Appalachian Land Company v. Equitable Production Company
Filing
59
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: EQT Production Companys Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 54 is GRANTED and Appalachian Land Companys Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice and STRICKEN from the record. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 2/16/12.(MJY)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION - PIKEVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:08-139-KKC
APPALACHIAN LAND COMPANY,
PLAINTIFF
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
f/k/a EQUITABLE PRODUCTION COMPANY,
DEFENDANT
*********
This matter is before the Court on Defendant EQT Production Company’s Renewed
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. [DE 54]. Plaintiff, Appalachian Land Company,
responded [DE 56] and EQT replied. [DE 57]. For the following reasons, the Court will GRANT
Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Appalachian Land Company, (“Appalachian”) owns property in Pike County,
Kentucky. EQT Production Company, (“EQT”) holds an oil and gas lease on the property.
While operating the wells, EQT has paid royalties to Appalachian on the gas it has produced. At
issue is EQT’s method of calculating the royalties. EQT has calculated and paid royalties based
on the value of gas after deducting certain costs and taxes. Appalachian maintains that the
method of calculation is improper and constitutes a breach of the lease.
The Lease provides that EQT shall pay royalties to ALC “at the rate of one eighth (1/8)
of the market price of the gas at the well.” [DE 54-6, Lease p. 3.] Gas is not sold “at the well.”
Instead, gas is gathered, treated, compressed, transported—and then sold away from the well,
which results in increased expenses. This price away from the well is called the “market price.”
1
EQT has been deducting costs and taxes from the market price to determine the “well price.”
ALC is then paid royalties based on this well price. ALC brought suit against EQT arguing that
“no severance taxes or costs of marketing or production are permitted to be subtracted from the
market price at the well before calculating royalties.” [DE 1 para. 24]. At issue is whether
Kentucky law follows the “at-the-well” rule or the “marketable product” rule.
The Court stayed proceedings on ALC’s motion after another court in this district ruled
that Kentucky follows the at-the-well rule. [DE 52]. ALC asked the Court to stay proceedings
pending the appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit of “a related case
[Poplar Creek Development Co. v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 636 F.3d 235 (6th Cir.
2011)] that could be largely dispositive of this case.” [DE 49-2 p. 1]. According to ALC, “[b]oth
Poplar Creek and this action present the same dispute.” [Id. (emphasis added)]. ALC wisely
suggested that “[p]roceeding in this action while the very issue Defendant asks this Court to
decide is contemporaneously before the Sixth Circuit would be entirely duplicative and a waste
of judicial resources.” [Id. p. 1–2]. The only difference between the instant case and Poplar
Creek is that “[t]he allegation that severance taxes . . . were improperly deducted from Plaintiff
Appalachian’s royalty payments was not an allegation in the Poplar Creek matter.” [Id. p. 3 n.
2]. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request and stayed the proceedings pending the Sixth Circuit’s
decision in Poplar Creek. [DE 52].
The Sixth Circuit held that, “Kentucky follows the ‘at-the-well’ rule, which allows for the
deduction of post-production costs prior to paying appropriate royalties.” Poplar Creek
Development Co. v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., 636 F.3d 235, 244 (6th Cir. 2011). The
Sixth Circuit went on to “hold that ‘at-the-well’ refers to gas in its natural state, before the gas
has been processed or transported from the well.” Id. Because the gas was actually sold at the
2
market price and not “at-the-well,” the court held that the defendant “was within its rights, under
Kentucky law and the parties’ agreement, to subtract gathering, compression and treatment costs
before paying royalties on the market value of the gas.” Id.
After this decision, EQT moved to remove the case from abeyance [DE 53] and renewed
its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. [DE 54].
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, “all well-pleaded material
allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion may be
granted only if the moving party is nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment.” Poplar Creek, 636
F.3d at 240 (quoting Tucker v. Middleburg-Legacy Place, 539 F.3d 545, 549 (6th Cir. 2008)).
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff argues that EQT improperly deducted costs and taxes from the market price to
determine the well price. EQT moves for judgment on the pleadings because Poplar Creek held
that “Kentucky courts would allow for the deduction of these costs and taxes before paying
appropriate royalties.” [DE 54-1 p. 17]. EQT is correct that Poplar Creek held that Kentucky
courts allow for the deduction of costs before paying royalties. Although deduction of severance
taxes was not an issue in Poplar Creek, its logic extends to severance taxes. Therefore, EQT was
within its rights to deduct severance taxes before paying royalties.
I. Deduction of Costs When Calculating Royalties
In August 2009, ALC argued to this Court:
the issue presented to this Court in Equitable’s motion for judgment on the pleadings,
except for the severance tax deduction, is the very issue decided in the Poplar Creek
matter that is now before the Sixth Circuit. Factually, both cases include similarly situated
parties and are premised on nearly identical royalty provisions contained in Kentucky oil
and gas leases entered between plaintiffs and defendants. Legally, the core question in
3
each case is whether Kentucky law permits defendants to deduct production costs – such
as gathering, treatment and compression costs – before calculating royalties pursuant to
the oil and gas leases in question.
[DE 49-2 p. 4 (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted)]
In Poplar Creek, the Sixth Circuit decided “the issue presented to this Court” in the
instant action [DE 49-2 p. 5] and held that “Kentucky follows the ‘at-the-well rule [and] allows
for the deduction of post-production costs prior to appropriate royalties.” Poplar Creek, 636 F.3d
at 244.
