Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 1 of 33 PagelD 146 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. (Judge Keeley) AUSTIN CAPERTON, in his of?cial capacity as Secretary of West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Defendant. AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF WEST VIRGINIA SURFACE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION Table of Contents 1. Introduction. 2 2. A state regulation that eliminates unforeseen windfall pro?ts does not violate the Contracts Clause. 2 3. EQT continues to reap windfall pro?ts from wells drilled before 1982 even with the passage of the ?at-rate statute in effect. 4 4. Under a recent West Virginia Supreme Court decision, EQT gets another windfall. 5 5. Un-conternplated advancements in natural gas exploration and development. 6 6. A windfall of all windfalls will go to EQT and others if the ?at-rate statute is nulli?ed and a Marcellus Shale well is drilled on a ?at-rate lease 9 7. Even if the ?at?rate statute is upheld and EQT is required to pay a 1/8th royalty, EQT will be receiving a third windfall, and so the Provisions" the 2018 amendment is no windfall for the lessor 10 8. Other issues with allegations of complaint. 11 EX IBIT Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 2 of 33 PagelD 147 1. Introduction. The principal thrust of the Complaint in this action is that W. Va. Code ?22-6-8 is an unconstitutional violation of the Contracts Clause. The statute, ?rst enacted in 1982, has never been challenged before. It was enacted thirty-four years ago, it was as recodi?ed with the creation of the Department of Environmental Protection in 1994, and it was amended in the 2018 Regular Session of the West Virginia Legislature. This brief will not address the adverse economic impact that would occur, if EQT would succeed in this action, to all other lessee/producers who do not have substantial ?at-rate lease holdings and who would have to compete with EQT's gas in the marketplace when EQT essentially does not have to pay any royalty for the gas it produces. Similarly this brief will not address the adverse economic impact on the substantial number of mineral owners whose mineral interests will not be leased or whose leases will not be produced because EQT and others holding substantial numbers of ?at-rate leases can produce gas more cheaply from those ?at?rate leases because they would in essence have to pay no royalty. This brief will focus on the constitutionality of the statute because the ?at-rate statute is the State exercising its police power to eliminate unforseen, un-contemplated windfall pro?ts. Also the egregiously erroneous claim in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint in this action that mineral owner lessors are somehow getting windfalls will be debunked. 2. A state regulation that eliminates unforeseen windfall pro?ts does not violate the Contracts Clause. The United State Supreme Court in Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power and Light Co. 459 US. 400, 103 69, 774 L.Ed.2d 569 (1983) at US. 410 said, ?Although the language of the Contract Clause is facially absolute, its prohibition must be accommodated to the Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 3 of 33 PagelD 148 inherent police power of the state 'to safeguard the vital interest of its pe0ple.' [Citation omitted.]." The Court continued at US. 411, "[S]tate regulation that restricts a party to gains it reasonably expected from the contract does not necessarily constitute a substantial impairment [of a contract][Citations omitted].? And further, at US. 412, and most relevant to this action, ?One legitimate state interest is the elimination of unforeseen windfall pro?ts. [Citation omitted]." It is exactly the unforseen and un?contemplated windfalls to EQT arising from ?at-rate leases that are eliminated by the statute which justify and establish the constitutionality of the ?at-rate statute. The ?at-rate statute eliminated windfall profits caused by leases with ?at-rate gas royalty provisions many of which were signed before the Model Ford was ?rst produced (1908) or the Wright Brothers ?ew in North Carolina (1903). Note that the transactions in question are leases. Leases are not only a contract. Leases are a contract and a conveyance. McCullough Oil, Inc. v. Rezek, 176 638, 346 788 (1986). Pt. 1. A contract can be abrogated based on mutual mistake or unconscionability. A conveyance, or attributes of it, can be abrogated if not in the contemplation of the parties. Moore v. Hope Natural Gas Company, 140 745, 86 564 (1915), West Virginia ?Pittsbarglz Coal v. Strong, 129 832, 42 46 (1947), Kell v. Appalachian Power Co. 170 14, 289 450 (1982), Energy Developmental Corp. v. Moss, 214 577, 591 135 (2003) Mutual mistake and unconscionability may have more signi?cant hurdles, but abrogating the conveyance side of a lease because its consequences were not in the contemplation of the parties can be done without all the requirements for the contract remedies. Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 4 of 33 PagelD 149 3. EQT continues to reap windfall pro?ts from wells drilled before 1982 even with the passage of the ?at-rate statute in effect. In 1900 Andrew Jackson Bates and his wife Mary signed a lease that provided 1/8th royalty for oil produced on their llS-acre tract of land, but only $300 a year ?at-rate royalty for gas produced from each well on the tract. See Exhibit State record keeping of any kind only began in 1927, but it can be deduced from the terms of the lease and names and other data the West Virginia Geological land Economic Survey has gathered for the wells, that two wells were drilled pursuant to the lease shortly after the lease was signed.1 See Exhibit One member of WVSORO is the great?great?granddaughter and one of now several heirs of Andrew Jackson Bates. She receives quarterly payments totaling $48 dollars a year in ?at-rate royalties (See Exhibit and assumes that the remainder of the total of $600 due is being distributed to, or held in suspense, for the other heirs. It is not worth it to her to spend the money or time to con?rm that. She and her predecessors have been paid that for more than 100 years. The two wells are still producing. Production reported by the operator since 1981 is available on the WVGES website (See Exhibit and shows that the well with the State/American Petroleum Institute well number for Doddridge County of 01747 has produced 1 14,139 MCF2 of gas (and no oil) since 1981. The other well, numbered 02349, has produced 76,320 MCF of gas (and no oil). That is a total of 190,459 MCF. Counsel has been able to ?nd ?The ?surface owner" is Bates?. The spud date is blank no doubt because it was spudded before record keeping. The permit activity giving rise to entry in the data base appeared to be drilling deeper, working over, or just entering location. 