"Well known for its expertise in the area of commercial litigation, Susman Godfrey's touch appears to extend to the oil patch as well. Received especially high marks for its ability to analyze situations and offer effective counsel." Customer Satisfaction Rating, Oil & Gas Legal Services, EnergyPoint Research, Inc. Report (2007)       As recognized by clients, opposing parties and lawyers, Susman Godfrey ranks first among the top-rated law firms providing oil and gas and natural resource litigation services in the country. Id. (2006, 2007) For close to three decades, Susman Godfrey lawyers have represented E&P companies and royalty owners in disputes, often against major, integrated companies. A sampling of our work includes the following: Public and Private Royalty Owner Lawsuits Susman Godfrey has represented public and private royalty owners in disputes over the proper royalty they should receive. Our experience in this area is extensive. In August 2006, settlement checks totaling more than $18.9 million were sent to more than 4,300 royalty and overriding royalty owners across the United States. Plaintiffs sued ConocoPhillips in 2000 for alleged underpayment of royalty due on natural gas liquids produced from the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico and processed at the New Blanco Plant near Bloomfield, New Mexico. ConocoPhillips agreed to settle the claims for $29.5 million. The district court approved the settlement and awarded attorneys' fees of $7 million from the settlement fund. Susman Godfrey was co-lead counsel in the class action. In November 2005, the trial court approved Oxy USA, Inc.'s settlement to pay $12 million in a class action lawsuit in which Susman Godfrey was co-lead counsel. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a class of royalty owners who leased mineral rights to Oxy for the production of carbon dioxide from the Bravo Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit in northeastern New Mexico. The $12 million settlement, of which $3.5 million was awarded for attorneys' fees, represents approximately 90 percent of the total amount of actual damages sought by the class. The settlement also requires Oxy to pay litigation expenses of up to $400,000 and settlement administration expenses of up to $200,000. Finally, Oxy agreed to change how it calculates plaintiffs' royalty on a going-forward basis. This change ties the value of carbon dioxide to the price of oil and is expected to result in a near doubling of the royalty amounts Oxy was paying the class members before the filing of this lawsuit in 2004. After years of attempting to negotiate an agreement for the proper payment of royalties to it for CO2 from the Bravo Dome Unit, the New Mexico Commissioner of Public Lands retained Susman Godfrey as co-lead counsel to represent it against Conoco. In short order, the State and Conoco resolved all disputes, with the State's royalty pegged to the price of oil. Susman Godfrey successfully represented thousands of mineral interest owners in a class action lawsuit against Meridian Oil Inc. challenging the prices paid for gas production. Similarly, we were plaintiffs' counsel in a class action against major oil companies challenging the use of posted oil prices that are too low to calculate royalty payments. Our clients in this case included the Texas General Land Office. Other Contract Disputes Susman Godfrey has extensive experience representing oil and gas producers, processors, and pipeline companies in litigation. We have represented both plaintiffs and defendants in numerous disputes over the rights and duties of operators of oil and gas wells. Our experience includes issues of the obligation to develop leases and protect against drainage, claims of environmental and other damage to the surface or groundwater, disputes over joint accounting procedures under COPAS, drilling disputes, claims arising under gas processing and gas balancing agreements, rights to seismic and other geologic data, and litigation over farmout and AMI agreements. The lawsuits we have handled have given us substantial experience with issues arising from oil and gas development in many parts of the world. Susman Godfrey represented Enterprise Products Operating LP in an arbitration involving Marathon Oil Company's claims that Enterprise's predecessor in interest had breached a long-term gas dedication provision in a gas processing contract. After Enterprise prevailed on most issues on summary judgment, the parties settled. Susman Godfrey is currently representing Jonah Gas Gathering Co. in a declaratory judgment action against Williams Field Services on Williams' claims that Jonah breached an interconnect agreement to deliver gas to a Williams' gas processing plant in Wyoming. Williams moved to dismiss that case against Jonah (a Texas resident) based on forum non conveniens. Jonah successfully defeated Williams’ motion in the trial court, and subsequently defeated Williams’ mandamus petitions in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court. Susman Godfrey represented Enterprise Products Operating L.P. in a dispute with Sunoco Pipeline over who was entitled to purchase a shareholder's stock in Dixie Pipeline Company. After expedited discovery and bench trial that lasted a total of six weeks from start to finish, the court found for Enterprise. Apache Corp. v. Virginia Power Energy Marketing, Inc. and Dominion Resources, Inc. During the summer of 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated natural gas production and pipeline infrastructure in the Gulf Coast. Certain natural gas producers could not make gas deliveries and declared force majeure under their NAESB contracts. Apache hired Susman Godfrey to represent it when one of its buyers challenged the force majeure declaration. After extensive discovery, the trial court granted Apache's motion for summary judgment that a producer is not obligated to make deliveries to alternate locations or to acquire gas from other, unaffected sources. An appeal is pending. Susman Godfrey has successfully represented both producers and pipelines in lawsuits over