The Court is baffled that Plaintiff’s Response does not mention Poplar Creek until page
thirteen (13) and does not substantively discuss Poplar Creek until page nineteen (19). [DE 56 p.
13, 19]. The Court is even more surprised that ALC argues Poplar Creek “is based upon an
incorrect and unsupported application of Kentucky law, and should not be followed.” [Id. at 19
(emphasis added)]. Plaintiff then devotes eight (8) pages arguing that Poplar Creek “is premised
upon major errors and the result is an unsound decision that is not based upon Kentucky law.”
[Id. at 20].
As Plaintiff is well aware, this Court is bound to follow the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation
of Kentucky law. Combs v. Int’l Ins. Co., 163 F. Supp. 2d 686, 691 (E.D. Ky. 2001). The Court
may not disregard controlling law from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Consistent with binding precedent, this Court finds that EQT was “within its rights, under
Kentucky law and the parties’ agreement, to subtract gathering, compression and treatment costs
before paying royalties on the market value of gas.” Poplar Creek, 636 F.3d at 244. The Court
will GRANT Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to gathering,
compression, and treatment costs.
4
II. Deduction of Kentucky Severance Taxes
Poplar Creek did not directly address whether the Defendant was within its rights to
deduct a portion of the cost of severance taxes from the market price in order to calculate the “atthe-well” price. But, there is no evidence or persuasive argument why the rule established in
Poplar Creek should not apply to severance taxes. The Kentucky severance tax is simply another
post-production cost that leads to a market price that is higher than the at-the-well price.
Therefore, it is appropriate for EQT to deduct taxes, in addition to post-production costs, from
the market price to determine the at-the-well price—and then pay ALC royalties based that price.
Other states that have adopted the at-the-well rule have included severance taxes as a
deductible cost. See Cartwright v. Cologne Production Co., 182 S.W.3d 438, 444–445 (Tex.
App. 2006); Schroeder v. Terra Energy, 565 N.W.2d 887, 895–96 (Mich. App. 1997). The
payment of severance taxes is an expense required to bring the gas to market, and the expense is
included in the ultimate market price. Therefore, it is reasonable to deduct severance taxes from
the market price in order to “work back” to calculate the at-the-well price.
ALC again asks this Court to ignore Poplar Creek and adopt the “marketable-product”
rule. ALC notes that the “Lease requires the gas royalty to be paid upon the prorata part of
‘market price at the well.’” [DE 56 p. 29]. Poplar Creek held that Kentucky’s market price atthe-well rule “allows for the deduction of post-production costs prior to paying appropriate
royalties.” Poplar Creek, 636 F.3d at 244. ALC ignores Poplar Creek and claims that “[d]ecided
case law mandates that ‘market price,’ and words of similar import, include all production and
severance taxes.” [DE 56 p. 29]. ALC asks this Court to ignore binding precedent, and offers no
argument why Kentucky’s severance tax is not a “post production cost[]” that may be deducted
“prior to paying appropriate royalties.” Poplar Creek, 636 F.3d at 244.
5
Instead of discussing the binding case law of this Circuit, ALC cites a number of
irrelevant cases. First, ALC cites cases from West Virginia, a state that unlike Kentucky, does
not follow the at-the-well rule. See Estate of Tawney v. Columbia Natural Resources, L.L.C., 633
S.E.2d 22 (W. Va. 2006). It is careless at best, and possibly unethical to cite cases from a
jurisdiction whose law is contradictory to the precedent binding on the Court. ALC also cites a
number of cases in which the royalty contracts at issue are clearly distinguishable from the
current contract. See, e.g., Johns Hopkins Hosp. v. Peabody Coal. Co., 920 F. Supp. 738, 740
(W.D. Ky. 1996) (stating that royalty was to be paid based on “the average price . . . at which the
coal is sold . . . without the deduction of sales commissions or expenses or discounts) (emphasis
added). ALC has made no argument that Kentucky’s severance tax is not a “cost” that may be
deducted from the market price before paying royalties on the market price at-the-well.
Therefore, the Court will GRANT Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with
respect to Kentucky’s Severance Tax.
CONCLUSION
When this case was filed, the Plaintiff presented the Court with a novel legal question—
does Kentucky follow the “marketable product” or “at-the-well” rule? Another court in our
district ruled that Kentucky follows the “at-the-well” rule. Plaintiff disagreed with that court’s
decision and appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff then asked this Court to
stay the case pending resolution of their appeal, hoping the Sixth Circuit would reverse and adopt
the opposite rule. But, the Sixth Circuit affirmed and held that Kentucky follows the at-the-well
rule.
This case no longer involves a novel legal question because the Sixth Circuit provided the
answer. Instead of accepting this result, the Plaintiff decided to re-argue their case to this Court,
6
hoping to persuade the Court that the Sixth Circuit was wrong. This Court lacks the power to
make those judgments. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed with prejudice.
For the foregoing reasons, EQT Production Company’s Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings is GRANTED and Appalachian Land Company’s Complaint is DISMISSED with
prejudice and STRICKEN from the record.
Dated this 16th day of February, 2012.
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?