2Thousand cubic feet of gas. MCF is the standard measurement for volumes of gas. Another measurement is of the heating value, MMBTU, which can vary between gas produced in one formation vs gas produced in another formation. However, the numbers reported for MMBTU and MCF generally correspond closely enough to be used interchangeably for the point of this analysis. Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 5 of 33 PagelD 150 the average market value of gas back to 1997.3 The average for that previous 22~year time period is $4.37 per MCF. Assuming a more modest $3.00 per MCF and multiplying that times the total MCF since only 1981, the wells on this lease have generated $571,377.00 worth of gas. If Andrew Jackson Bates heirs had been paid 1/8th royalty for that period of time, EQT would have paid them $71,422.00. Instead EQT or its predecessors kept that money, except for $13,200 they paid out in ?at-rate royalties for those years. And that is only for 37 years, and EQT or its predecessors have been getting gas from those wells for 11 1 years. That is a windfall. And regardless of the outcome of this law suit, that is a windfall that EQT will continue to get because the ?at-rate statute does not apply to these wells -- wells that were drilled prior to the enactment of the ?at-rate statute in 1982. 4. Under a recent West Virginia Supreme Court decision, EQT gets another windfall. Gas wells obviously do not produce revenues until after they are drilled and put into production. So drilling the wells costs money up front. The driller itself, or its investors, put up the money. Once the well starts producing, the driller pays back itself or its investors for the cost of drilling the well out of the sale of the gas (after paying the mineral owners' royalty). When that cost has been recouped or paid back to the ?nancier of the well, the well will have reached a point called "paid out".4 After that the driller or its investors gets to keep all the money except 3Attached Exhibit #4 is the Historial_lnside_FERC publisehd index price for Dominion Transmission Inc. Page 2 shows averages per year. 4This aspect of oil and gas well drilling ?nancing by working interest owners/investors does not appear directly in statute or regulation or in any cases that could be found. It is recognized indirectly in statutes that provide forced pooling that provide for a "risk penalty" before working iinterest owners who were forced in as "carried" working interest owners can 5 Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 6 of 33 PagelD 151 for the much smaller ongoing costs of maintaining the well, transporting the gas etc., and except for the royalty payments. It is understandable that the driller wants a lease that allows it to keep 7/8ths of the value of the gas so it can pay back the up front cost of drilling the well. But even after payout, the person who owned the gas only gets 1/8th of its value! In the reheard decision in Leggett v. EQT Production Company, 239 264, 800 850 (2017), in the context of the royalties required by the ?at-rate statute, the Court lets the driller keep even more than 7/8ths. What is the 7/8ths for after payout? And in the case of EQT, the attached Exhibit #5 shows that EQT will deduct as much as 40% out of the 1/8th. This ability to keep 7/8ths after payout and still deduct post-production costs out of the mineral owners' 1/8th royalty is a second windfall, though it pales compared to the windfall that will occur if the ?at-rate statute is nulli?ed and a horizontal shale well is drilled as explained below. 5. Un-contemplated advancements in natural gas exploration and development. Although there is no direct evidence of it, in 1900 some advancements in technology might have been contemplated. Even if the lease was signed after the Wright Flyer success three years later, that does not mean that they contemplated a 747 carrying more than 500 or 600 passengers, or the military SR-7lspy plane that can travel three times the speed of sound. Another member of WVSORO has gas wells on his property that shows the array of advancements that surely could not have been contemplated. (Information about production begin receiving working interest money. See W. Va. Code regarding deep wells, and Code 22-21-1 Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 7 of 33 PagelD 152 volumes from modern wells discussed later will reinforce this point. This WVSORO member does not own the minerals. The minerals under him are leased to EQT pursuant to a 1901 lease from Joseph and Bell Carr to B. Hamilton that provided for $300 a year ?at-rate royalty for gas. Exhibit #6 is a photograph of a well drilled on his property with the State/American Petroleum Institute well number for Doddridge County of 00096. It was drilled in 1939 and is likely the well, or one of the wells, holding the old lease for this tract before Marcellus Shale horizontal wells were drilled. It is a fairly simple facility. Other wells drilled in 1910 and 1916 appear to be plugged. Exhibit #7 is a photograph of a well on his property with State/American Petroleum Institute well number for Doddridge County of 04193. It was drilled in 1995. The photograph was taken in 2014. It is a more