
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Federal Court Tells WWII Waste Generators, “You'd Better Not Pout,” Awards Government $50 Million in Cleanup Costs
- Court Upholds Private NGO Settlement Agreement That Supplements Federal Consent Decree
- First Circuit Upholds Remand of Climate Change Suit To State Court
- PA Court Rejects Environmental Rights Amendment Challenge to Appropriation of Oil and Gas Lease Funds for DCNR’s General Operations
- Southern District of Texas’s Opinion Offers a Look Behind the CERCLA Allocation Curtain
Topics
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Fees
- Commonwealth Court
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Fifth Circuit
- Energy
- Indemnification
- Electric
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- CISWI
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Procedure
- NPDES
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Contamination
- CLE
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Trespass
- ISRA
- Administrative Hearing
- Informal Agency Action
- New Jersey
- Railroad
- Air
- RCRA
- Waste
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Supreme Court
- Cost Recovery
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Cases to Watch
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Decisions of Note
- Real Estate
- Drilling
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
On January 4, 2011, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued its opinion in Hite v. Falcon Partners, No. 197 WDA 2010, 2011 PA Super 2, holding that productive activities at premises leased for oil and gas activity were essential for the lessee to retain control of the property after the primary lease period, even though the oil and gas lease provided for an indefinite extension of the lease upon the payment of small delay rental payments. Relying on long-standing case law, the Court determined that despite the “unusual” wording of the lease at issue, the equitable principles that require such leases to be interpreted to promote development of the land and resources for the benefit of both the lessor and the lessee remained paramount. Importantly, though, both the lower court and the Superior Court left a slight opening for lessees. The trial court opined that an indefinite period for exploration was not completely foreclosed to lessees, but that the lease language must be “clear and unequivocal.” Similarly, the Superior Court noted that a lessee who wished to preserve exploration rights could enter into a lease with a significantly longer primary term.
The written opinion provides a primer on oil and gas leasing law in Pennsylvania, tracing the development of oil and gas lease forms since the nineteenth century as both drilling companies and landowners seek to maximize their rights and their financial returns. As the Court explained, early oil and gas leases required the lessee to immediately develop the property in order to generate royalties for the lessor. However, such lease terms pressured oil companies to begin activities sooner than was feasible, and thus lessees sought more time to begin exploration and/or drilling. As a result, these leases began to include clauses allowing companies to postpone exploration and drilling upon the payment of modest amounts as “delayed rental.” At the same time, to ensure that lessees would profit from their activities even if production began late in the primary term, language that extended the lessee’s rights beyond the primary term so long as drilling occurred and royalties paid to the landowner found its way into the leases. But, almost from their inception and no matter how worded, courts interpreted the delayed rental provisions to apply only during the primary lease term and not to the extended production term, finding that any other reading would be unfair to the lessor, who was precluded from making productive use of the property without receiving royalties as compensation.
The Superior Court’s ruling in Hite is a reminder that lease language matters, and reinforces the importance of negotiation and precise drafting of leases relating to oil and gas exploration and similar types of energy development land uses such as wind energy. Thus, it is important that landowners and project developers consult with experienced legal counsel before entering into oil and gas, mineral and wind turbine leases, to ensure that rights are properly protected and the intent of the parties is properly documented and secured.