Devon Energy Corporation v. Kempthorne
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
551 F.3d 1030, 170 O. & G.R. (2008), cert. denied, sub nom., 558 U.S. 819 (2009)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Devon Energy Corporation (Devon) (plaintiff) leased land from the federal government for purposes of coalbed methane (CBM) production. After it is extracted, CBM must be compressed and dehydrated in order to be transported to its point of sale. The employees of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) (defendant) issued certain guidance documents, including a “Dear Operator” letter purporting to allow for deduction of certain compression and dehydration costs in calculating a lessee’s gross proceeds for purposes of calculating royalties. Devon relied on these guidance documents to deduct these compression and dehydration costs in its royalty calculations for a period of seven years. Devon then requested DOI confirmation that it was calculating royalties correctly. The DOI issued a determination rejecting Devon’s interpretation of the rule. In a final order, the DOI rejected Devon’s request for reconsideration. The DOI ordered Devon to retroactively pay royalties to the government based on gross proceeds that included compression and dehydration costs. Devon brought suit seeking to overturn the order. Devon argued that because compression and dehydration were required to be able to transport CBM, such costs are allowable transportation costs. Devon also argued that its reliance on the guidance documents made any retroactive royalty payments improper. The district court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment. Devon appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Edwards, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.