technical facility. Exhibit #8 is a photograph that also shows the same well shown in Exhibit #7 on the far left of the Exhibit #8 photograph. The remainder of the photograph is the well pad for nine new Marcellus Shale horizontal wells drilled next to it. The picture was taken after the Marcellus Shale wells were drilled but before equipment was placed on the pad to enable production. A seriously more technical enterprise hardly contemplated/foreseen when wells were drilled by "cable tools? with essentially a chisel on the end of a cable hanging from a spring pole. Further and more direct support for the position in favor of the constitutionality of the statute can be found in authorities. Professor Eugene Kuntz in his A Treatise on the Law of Oil and Gas veri?es that in the beginning there was no market for gas. Drilling a well that produced no oil, only gas, was a misfortune. He stated that the ultimate value of the gas could not be Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 8 of 33 PagelD 153 foreseen which lead to leases with percentage royalties in them instead of ?at-rate royalties. And he stated that drillers with ?at-rate leases were receiving a windfall.5 In the early days of operations under the oil and gas lease, the primary objective of exploration and drilling operations was the discovery of oil, and it was justi?ably regarded as a major misfortune if gas alone were found. Although gas had a value it was dif?cult to market. The circumstances surrounding the use and the value of gas apparently had an effect upon the development of the part of the royalty clause which deals with gas . . . [Even though oil was the desired product and a l/8th royalty was paid for that,] If the lessee marketed the gas and thereby held the lease, the lessor undoubtedly thought that the lessee should be required to pay for the privilege, and accordingly, provision was made for the lessee to make a ?xed periodic payment to the lessor while the lease was so held. . . . At this stage of the development of the royalty clause, provision was made for ?xed periodic payment for producing gas from gas well and for selling or using any gas off of the premises. As the natural gas industry developed and natural gas pipelines were extended over the country creating and expanding the market for gas, the value of gas increased. It also became apparent that the ultimate value of gas and the value of the right to extract and sell gas could not be foreseen or determined at any given time of leasing. Accordingly instead of merely increasing the amount of the ?xed periodic payment to be made as the gas royalty, the parties to oil and gas leases changed their practices and began to provide for a royalty on gas which is measured either by volume or by the value of the gas produced. [Emphasis added] 3 sztz, A Treatise on the Law of Oil and Gas, 5540.] at pp. 311-312 (footnotes omitted). Professor Kuntz further stated: It is not uncommon for a very old oil and gas lease to be held by many years of production of oil followed by a recent discovery of gas. When such event occurs, the lessor and lessee are frequently surprised to ?nd that the royalty clause provides for a small ?xed annual rate per well. Rather than take advantage of the windfall, many lessess have voluntarily modi?ed their leases to provide for a one-eighth royalty. Many other lessees have not been so inclined. [Emphasis added] Id, ?40.2 atpp. 315-316. Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 9 of 33 PagelD 154 6. A windfall of all windfalls will go to EQT and others if the ?at-rate statute is nulli?ed and a Marcellus Shale well is drilled on a ?at-rate lease. The 1900 Andrew Jackson Bates lease, Exhibit is for 115 acres. A horizontal well bore could be drilled to drainjust that tract.6 The conventional well pictured in Exhibit #7 and on the left of Exhibit in its ?rst full calendar year of production, 1996, reported producing 21,917 MCF of gas. See Exhibit One of the horizontal Marcellus Shale wells pictured on the right of Exhibit #8 is State/American Petroleum Institute well number for Doddridge County of 06061 that had a horizontal well bore 6560 feet in length (about the middle length for the wells drilled on this pad). In its ?rst full calendar year of production it reported producing 2,360,277 MCF of gas.7 See Exhibit #10. So its ?rst full calendar year of production, the Marcellus Shale horizontal well produced 107 times the gas that the conventional vertical well next to it produced in its ?rst full calendar year of production. At our approximated $3.00 per MCF price, that would yield $7,080,831.00 worth of gas sold in the first full calendar year. With the ?at-rate statute is in effect, the driller will have to pay a 1/8th royalty of $885,103.87 to the mineral landowners. If the ?at-rate statute is nullified, EQT will have to pay then only $300.00 in royalties for that year. That is a windfall of $884,803.87 to EQT depriving landowners in this state of income vital to their fortunes and 6A 5000-foot horizontal well bore on typical industry spacing from the next parallel horizontal well bore will frac/drain about 120 acres. So this is conceivable, though the shape of the tract and economics requiring multiple-well pads may make this unlikely. TThe ?rst six months of production for this well were the last six months of the preceding calendar year. In those ?rst six months it produced more MCF's than the following full calendar year ?gure set out in the text. Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 10 of 33 PageID 155 families and the State's economy -- a windfall that the State has a legitimate interest in preventing. And that is one year, one well! That is a potential, unprecedented, unforeseen, un-contemplated windfall that the ?at-rate statute, exercising the state's police power, has a legitimate interest to constitutionally prevent. 