With increasing interest in oil and gas
production and subsurface gas storage, questions may arise with respect to
ownership of hydrocarbon resources. Where by reservation or separate
conveyance, “petroleum” rights are owned separately from other subsurface
mineral resources, who owns the liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons which may be
produced and at what point in time should these respective ownership
interests be determined?
The Alberta Court of Appeal recently
considered these issues in a case where “all …. petroleum… which may be
found to exist in upon or under” the land had been reserved at the time of
conveyance of the land by the Canadian Pacific Railway to the original
settlers. The successors in title of the original settlers asserted
ownership of all gas captured at the well bore. The successors in title of
the petroleum rights maintained that such gas included “solution gas” which,
prior to drilling, was dissolved in the liquid hydrocarbons to which they
were entitled as owner of the petroleum rights.
In addressing the issue of gas ownership,
the court noted that, in “mixed reservoirs, before drilling, the percentage
of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons is fixed. However, after drilling, as a
result of changes in temperature and pressure, the proportion of liquid and
gaseous substances changes. Declining pressure as a result of production
also results in conversion of liquid hydrocarbons into gaseous hydrocarbons
in the reservoir. This “evolved gas” is to be distinguished from the “free
gas” which exists at initial reservoir conditions before drilling.
The trial judge had concluded that
“petroleum” includes oil and any other hydrocarbons and natural gas existing
as liquid in their natural condition and that this “petroleum”, including
all hydrocarbons in solution or contained in the liquid before drilling, is
the property of the petroleum owners. In upholding the trial judge’s
conclusion, the Court of Appeal stated:
“In summary, the trial judge concluded…:
the reservation was to be interpreted and title determined as at the time
of the grant at which the hydrocarbons were at initial reservoir
conditions; solution gas belongs to the petroleum owners; free gas or
primary gas cap gas belongs to the non-petroleum owners; and solution gas
(evolved gas) that emerged from the liquid hydrocarbons in the reservoir,
at the bottom of the well bore, at the surface or anywhere in between,
belongs to the petroleum owners. She found that condensate and natural gas
liquids, which derive from primary gas cap gas, belong to the
non-petroleum owners; and condensate and natural gas liquids, which derive
from the evolved gas, belong to the petroleum owners.
“…the trial judge’s conclusion that
evolved gas belongs to the petroleum owner along with solution gas that
emerges at the surface was correct…
“Although the trial judge did not
specifically consider the meaning of the words “which may be found to
exist” used in the reservation, the correctness of her decision is not
undermined. At the time the CPR reservation was created, it was not known
if petroleum existed below the surface of the land. Therefore, the
reservation would only attach to petroleum which might be found to exist
through exploration or production. Those words merely express a limitation
on the operation of the reservation. Those words do not mean that
petroleum must be reduced to possession before it can be subjected to
ownership.”
At least based on the wording of the
reservation under consideration in this case, the court determined that
separate ownership of “petroleum” rights entitles the petroleum owner to
“petroleum” resources as they existed at the time of the reservation,
including the solution gas which has emerged from the liquid hydrocarbons
after drilling. Despite the fact that this “evolved gas” mingles
indistinguishably with the “free gas” within the reservoir, ownership of
this gas must be determined on the basis of initial reservoir conditions.