take-or-pay gas contracts. In 1989, we obtained a judgment of more than $600 million for TransAmerican Natural Gas Corporation in its take-or-pay lawsuit against El Paso Natural Gas Company. The Texas Lawyer described this lawsuit as "the first case in which a pipeline company was found to have repudiated its take-or-pay contract." Four years later, we successfully defended Tennessee Gas Pipeline in a lawsuit by Coastal Oil & Gas Corporation seeking benefits under a gas contract valued at more than $740 million. A South Texas jury found for our client on all issues. We obtained summary judgment for our client, Southern Natural Gas Pipeline, in a $100 million take-or-pay contract lawsuit against Exxon Corporation, and we have successfully tried or settled on favorable terms numerous other disputes over long-term gas contracts in which we have represented either the producer, the pipeline, or the ultimate user of the gas. In 1996, we won a defense verdict for Intratex Gas Pipeline in a suit by producers alleging a fraudulently administered special marketing program. In January 1997, we successfully represented Enron Clean Fuels Company in a declaratory judgment action in federal court in the Southern District of Texas. The issue was whether Chevron could cancel a 5-year gasoline additives contract. In its counterclaim, Chevron sought $30 million in actual damages, plus punitive damages. The jury found for Enron on all issues. We have substantial experience with other kinds of long-term contracts as well. For example, we obtained a multi-million dollar settlement for the Decker Coal Company of Montana in its lawsuit against the City of Austin, Texas and the Lower Colorado River Authority over a long-term coal contract. In November 1996, a jury in Zapata County, Texas awarded our client, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, $143 million in a breach of contract and fraud case against KCS Resources. KCS had secretly injected propane to raise the BTU content of natural gas it sold Tennessee under a high-priced gas contract during 1994. Establishing Rights to and Value of Minerals In 1998, a Dallas jury awarded our client, London-based Breezevale Limited, more than $38 million in a lawsuit against Exxon Corp. The jury found that Exxon breached an oral contract to give Breezevale a 2.5% working interest in oil blocks off the coast of Nigeria after Exxon acquired the blocks with Breezevale's assistance. In 1993, we obtained a favorable settlement for a small Colorado oil and gas exploration company seeking to enforce an agreement to participate in the development of oil and gas opportunities in Kazakhstan. That year we also recovered a $62.5 million jury verdict for two individuals who sued Schlumberger over rights in a diamond mining concession off the coast of South Africa. In 1994 we successfully defended True Oil Company against a $100 million claim alleging interference with an oil concession in Honduras. The jury found no liability. We represented two classes of former owners of Shell Oil Company stock in a lawsuit involving the value of Shell and its reserves at the time of a 1985 cash-out merger by Royal Dutch. The Delaware Supreme Court upheld two awards for these classes: one for $120 million and another for $38 million. We obtained a settlement for Aetna in a lawsuit over the value of oil and gas prospects sold by Marvin Davis and the Davis Oil Company. In 1992, we won a $5.4 million jury verdict from two individuals in a case evaluating the likely future revenues from oil and gas prospects. We presently represent a class of plaintiffs suing Plains Resources Inc. alleging overstatement of reserve values and cash flow projections from a gas discovery in Louisiana. We have represented Ultramar in a dispute with Huffco over an AMI in Indonesia. Industry Consolidation - Realignment - Antitrust Susman Godfrey successfully represented American Central Gas Companies in an arbitration in connection with its antitrust claims. During a two-week binding arbitration -- less than two months after being ordered to arbitration -- we proved that defendants Union Pacific Resources and Duke Energy Field Services had attempted to monopolize and had monopolized the market for natural gas processing in Panola County, Texas. The arbitrator awarded American Central treble damages. Upon release of the arbitrator's decision, the defendants tried to seal the arbitration order. We opposed. The arbitrator and the federal district judge both refused to seal the arbitration order. We represented Southern Natural Gas Company in its Gas Supply Realignment proceedings at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in which Southern has achieved a settlement with most of it customers that has been approved by the FERC. Although some litigation remains, Southern has effectively resolved responsibility for several hundred million dollars' worth of exposure under high-priced long-term gas contracts. When Mesa Petroleum attempted a hostile acquisition of Unocal Corporation, Susman Godfrey represented Unocal in an antitrust lawsuit challenging the proposed takeover. Similarly, we represented InterNorth in an antitrust action when Coastal challenged its merger with HNG. We recovered approximately $50 million for purchasers of oil field tubulars in a class action antitrust lawsuit alleging price-fixing. Power Plant Construction Disputes We represented the City of Austin, Texas in a two-month jury trial in Houston against Houston Lighting & Power over the South Texas Nuclear Project. The parties settled during jury deliberations. HL&P paid our client $20 million and agreed to step aside as operator of the project. We also represented Tenneco Ventures in a dispute over an agreement to build and operate a cogeneration plant on a university campus.     *Results obtained depend on the facts of each case. Every case is different. Similar results may not be obtained in your case. Nothing on this web page is intended to represent that Susman Godfrey currently represents any particular clients mentioned because matters and client relationships naturally terminate from time to time.