7. Even if the ?at-rate statute is upheld and EQT is required to pay a 1/8th royalty, EQT will be receiving a third windfall, and so the Provisions? the 2018 amendment is no windfall for the lessor. When the ?at-rate statute was enacted in 1982 almost all drilling was for vertical wells and almost every lease provided for a ?standard" 1/8th royalty. The author of this brief, in addition to being paid by a public interest law ?rm to be cofounder of WVSORO, went into a part?time private practice in 2008 representing small and medium mineral owners in lease negotiations (as well as surface owners with their issues). The market for royalty amounts has changed since 1982 as a result of the drastic change of drilling economics made possible by horizontal shale drilling. The market royalty percentage in any new lease transaction in which there is any negotiation is now 16% to 18% with no, or very limited, deductions. The State of West Virginia always gets 20%. Corporate, larger landowners also get 20% because they know the economics of the industry, and who the drillers know are not extra motivated (in real estate terms) to sign a lease by very personal plans for the money and unjustifiable scared of the driller walking away if they insist on 20%. Most drillers do not even start with 12.5% royalty leasing offers. There are a few drillers will still ?rst approach a mineral owner with a l/8th, 12.5%, royalty lease, but that is not the market. The market is 16% to 18% or more. No doubt some citizens sign the 12.5% leases because they are habituated to signing boiler plate documents like those for purchasing a car or 10 Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 11 of 33 PageID 156 house where consumer protections are presumed. The author knows of no driller who will insist on only 12.5% for a new lease. So when EQT is required by the ?at-rate statute to pay only a 12.5% royalty from a new well on a ?at-rate lease, EQT is getting a windfall low royalty rate below the current market. It is getting the market lease royalty rate from 1982. So the requirement that EQT must pay 12.5% with no deductions, with the sale amount calculated from a sale to an unaf?liated third party does not constitute a windfall to the lessor. It is about right -- as also judged to be right by the Legislature. 8. Other issues with allegations of Complaint. Paragraph 10 of the Complaint in this action states that the ?at-rate leases will be held as long as oil or gas is produced. Generally if a lease is silent as to when a lease eventually ends after a producing well is drilled, the common law says the lease is over when the wells drilled pursuant the lease are no longer producing in "paying quantities?. See Syllabus Point 1, Goodwin W.B. Wright, 163 264, 255 924 (1979). But that is not true of ?at-rate leases. A syllabus point of Bruen v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp, 188 730, 426 522 (1992) holds that, If an oil and gas lease contains a clause to continue the lease for a term "so long thereafter as oil or gas is produced," but also provides for "?at-rate" rental payments, then quantity of production is not relevant to the expiration of the term of the lease if such "?at-rate" rental payments have been made by the lessee. So the allegation of Paragraph 10 is a questionable statement. Citizen mineral land owners subject to ?at?rate leases are not only stuck with a lease with terrible royalty terms, unless there are speci?c unusual terms they are stuck with them even after 11 Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 12 of 33 PageID 157 the production from wells on the tract is no longer in paying quantities, or perhaps at all. They are stuck with these terribly bad leases for a longer period of time compared to lessors with a royalty based on a percentage in their leases. Paragraph 14 implies that mineral owners would not negotiate amendments to leases with EQT. Attached as Exhibit #11 is the lease amendment offered by EQT to the WVSORO member ?rst mentioned in this brief. It offers to modernize her lease by adding a pooling clause. It makes no offer to modernize/change to the royalty. In the experience of counsel, rarely if ever will EQT negotiate to change the lease royalty amount in any amendment. The amendment attached also includes other unfavorable modi?cations of the lease. It includes a provision that says the lease no longer expires under its own terms -- EQT has to record a release for the lease to be over. It includes a provision in which the mineral owner states that EQT ?is not in violation of any terms or provisions of the lease, including any royalty or rental payment terms" which takes the mineral owner out of the class actions brought against EQT for underpayment of royalties. Other EQT lease amendments counsel has seen have other unfavorable terms. With amendments offered like this, no informed mineral owner would sign the amendnemtn "negotiated" by EQT. Finally, Paragraph 22 of the complaint states in part, West Virginia's attempts to alter economics of EQT's ?at rate leases have increased costs and forced EQT to look elsewhere for development opportunities." Counsel lobbied the Legislature against legislation EQT wanted that would imply a pooling clause into existing leases. The failure of West Virginia to have enacted that legislation was the reason given for EQT's planning more wells in than in West Virginia. If there was more than one reason for planning fewer wells in West Virginia, that should have been stated in the Complaint in this action. 12 Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 13 of 33 PageID 158 Finally, in Paragraph 5 of the complaint in this action, EQT notes that it owns 1,700 unmodified ?at-rate leases. The ?rst mentioned WVSORO member above only owns a fractional interest in the tract subject to her lease. She shares ownership with a large number of members of the descendants of her great-great-grandfather. This is almost always true for older leases! So the ?at-rate statute, just in the case of EQT, protects not 1,700 individuals from windfall, but a public many times that number. Respectfully Submitted: David McMahon David McMahon (WV Bar No. 2490) 1624 Kenwood Rd. Charleston, West Virginia 25314 Phone: (304) 993-0468 Email: wvdavid@wvdavid.net l3 . "Case r212-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 14 of 3 -Page D 159 a s?hhln!? . . V72 f. (fer. 6 '77 6/ 754-. . .., .