Corporate Valuation, Oil & Gas
shutterstock_2364977019.jpg

July 30, 2018

Public Royalty Trusts (Part I)

Can Revenue Interests Benefit from Capital Appreciation?

In previous posts, we have discussed the relationship between public royalty trusts and their market pricing implications to royalty owners.  Many publicly traded trusts have a fixed number of wells, so the value comes from declining distributions.  Some of the trusts have wells that have not been drilled, which represent upside potential for investors. The future growth and outlook potential for each type of publicly traded trust is significantly different and a potential investor would want to know the details. The same is true for a privately held royalty interest.

In this post, we will explore the subject characteristics of MV Oil Trust.  This will serve as a primer for a subsequent post in which we will look further into the composition of its stock price in order to better understand investors’ ability to achieve returns through distributions and capital appreciation.

Market Observations1

Over the previous two years, the performance of the 21 publicly traded royalty trusts has varied widely.  The table below shows the performance and other key metrics of the 21 main oil and gas-focused partnerships that are publicly traded, as of July 12, 2018.

Clearly, there were some winners and losers, with more winners than losers. Of the winners, Whiting USA Trust II (WHZT) (+243%), discussed in a recent blog post, has had the highest price return.  The focus of this blog post will be MV Oil Trust (MVO) (+99%), whose market value has nearly doubled in the past two years. For comparison, the chart below shows the two-year returns from MV Oil Trust, Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and the S&P 500.   Over the last five years, there has been significant correlation between MVO’s share price and the price of crude oil (93.3%) and less correlation with the price natural gas (74.6%).

MV Oil Trust

On January 24, 2007, MV Partners and MV Oil Trust completed an IPO.  MV Oil Trust holds net profits interests, which represents the right to receive 80% of the net proceeds from all of MV Partners’ interests in oil and natural gas properties located in the Mid-Continent region in the states of Kansas and Colorado.  As of December 31, 2017, the underlying properties produced predominantly oil (99% of production) from approximately 900 wells.

MV Partners is the designated operator for these properties, but they are currently being operated on a contract basis by two affiliated companies, Vess Oil Corporation and Murfin Drilling Company, Inc.  MV Partners pays an overhead fee to operate the underlying properties, which is based on a monthly charge per active operated well ($3.1 million average in the past three years).

It is important to note that a majority (76% in the past two years) of the oil produced from the underlying properties was sold to a related entity, “MV Purchasing.”  The price received is based on a recent NYMEX price, reduced for differentials based on location and oil quality.  In 2017, the average differential between the benchmark and the price realized by MV Oil Trust was just under $5 per barrel.  MV Oil Trust is extremely dependent on MV Partners and its related entities.  Where this private company experiences difficulties, the trust would undoubtedly suffer, both in terms of production level and the amount it could sell.

What is a Net Profit Interest?

Trust unitholders receive 80% of the NET proceeds.  “Gross proceeds” are the aggregate amount received by MV Partners from sales of crude oil, natural gas, and NGLs produced from the underlying properties. This does not include consideration for sale of any underlying properties by MV Partners, nor does it include any of the oil or gas lost in the production or marketing process. “Net proceeds” represents gross proceeds, less:

  • Payments to mineral owners or landowners, such as royalties and expenses for renewals or extensions of leases;
  • Any taxes paid by the owner of an underlying property;
  • Costs paid by an owner of the underlying properties under any joint operating agreement;
  • All exploration and drilling expenses;
  • Costs or charges associated with gathering, treating and processing oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids;
  • Any overhead charges, including the overhead fee payable by MV Partners to Vess Oil and Murfin Drilling; and
  • Amounts reserved for approved capital expenditure projects (up to $1 million per 12 months), including well drilling, recompletion and workover costs.
Unitholders are entitled to quarterly cash distributions of substantially all of the trusts quarterly cash receipts, less the trust’s expenses and any cash the trustee decides to hold as a reserve against future expenses.  As noted above, the trust’s share price is highly correlated with the price of oil because the trust is ultimately as valuable as the distributions it makes.

Termination of the Trust

Unlike a traditional royalty interest that continues into perpetuity, a net profit interest in MV Oil Trust will terminate on the later of:

  1. June 30, 2026, or
  2. The time when 14.4 MMBoe have been produced and sold (equivalent to 11.5 MMBoe in respect of the trust’s right to receive 80% of the net proceeds from the underlying properties)
As of December 31, 2017, the trust had received payment for approximately 8.0 MMBoe of the 11.5 MMBoe interest, or about 70% of the termination threshold. The trust will dissolve prior to its termination if it sells the net profit interest or if annual gross proceeds attributable to the net profits interest are less than $1 million for each of two consecutive years.  Upon dissolution, the trustee would then sell all of the trust’s assets and distribute the net proceeds of the sale to the trust unitholders.

Underlying Properties

The underlying properties are in Kansas and Colorado, or the Mid-Continent region, which is a mature producing region.  Most of the production consists of desirable light crude oil.  Most of the producing wells are relatively shallow, ranging from 600 to 4,500 feet, and many are completed to multiple producing zones.  In general, the producing wells have stable production profiles with total projected economic lives over 50 years and an estimated average annual decline rate of 8.6% over the next 20 years.  This extended shelf life is attractive for unitholders of the trust because even though the trust is expected to terminate, the unharvested production capacity can still be sold.

As seen in the tables below, the majority of proved reserves are developed, oil reserves.  Also, the majority of acreage is in either the El Dorado or Northwest Kansas area.

The majority of the net operated wells are oil wells; however, there are also some non-operated oil wells.  In the past three years, each Trust has added to its well count by drilling additional development wells.  Most of these occurred in 2016 when 7.6 net wells were drilled.  These additional wells increase production capacity and thus potential for future distributions.

Other Rights of Trust Unit Holders

Net proceeds received by unitholders exclude the sale of underlying properties, but this does not prevent the sale of assets.  Unitholders will be compensated if a sale occurs.  Further, the trust is only able to release the net profits interest associated with a lease that accounts for up to 0.25% of total production for the past 12 months without consent of unitholders.  This sale also cannot exceed a fair market value of $500,000.  This protects unitholders from having significant assets sold in any given year, which would decrease the level of future production.

As mentioned earlier, capital expenditures are currently limited to $1 million per 12 months.  These expenditures are further limited after the “Capital Expenditure Limitation Date.” This is defined as the later of:

  1. June 30, 2023, or
  2. The time when 13.2 MMBoe have been produced and sold (equivalent to 10.6 MMBoe in respect of the trust’s right to receive 80% of the net proceeds from the underlying properties)
On this date, capital expenditures are further limited to the average of the prior three years of capital expenditures, which will likely drop it considerably below its current limit of $1 million per year.

Conclusion

In our next post, we will use MV Oil Trust as a basis for examining how investor returns are affected by a royalty trust’s distribution of proceeds, volatility in the price of crude oil, the timing of entrance and exit, and other unique features of the royalty trust such as limits on capital expenditures.  We will do this by looking into what goes into the stock price of royalty trusts and the tradeoff between current and future returns.

When investing in a public royalty trust or using it as a pricing benchmark for private royalty interests, there are many items to consider that are unique to each royalty trust.  The source of income, region, operator, termination, and other key aspects make each trust unique.

We have assisted many clients with various valuation and cash flow questions regarding royalty interests.  Contact Mercer Capital to discuss your needs in confidence and learn more about how we can help you succeed.

1 Capital IQ

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