities on each parcel. If five adjoining pieces of land are
considered one “pooled” estate, producing resources on any of those five parcels could justify the continuation of the
secondary lease for all five.
A force
majeure clause is a common contractual term that excuses performance of
certain contractual duties in the event that circumstances beyond the party’s
control prevent performance, or, in this case, usage of the land for production.
So, if a mineral lease has a force majeure clause, it excuses the lessee from
performing drilling or mining operations when doing so would be impossible or
unreasonable due to weather, surface conditions, labor strikes or any other
circumstances the lessee would be unable to prevent.
Delay-rental
clauses help lessees maintain their rights during the primary term, and clauses
like pooling arrangements and force majeure afford mineral developers some
flexibility during the secondary term. But certain savings clauses, including
dry hole and cessation of production terms, can help lessees preserve their
rights under a mineral lease during either term.
A dry-hole
provision applies when a lessee drills a well or mine pursuant to a mineral
lease during the primary term, only to discover operations are not possible.
Dry-hole terms give developers a reasonable period of time to either drill a
new well or pay a delay rental, which prevents them from losing their rights
under the lease. [16]
Often, dry-hole provisions and cessation of production clauses are combined
into a single term.
Cessation
of production clauses also hedge against the risk created by the
hardline “production in paying quantities” standard courts apply to mineral
lease holders during the secondary term. Rather than requiring production to
continue in paying quantities, a mine or well operator may want to take time to
improve production or gather information. If a mineral lease has a cessation of
production clause, the mineral developer would be able to temporarily stop
production in paying quantities under certain conditions without ending the
secondary term. In fact, courts have created the temporary cessation of
production doctrine that protects lessees from inadvertently terminating their
lease rights if they are able to prove that the work stoppage was temporary and
reasonable, even if the lease agreement had no cessation of production term.[17]
Savings
clauses, however, cannot be used to delay production indefinitely, since doing
so would cost the lessor the opportunity to make arrangements with more
effective developers. Courts have inferred the implied covenant for further
development to prevent a mineral rights lessee from holding onto a mineral
estate forever without making good use of it.[18]
Under the implied covenant for further development, courts may terminate mineral rights leases that are being unfairly underused. Courts review several factors when determining whether a lessee’s rights should be extinguished. Relevant factors include the quantity of subsurface minerals likely to be found, the market conditions, neighboring operations, physical characteristics of the land, the cost of drilling and related activities, the willingness of a competitor to operate on the tract of land in question, the time lapse since the last extraction was performed and the general attitude of the lessee regarding further development. If a lessor is able to show that termination of the lease is merited under these factors, she will be allowed to lease the property to another developer.[19]
Conclusion
Mineral
rights leases serve a niche role in the law, and as a result they have
developed a unique form and function. This basic introduction to the main
components of a mineral lease should help prepare you for the next section of
the course, which provide a more in-depth explanation of other key contracts
common across oil, gas and mineral transactions.
[1] Timothy
Fitzgerald, Understanding Mineral Rights, 4 (MSU Extension 2017)
available at http://msuextension.org/publications/AgandNaturalResources/MT201207AG.pdf.
[2] Black's
Law Dictionary 1211 (6th ed. 1990) (defining "profit-profit A
prendre").
[3] John S. Lowe, Oil
and Gas Law in a Nutshell, 185-86
(West Academic 6e 2014).
[4] Id.
at 181-89.
[5]Trent Maxwell, The Habendum Clause – ‘Til Production Ceases Do Us Part, Holland
& Hart LLP (Feb. 5th, 2015) available at https://www.hollandhart.com/lease-provisions-part-2.
[11] Kendor Jones and Jennifer McDowell, Keeping Your Lease Alive in Good Times and in Bad, 55 Rocky Mt. Min. L. Inst 23-1, at 23-3 (2009).
[12] Robert Burnett and William Blakemore, Ohio Supreme Court Observes That Driller
Cannot Maintain Lease Indefinitely by Paying Delay Rentals, Houston Harbagh (Feb. 11, 2016) https://www.hh-law.com/ohio-supreme-court-observes-that-driller-cannot-maintain-lease-indefinitely-by-paying-delay-rentals/ (last visited Jan. 16, 2018).
[16] Kendor Jones and Jennifer McDowell, Keeping Your Lease Alive in Good Times and in Bad, 55 Rocky Mt. Min. L. Inst 23-1, at 23-3 (2009).
[17] Mohan Kelkar, The Effect of the Cessation of Production Clause during the Secondary
Term of an Oil and Gas Lease, 22 Tulsa
L. J. 531, 541 (2013) available at https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol22/iss4/3.
[18]
Earl A. Brown, The Implied covenant for
Additional Development, 13 Sw L.J. 149 (1959) available at https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4055&context=smulr.
[19] Slaaten v. Amerada Hess Corp., 459 N.W.2d 765, 769 (N.D. 1990).