-.. .. -. . - .. . a - In COHSIderatlon hnlumr mlmw?. .?dhgr??f??d?rfi?m?g? . . .. "rim?h um mull uni Ii! mining min. ?pain willpun-aw and mllu In In. ulna-i hunt-n all urn-Illnnull-ll? lump-noun gnu-r. tow-"lag. hm. II Inc pnd-I-?m?r?c?u In til- tn lb I'm-lit In! If flirt. I'll ?Illi- dint. II It! [1th .. ?laud-1 A, I Ian: I: Inc- or .. mamd??n b? km by lul- or 9,Jl'b "ll'l 11-th ah" nlo lb put-rm.? lil- tall. n! tn II. lull-g ll: Irr- ll' ln ?In: In mud I-Ill lb IH- burl??n null??l ?a bin; lbw-mt nil Ir In II pull] II p- null,- lo tau-I nun-nu um; um in II II- n10 all guilt qua-'1; I. Illa-I with" cl rub Ilil- in! II Frill-I. I'll"! 1.31} in: 'Im ?at p?dkp duh; ?In? hill mill. man-nu In I a. m. Inn- pm: In: rip wlLr-n his; lam ml lo MP. Who In: purl: uh" ll than in; all put Ital-I Imm- ll I. lulu-rm with Wick-1m: will in drill ?It. :dl?leMrI-nlh- 30? Hawaiians-nu? ?lm-1. m. In In. lb- pun-l.- cull-.11..J . . .. ?unli- h? m- am It'l- pun all nHm-lfnl; In) In! IM- q-rler In loll-In lg . m; 1. than up cm lhmullrr lb. m. u. n_ 47. art will In mun-mil. Th "d purl: oil-11 tun lh- rlg?ll In all-Int "In lo run all In?ll-n: a Ill. and ?Hal-x gum bill lulu-l pro and 1h rial-l u? m. mm In drilling and cpl-Illa. mu. and l- nun-n or IntWWAELWW lthl-urq-n-Ilhl lino-ml on?: nd mum-ru- Inluiluhmd??nr IllrhI-wwq .- I ll l-Mului Mm lb pm? to m. I'm all "Illne- Hun l'h pull-m uh]! ulna lolulr nut-inn 1. mm- now-f yuu- mu Mn u: mu- u-l- all luh .. n. In; mid and II. .l-lam} 31' - - ?no or ran Hr?hll. - than: .?r?gmnl.y or mum-1m. . . in H. I Junloo or tho moo.? ., app-Iron m. that. Inna A . .3. Run; . ?n I?n?-tg?trn?u?mmpm' no ?3 ?It: It m- aol. 3.33have homnlo not1906. h? ?a of?oad. . . um anIll! Mu, Null. Coal-m; In; all I Ill IIMMHM maven?. will? than. hull; int-In..- . In,- at A. l. . lib? rlul'lv?n! lip-lu- it II I: all! may. am ?In a; an m: STATE 03" . INIA. My, my, elm-a m. . Will I Ion-Hui in. . I h"I? EXHIBIT Select County: (017) Doddridge swat damtypea: (check All) Enter Permit 4: 01747 Location Production Plugging 4 OwneriCompletlon Stratigraphy Sample PayI'ShowMatar Logs 4? Hole Loo WGES Niain 3M New Get Data Reset We"; County 17 Permit 0174? Report 'I'Ime: Tuesday. May 29. 2018 3:32:15 PM COUNTY PERMIT DISTRICT 75 15 DD DD UTME UTMN 01747 1747 McCle an CenterPoint Centerpoint 39 392707 --80. 8356 5313789 43604205 Thais no Bottom Hole Location data for this well Information: . API SUFFIX STATUS SURFACEJIJWNER LEASE PROFLVD 4 01747 87-i1973 Original Lac Completed A 8 Mary Bates 3 1780 Camegie Natural Gas Co. 47 '01747 87-71976 Dn_eg_Deeper Completed A I Bates 3 1780 Camggie Natural Gas Co. Co letion Information: AP DT SPUD ELEV DATUM FIELD FINALCLASS TYPE RIG MTHD TVD TMD NEW FTG K00 BEF AFT BEF AFT BEF AFT BEF BEF TI Bi-t_ AFT I 4 01747 87-71973 772 Ground Level Smtn-FInt-Sdla Fifth Fifth Development Wall Development Wall Gas Rotary NaTJOpan 2827 2827 0 0 I01747 87-71976 772 Ground Level Sm?ln-Flnt?Sdla Benson Benson Deeper-pool Test Deeper-poolDisoovery Gas Rotary Fractured 4943 2116 360 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 whownniater Information: APCS) cur-101 ACTIVITY PRODUCT SECTION DEPTHJOP _Ar-"r 47 01747 87-71973 Water Fresh Water Vertical 10 0 7?01747 87-71973 Water Salt Water Vertical 1175 0 01747 87-71973 Pay Gas Vertical 1888 BiglnjuMundi?) 1888 0 0 4701701747 87-71973 Show Gas Vertical 2824 Fifth 2845 Fifth 0 0 4701701747 87-71976 Pay Gas Vertical 4547 Benson 4854 Benson 0 0 PrudIIction Gas information: (Volumes' In Mcf) OPERATOR PRO JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DCM Camegle Natural Gas Co. 1981 1.398 108 239 106 105 108 01747 Camegie Natural Gas Co. 1982 3.000 257 232 257 249 257 249 257 257 224 257 249 257 47 01747 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1983 3.411 273 236 251 239 01747 Camegie Natural Gas Co. 1984 3.018 01747 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1985 2.870 235 247 261 228 239 263 282 254 204 208 223 248 47 01747 Camegle Natural Gas Co. 1988 2.623 241 192 235 163 235 246 268 220 229 189 224 181 01747 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1987 2.327 202 167 195 178 236 194 196 196 166 206 161 210 4703:0174? Camegia Natural Gas Co. 1988 1.954 179 188 138 155 173 181 142 187 143 135 172 181 arm-401747 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1989 2.558 162 161 316 224 251 229 213 205 199 170 189 240 4 701747 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1990 1.156 195 01747 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1991 1.068 4701701747 Camagie Natural Gas Co. 1992 1.005 01747 Camagle Natural Gas Co. 1993 2.193 01747 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1996 2.937 286 231 237 211 279 268 236 249 233 233 241 233 47 01747 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1997 4.733 241 280 288 548 530 513 530 530 513 268 269 243 4&01747 Carnegie Production Company 1998 3.293 292 293 227 269 264 255 182 228 298 328 318 341 01747 Carnegie Production Company 1999 3.167 314 269 281 282 295 278 302 235 227 222 213 229 4704301747 Carnegie Production Company 2000 2.953 263 237 249 241 249 241 249 249 241 249 241 249 471301747 Equitable Production Company 2002 2.456 207 207 207 200 207 200 207 207 200 207 200 207 47 01747 Equitable Production Company 2003 3.552 208 166 207 201 205 201 209 441 395 470 280 546 47 01747 Equitable Production Company 2004 5.029 414 350 421 455 408 418 452 487 402 419 386 407 47 01747 Equitable Production Company 2005 4.900 423 370 418 405 421 419 418 413 405 409 387 411 47 01747 Equitable Production Company 2006 5.373 420 376 412 400 410 393 408 603 523 501 489 456 47 01747 Equitable Production Company 2007 5.227 460 403 451 430 450 440 455 444 423 437 407 427 47 01747 EQT Production Company 2008 5.150 439 405 439 432 442 429 444 444 429 417 415 415 47 1747 EQT Production Company 2009 5.051 402 375 423 405 431 430 427 445 280 459 504 469 47 01747 EQT Production Company 2010 5.166 441 393 463 435 440 439 455 454 419 425 398 406 4 01747 EOT Production Company 2011 4.768 403 371 412 402 419 387 415 417 385 388 379 382 4701701747 EQT Production Company 2012 1,741 387 351 377 153 01747 EDT Production Company 2013 3.519 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 492 438 1,071 650 743 47 1747 EDT Production Company 2014 6.148 634 555 567 535 533 507 503 465 461 467 458 443 4 01747 EOT Production Company 2015 5.009 430 410 411 413 435 405 425 410 406 415 426 423 01747 EOT Production Com any 2016 5.380 433 395 421 413 423 449 555 470 444 467 450 460 I Pr?oilction Oil Information: _(yolumes in Bbl) some operators may have reported NGL under Oil JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DCM ?