Corporate Valuation, Oil & Gas
shutterstock_2364977019.jpg

October 2, 2017

How Do Post-Production Deductions Affect the Value of Your Oil and Gas Royalty Interest?

I recently attended the National Association of Royalty Owners (NARO) National Convention in Dallas, Texas.  The seminars on lease negotiations, mineral management, shale drilling, and more were all interesting and informative, but there was one topic that was brought up in almost every session: Post-Production Deductions (PPDs).

From the first Board Meeting to the last session of the conference, post-production deductions were discussed in great detail.  Why were these deductions brought up time and time again? Because post-production deductions affect the value of a mineral owner’s interest yet the regulations surrounding them is somewhat unclear and exists mainly on a contractual basis.

What are Post-Production Deductions?

The Marcellus Shale Coalition defines post-production deductions (PPDs) as “the expenses incurred in order to get the gas from the wellhead to market.”  These costs include gathering, compression, processing, marketing, dehydrating, transportation, and more.  PPDs vary significantly between operators and between oil fields because the quality of the products and the distance to market differ.

In its raw form, natural gas has little value.  In order to make it more marketable, the gas has to be processed so that it is ready to be transported and sold.   When an operator markets the product so that it can be sold at a higher price, the royalty owner also benefits if the new net price is greater than the price they would have received.

Are PPDs legal?

Royalty interests represent a share of net revenue, which means that royalty owners get their share of gross revenue and their share of appropriate expenses. “But,” you say, “I thought royalty owners don’t share in the costs of production!”  That is true.  Royalty owners are not responsible for costs associated with research, exploration, drilling, or any other aspects of production; but they can be liable for their share of expenses generated post-production.

In December 2016, the West Virginia Supreme Court decided that EQT (and therefore other operators) can “not deduct from that (royalty) amount any expenses that have been incurred in gathering, transporting or treating the oil or gas after it has been initially extracted, any sums attributable to a loss or beneficial use of volume beyond that initially measured or any other costs that may be characterized as post-production”.  However, in May of this year, the West Virginia Supreme Court reversed its previous decision from last year, allowing post-production deductions for gathering, transporting, or treating gas after extracted.  As summarized in WV Supreme Court Reverses Itself, Post-Production Deductions OK, the court said that, “oil and gas companies may use “net-back” or “work-back” methods to calculate royalties owed but that the “reasonableness” of those expenses in specific instances may be decided by future court cases.”

In general, the matter of post-production deductions is generally a contractual one between the lessee and lessor.   The Louisiana law review says that in general there are three kinds of royalty clauses: (1) the proceeds clause, (2) the market value clause, and (3) the market price clause.  The proceeds clause requires that royalty owners be paid a percentage of the actual amount of proceeds, net proceeds, or gross proceeds that the company received. Unless otherwise specified the owner should be paid proceeds determined at the well not at the place of sale.  According to Louisiana state law the market value clause allows the owner to determine the hypothetical price that a willing buyer would pay a willing seller for the product while the market price clause requires the operator to pay the royalty owner the actual price received at market.  Both, however, allow the royalty owner to be charged for transportation and marketing costs.

Future court cases will likely better define the level of post-production deductions that are considered to be fair to both the royalty owner and the operator. But it is important that royalty owners familiarize themselves with the current laws surrounding mineral rights and post-production deductions in the states in which they own mineral rights.

How Do PPDs Affect the Value of Your Royalty Interest?

The effect that PPDs have on royalty interests can be explained by one of the fundamental concepts of business valuation: value is a factor of cash flow, growth, and risk.

PPDs directly reduce cash flow which reduces the value of a royalty interest as shown by the equation above.  Additionally, the lack of a “no-deducts” clause in a lease agreement increase the risk associated with an interest.  Even if a royalty owner does not currently pay post-production deductions, there is the possibility that the operator could charge PPDs in the future which increases risk.  In our white paper titled, “How to Value an Oil and Gas Royalty Interest,” we explain how market and the income approach together can give a complete picture of value.

Conclusion

The National NARO convention had educated speakers who talked on a broad range of topics.  The organization encourages royalty owners to ask questions and continue learning no matter how long they have worked in the industry.  The convention reminded me why industry expertise is so important in the field of business valuation.  In order to fully understand the operations of a business, an analyst must have knowledge of all aspects of the industry.  Mercer Capital has over 20 years of experience valuing assets and companies in the oil and gas industry. We have valued companies and minority interests in companies servicing the E&P industry and assisted clients with various valuation and cash flow issues regarding royalty interests. Contact one of our oil and gas professionals today to discuss your needs in confidence.