$01747 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1981 01747 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1982 01747 Camegla Natural Gas Co. 1983 01747 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1984 01747 Camegla Natural Gas Co. 1985 01747 Camagia Natural Gas Co. 1988 1747 Camisole Natural Gas Co. 1987 01747 Camegle Natural Gas Co. 1988 01747 Camegle Natural Gas Co, 1989 4701101747 Carnegie Natural Gas Co, 1990 4701701747 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1991 1747 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1992 01747 Camegia Natural Gas Co. 1993 01747 Camegie Natural Gas Co. 1996 1747 Camagia Natural Gas Co. 1997 EXHIBIT 47 1747 Carnegie Production Company 1998 1747 Camegie Production Company 1999 01747 Camegia Production Company 2000 4701701747 Equitable Production Company 2002 4701701747 Equitable Production Company 2003 4701701747 Equitable Production Company 2004 4701701747 Equitable Production Company 2005 4701701747 Equitable Production Company 2006 4701701747 Equitable Production Company 2007 4701701747 EQT Production Company 2008 4701701747 EOT Production Company 2009 4701701747 EQT Production Company 2010 4701701747 EDT Production Company 2011 4701701747 EOT Production Company 2012 4701701747 EQT ProdUCtion ElompanyI 2013 4701701747 EQT Production CompanyI 2014 0174? EDT Production Company 2015 01747 EDT Production Company 2016 0 NGL Information: {Volumes in Bbl) some operators may have reported NGL under Oil JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV OCH 4 01747 EOT Company 2013 01747 EQT Production Company 2014 01747 EDT Production Company 2015 0174? EDT Production Com any 2016 ODDO JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV 701747 EOT Production Com any 2016 0 raphy Information: SUFFIX FM FM QUALITY THICKNESS ELEV DATUM 4 1 01747 Original Lot: Little Lime We'lTRecord 1590 Reasonable 14 Reasonable 772 Ground Level 42304-701747 OriginelLoc Greenbrler Group Well Record 1720 Reesonabie 191 Reasonable 772 Ground Level 47001747 Original Loc Big Lime Well Record 1720 Reasonabie so Reasonable 772 Ground Level 470 01747 Original Loc WellReoord 1012 Reasonable 101 Reasonable 772 Ground Level 4 01747 Original Loo Fifth Well Record 2513 Reasonable 9 Reasonable 772 Ground Level 4794-10174? Drilled Deeper Firth ll Record 2518 Reasonable 7 Reasonable 772 Ground Level 4701701747 Drilled Dee er Benson Vt_l?_llRecord 4344 Reasonable 13 Reasonable 772 Ground Level Wime (E-Log) information: A major: LOGSJWAIL SCAN DIGITIZED o_'rop o__aor 'r_eor 5309 s_ao1' o_aor mcuz REDUCED KOP LOGMD 4 701747 2630 4967 2690 4929 2690 4936 2598 4867 2734 4936 2630 4950 2700 4581 Comment: 'logs: cement top. col. perforation depth WQMQE We advise you to save the log image ?le to your PC for viewing. To do so. right-click the .07 image of interest and select the save n. Then you can direct the ?le to a location of your choice. Please note these images vary in size and some may take sever-at minutes to download. especially if a 56k or slower dialup connection. 0 Quick Reference Guide for Log File Names For more info about WVGES scanned logs click page geologic log types: density (includes bulk density. compensated density. density porosity. grain density. matrix density. etc.) 1747 ggnnit photoelectric adsorption (PE or Pa. etc.) 4 7 174'?ng gamma ray i Induction (includes dual induction. medium induction, deep inducllon. etc) I iaterolog dipmeler neutron (includes neutron porosity. sidewall neutron~SWN. etc) 0 other" sonic or velocity temperature (includes borehole temperature. BHT. differential temperature. etc.) 2 spontaneous potential or potential mechanical log types: cement bond caliper twitter1 :7 perforation depth cor'rlrol or perforate 1other logs may include. but are not limited to. such curves as audio. bit size. COL?casing collar locator. continuous meter. directional survey. gas detector. guard, NCTL?Nuciear Cement Top Locator. radioactive tracer, tension ument 22-1 File 0 Thqy is no Plugging data for this well is no Sample data for this well Case 1 - I Select County: DOddrIdge Select mums: {Check All) i 9' "n 1 Enter Permitit: 02379 Location 1' Production Plugging Owner!Completlon Suatigraphy 1' Sample .. . . .. Get Data Reset 4 . . PayI'ShowNVater Logs Hole Loc WVGES Main LO Emeline-Pius" New Fl Wt" Geological 3 Economic Well: County 17 Permlt 02379 Report Time: Tuesday. May 29. 2018 3:29:27 PM Reassi nment Information: Reassi ned From COUNTY 17 50001 17 2379 7' COUNTY PERMIT DISTRICT rs QUAD _1s on no UTMN 1 4713302379 00113111an 2379 MocTaIIan CentarPolnt Cam 39. 333189 on. 631743 5317031 43610302 TM is no Bottom Hole Location data for this well 00 Owner Information: DT SUFFIX smrue OWNER HUM co_ LEASE owN AT PROP _vo FM PR 02379 5l-I?1965 Worked Over Completed agngates 2 278 Camggia Natural Ga Co . Completion Information: API DT DATUNI FIELD FM FMT FINAL TYPE RIG MTHD TVD TMD FTG KOD BEF AFT BEF AFT BEF BEF BEF Tl BEF AFT 02379 57-71965 973 Ground Level Smtn- Flnt?Sdla (undid) 319 In on undi Devalo mentWell Devaio ment Well Gas unknown Fractured 2828 holeater InformatIon: Ag? DT PRODUCT SECTION DEPTIL TOP FM BOT BOT JFT 02379 57-71965 Pay Gas Vertical 2070 0 0 Pmction Gas IniormationL (Volumes in MCI) FRODUCINCLOPERATOR JAN FEB APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEF OCT NOV DCM 4 023?9 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1981 1.472 124 124 124 120 124 120 124 124 120 124 120 124 43-70237? Camaglo Natural Gas Co. 1982 3.425 293 265 293 284 293 284 293 293 284 293 284 293 4 02379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1983 3.302 278 291 290 300 164 273 260 279 300 273 217 4 02379 Camegle Natural Gas Co. 1984 3.825 2902379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1985 3.900 351 269 369 303 302 401 320 311 284 279 345 346 4%02379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1986 3.1902379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 198? 2.686 334 269 182 248 208 221 165 165 164 25? 219 254 4 02379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1988 2.918 223 234 243 404 228 228 228 233 199 266 182 252 47 02379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1989 2.921 261 240 266 255 194 261 266 270 261 194 216 23? 47 02379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1990 2.634 245 227 221 240 24? 254 263 234 169 151 152 231 4701502379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1991 2.186 231 153 175 182 188 182 183 183 182 175 169 183 4191102379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1992 2.153 135 168 166 180 186 184 169 159 159 130 175 231 4701702379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1993 2.408 223 201 231 224 231 180 180 214 209 143 214 158 4701702379 Ca megia Natural Gas Co. 1996 1.426 160 162 156 175 239 370 4761502379 Camagia Natural Gas Co. 1997 975 382 275 158 160 4701702379 Camegia Production Company 1998 3.961 163 116 308 274 163 158 151 899 35? 418 590 368 4W02379 Camagla Production Company 1999 5.032 503 525 330 316 34? 422 453 408 448 468 448 359 02379 Carnegie Production Company 2000 4.281 534 341 345 334 345 334 345 345 334 345 334 345 102379 Equitable Production Company 2001 3.015 345 312 23-8 2.02379 Equitable Production Company 2002 2.779 234 234 234 228 234 2202379 Equitable Production Company 2003 2.?54 234 212 234 22? 235 22? 233 233 22? 234 226 232 47602379 Equitable Production Company 2004 2.0702379 Equitable Production Company 2005 1.264 02379 Equitable Production Company 2006 1,342 111 92 105 113 99 99 102 158 118 112 123 110 4315302379 Equitable Production Company 200? 1.148 02379 EDT Production Company 2008 1.183 02379 EOT Production Company 2009 1.060 023?9 EOT Production Company 2010 1.028 02379 EDT Production Company 2011 1.050 4701702379 EQT Production Company 2012 1.046 4701702379 EQT Production Company 2013 960 02379 EQT Production Company 2014 983 02379 EQT Production Company 2015 946 02379 EOT Production Com 2016 975 action Oil lnformati Ion: (Volumes' In Bbl) some Operators may have reported NGL under Oil A PRODUCINCL OPERATOR YEAR ANN JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL SEP OCT NOV DCM 4 02379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co.1981 2379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1932 ?@02er Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1933 4? 2379 Camegie Natural Gas Co. 19602379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1985 02379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1936 2379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1987 470 02379 Camegte Natural Gas Co. 1988 2379 Camegla Natural Gas Co. 1989 2379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1990 _02379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1991 2379 Camagie Natural Gas Co. 1992 02379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 1993 2379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co 1996 02379 Carnegie Natural Gas Co. 199? 47 2379 Camegia Production Company 1998 2379 Carnegie Production Company 1999 2379 Camegie Production Company 2000 470 023?9 Equitable Production Company 2001 4701702379 Equitable Production Company 2002 4701702379 Equitable Production Company 2003 4701702379 Equitable Production Company 2004 4701702379 Equitable Production Company 2005 4701702379 Equitable Production Company 2005 4701702379 Equitable Production Company 2007 4701702379 EQT ProdUCHon Company 2003 4701702370 Production Company 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 4701702379 501? Production Company 2010 4701702379 EQT Production Company 2011 4701702379 EQT Production Company 2012 4701702370 EQT Production Company 2013 Amman EOT Production Company 2014 02379 EQT Producllon Company 2015 2379 EDT Production Comgny 2016 0 uction NGL Information: (Volumes in Bbl) some operators may have reported NGL under (21 PRDJEAR JAN FEB MAR APR mA'r JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DOM 023?t'9 EDT Production Company 2013 02379 E07 Production Company 2014 02379 EQT Production Company 2015 OZBTQ EQTProduction Corn ny 2016 0 Prri?iiction Water {Volumes' in Gallons) PRODUCING YEAR ANN _er JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DCM 4701702379 EQT Production Com m" 2016 Hg is no Stratigraphy data for this wall THE is no erollna (E?Log) data for this well Tim is no Plugging data for this wall 1 Tina? is no Sample data for this wail Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Pag Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 19 of 33 PageID 164 Production Company PO. Box 23536 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 PH: 412-395?3328; FAX: 412-553-7820 Remittance Statement . "umbe" 198885 I II Check Number: 1684167 Prod. Prod. Int. Net Decimal Gross Volume Gross Revenue Gross Taxes Gross Deducts well Net Revenue Date Typ?e/?ype ?P'h?se Interest Owner Volume Owner Revenue Owner Taxes Owner Deducts Owner Net 656916 Doddridge, HV . .. -. . 00/1201 - ?*300? .00? .00 .00 .00 9.00 .00 .00 9.00 Gross Totals: .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Net Totals: .00 9.00 .00 .00 9.00 Check Amount: 9.00 Direct any questions to Land Administration at the address/phone above. EXHIBIT Production Com panY PO. Box 23536 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 PH: 412-395-3328: FAX: 412-553-7820 Remittance Statement in war 1'21" I 5.: .0 Owner Number: Check Number 323336 Prod. Prod._lni__? Net Decima1 Sales Volume Saies Revenue State Severance Gross Deducts We}! Net Revenue Date Txpe"Type "Prgce Interest Owner Voiume Owner Revenue Owner Taxes Owner Deducts Owner Net . Doddr'idqehHL 0. 