Continue Reading

Defying the Cycle: Haynesville Production Strength in a Shifting Gas Market
Defying the Cycle: Haynesville Production Strength in a Shifting Gas Market
Haynesville shale production defied broader market softness in 2025, leading major U.S. basins with double-digit year-over-year growth despite heightened volatility and sub-cycle drilling activity. Efficiency gains, DUC drawdowns, and Gulf Coast demand dynamics allowed operators to sustain output even as natural gas prices fluctuated sharply.
Haynesville Shale M&A Update: 2025 in Review
Haynesville Shale M&A Update: 2025 in Review
Key TakeawaysHaynesville remains a strategic LNG-linked basin. 2025 transactions emphasized long-duration natural gas exposure and proximity to Gulf Coast export infrastructure, reinforcing the basin’s importance in meeting global LNG demand.International utilities drove much of the activity. Japanese power and gas companies pursued direct upstream ownership, signaling a shift from traditional offtake agreements toward greater control over U.S. gas supply.M&A was selective but meaningful in scale and intent. While overall deal volume was limited, announced transactions and reported negotiations reflected deliberate, long-term positioning rather than opportunistic shale consolidation.OverviewM&A activity in the Haynesville Shale during 2025 was marked by strategic, LNG-linked transactions and renewed international investor interest in U.S. natural gas assets. While investors remained selective relative to prior shale upcycles, transactions that did occur reflected a clear pattern: buyers focused on long-duration gas exposure, scale, and proximity to Gulf Coast export markets rather than short-term development upside.Producers and capital providers increasingly refocused efforts on the Haynesville basin during the year, including raising capital to acquire both operating assets and mineral positions. This renewed attention followed a period of subdued transaction activity and underscored the basin’s continued relevance within global natural gas portfolios.Although the Haynesville did not experience the breadth of consolidation seen in some oil-weighted plays, the size, counterparties, and strategic motivations behind 2025 transactions reinforced the basin’s role as a long-term supply source for LNG-linked demand.Announced Upstream TransactionsTokyo Gas (TG Natural Resources) / ChevronIn April 2025, Tokyo Gas Co., through its U.S. joint venture TG Natural Resources, entered into an agreement to acquire a 70% interest in Chevron’s East Texas natural gas assets for $525 million. The assets include significant Haynesville exposure and were acquired through a combination of cash consideration and capital commitments.The transaction was characterized as part of Tokyo Gas’s broader strategy to secure long-term U.S. natural gas supply and expand its upstream footprint. The deal reflects a growing trend among international utilities to obtain direct exposure to U.S. shale gas through ownership interests rather than relying solely on long-term offtake contracts or third-party supply arrangements.From an M&A perspective, the transaction highlights continued willingness among major operators to monetize non-core or minority positions while retaining operational involvement, and it underscores the Haynesville’s attractiveness to buyers with a long-term, strategic view of gas demand.JERA / Williams & GEP Haynesville IIIn October 2025, JERA Co., Japan’s largest power generator, announced an agreement to acquire Haynesville shale gas production assets from Williams Companies and GEP Haynesville II, a joint venture between GeoSouthern Energy and Blackstone. The transaction was valued at approximately $1.5 billion.This acquisition marked JERA’s first direct investment in U.S. shale gas production, representing a notable expansion of the company’s upstream exposure and reinforcing JERA’s interest in securing supply from regions with strong connectivity to U.S. LNG export infrastructure.This transaction further illustrates the appeal of the Haynesville to international buyers seeking stable, scalable gas assets and highlights the role of upstream M&A as a tool for portfolio diversification among global utilities and energy companies.Reported Negotiations (Not Announced)Mitsubishi / Aethon Energy ManagementIn June 2025, Reuters reported that Mitsubishi Corp. was in discussions to acquire Aethon Energy Management, a privately held operator with substantial Haynesville production and midstream assets. The potential transaction was reported to be valued at approximately $8 billion, though Reuters emphasized that talks were ongoing and that no deal had been finalized at the time.While the transaction was not announced during 2025, the reported discussions were notable for both their scale and the identity of the potential buyer. Aethon has long been viewed as one of the largest private platforms in the Haynesville, and any transaction involving the company would represent a significant consolidation event within the basin.The reported talks underscored the depth of international interest in Haynesville-oriented platforms and highlighted the potential for large-scale transactions even in an otherwise measured M&A environment.ConclusionWhile overall deal volume remained selective, the transactions and reported negotiations in 2025 reflected sustained global interest in U.S. natural gas assets with long-term relevance. Collectively, the transactions and negotiations discussed above point to a Haynesville M&A landscape driven less by opportunistic consolidation and more by deliberate, long-term positioning. As global energy portfolios continue to evolve, the Haynesville basin remains a focal point for strategic investment, particularly for buyers seeking exposure tied to U.S. natural gas supply and LNG export linkages.
Mineral Aggregator Valuation Multiples Study Released-Data as of 06-11-2025
Mineral Aggregator Valuation Multiples Study Released

With Market Data as of June 11, 2025

Mercer Capital has thoughtfully analyzed the corporate and capital structures of the publicly traded mineral aggregators to derive meaningful indications of enterprise value. We have also calculated valuation multiples based on a variety of metrics, including distributions and reserves, as well as earnings and production on both a historical and forward-looking basis.

Cart

Your cart is empty