2, 0372013? .00" 900000000? .00' .00 "?200" .00 3.00 .00 .00 3.00 Gross Tota?ls: .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Net Totals: .00 3.00 .00 .00 3.00 Check Amount: 3.00 Direct any questions to Land Administration at the above. Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 20 of 33 PageID 165 Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 21 of 33 PageID 166 Dominion Transmission Inc. (Appalachia) 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Jan 1450 244 1.95 1253 105M 275 553 1554 61? 1153 611 775 551 521 457 316 522 345 175 130 353 229 Feb 520 215 195 25? ?568 220 656 551 647 570 126 553 503 557 452 264 313 536 175 137 258 259 Mar 193 240 178 279 559 259 1120 558 140 153 754 945 444 510 593 247 541 457 204 100 206 Apr 204 250 259 506 573 559 554 540 772 751 192 1014 594 453 445 220 453 420 145 119 271 lWay 232 246 251 528 519 554 560 564 587 150 851 1184 355 446 456 257 412 451 134 131 250 Jun 246 219 235 459 595 555 656 651 752 625 816 1251 378 455 448 244 410 351 141 159 258 Jul 251 247 242 456 358 347 572 619 756 620 751 1373 418 457 449 274 343 258 128 158 151 Aug 233 206 280 402 533 313 523 574 958 740 643 957 357 454 449 259 255 240 124 128 173 Sep 271 179 357 455 242 358 458 525 1276 753 551 857 253 370 350 252 317 255 116 122 171 EXHIBIT Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 22 of 33 PageID 167 Oct Nov Dec Avg. 1.99 3.05 4.50 3.18 3.32 3.59 2.70 2.78 2.22 . 2.25 2.23 2.26 2.73 3.28 2.28 2.43 5.63 4.79 6.39 4.12 2.02 3.37 2.42 4.57 3.82 4.43 4.44 3.41 4.91 4.79 6.36 6.02 6.45 6.15 6.95 6.26 14.11 10.08 13.67 9.22 4.23 7.48 8.70 7.55 6.57 7.59 7.69 7.22 7.60 6.83 7.45 9.53 3.78 4.57 4.75 4.27 3.91 3.42 4.48 4.59 3.84 3.61 3.53 4.20 2.96 3.46 3.77 2.79 3.25 3.24 3.31 3.45 2.04 2.08 2.97 3.28 1.17 1.24 1.44 0.88 1.12 2.40 1.37 1.10 1.57 2.50 2.23 Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 23 of 33 PageID 168 . --vv vvl?v' I 7" OLU Remittance Statement Owner Number: Check Number 0 I (g Prod. Prod. Decima] Sales Vo1ume Sa1es Revenue State Severance Gross Deducts Mel] Net Revenue Date Type Owner Vo1ume Owner Revenue Owner Taxes Owner Deducts Owner Net WV i 92,787.90 19,485.52 3,139.20 45,601.90 70,744.37 161.09 207.44 5.45 79.17 122.82 3,511.13 3,507.84 50,958.80 79,044.53 180.01 231.79 6.09 88.47 137.23 wv 94,550.50 121,754.96 3,202.56 46,471.70 72,080.69 164.15 211.38 5.56 80.68 125.14 hm 72,046.10 92,770.62 2,436.48 35,406.70 54,927.40 125.08' 161.06 4.23 61.47 95.36 Gross Totais: 363,070.50 467,522.23 12,286.08 178,439.10 276,796.99 Net Totals: 630.33 811.67 21.33 309.79 480.55 Check Amount: 480.5 Jirect an questions .to Land Administration at the address/phone abdve. I - {a a?camy 39 Med Mar/K17" .7 g/ 7.: Wu (2+3 :5 1962.991) ?11 . . l. in? ~56 aamaae 7 as; 5% 0.09.1 57.13300: -Prm #3369 5,5 3 ?Ram?? Ma immutw . . . W.- .T..- -. lin'.? I .f 3? - 0' . 'lrv?51.15; I I - .wr??La $91";694-936 Illiv (tmixm Case Docume /18 Page 26 of 33 PageID 171 Ta gle E??ri gtigns Selechounty: (017)00ddridge ?my Enter Permll#: 04193 Location Production Plugging mm tD I. Owneri'Cornpletion Stratigraphy Sample I a a Payt'ShowMater 1? Logs 1? Hole Loo vwoes Main Epel no -'Pii New PI wyga ological 8. Economic Survey We": County 17 Pen-mt 04193 Report Time: Thursday. May 31. 2018 2:11:11 PM tron Information ViewM COUNTY PERMIT DISTRICT 75 15 DD LON UTME LITMN 4703704193 Dodoridge 4193 Grant Smithburg Centerpolnt 39. 35638-3 80.697315 525074.13 43574794 no Bottom Hole Location data for this well O?mr Information: DT SUFFIX STATUS OWNER WELL NUM LEASE NUM OWN COMPLETION VD PROP FM TFM PR 04193 52111995 Ori inaiLoc Corn Iatecl Terra ueous Etherlum 3 RKeithJ'F' Cn'h?eid Eastern American Energy Corp. 00 lotion information ELEV DATUM FIELD TYPE RIG TMD NEWJ-TG KOD 04193 52171995 571511995 1162 Ground Level Smtn-Flnt-Sdla Greenland Ga Benson Devel merit Well Deveio rnenIWell Gas Rotary Add+Frac 5335 5335 288 212 0 0 0 0 1075 24 PMhowrwater Information: AP ACTIVITY PRODUCT SECTION 04193 572171995 Water Fresh Water Vertical 50 0 476134193 572171995 Water Fresh Water Vertical 330 0 04193 52111995 Water Fresh Water Vertical 1980 0 47 04193 572171995 Pay Gas Vertical 4735 Riley 4754 Riley 0 0 04193 5112141995 Pay Gas Vertical 5220 Bengt-n 5226 Benson 0 0 Pro?uction Gas Information: {Volumes in Men JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DCM 47011704193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 1995 8.134 2.050 1.581 2.345 2.055 agent-193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 1996 21.917 2.284 2.375 2.241 2,107 1.924 1.860 1.866 114 1.939 1,886 1.893 1.678 4 04193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 1997 15.393 1.528 1.407 1.501 1,396 1,481 1.287 1.295 832 794 1,403 1.274 1.195 4 04193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 1998 11.944 1,146 1 145 1 123 1.084 1.128 829 438 992 1.070 1.048 971 970 4 04193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 1999 11.025 959 823 940 8901.773 159 570 1.085 812 1.022 909 973 4 04193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2000 8.352 725 827 853 775 591 551 693 570 414 385 757 929 4?o4193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2001 1.323 745 669 714 806 641 413 590 502 506 515 658 533 47 1 04193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2002 5.334 575 505 536 575 555 557 3404193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2003 5.708 493 545 521 558 556 552 498 527 513 497 0 348 4m04193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2004 5.802 597 547 527 404 542 454 389 471 475 487 455 441 47WO4193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2005 4.707 441 324 471 367 440 397 374 310 422 399 401 361 4 1704193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2005 4.485 412 322 412 349 358 354 382 345 382 394 356 410 04193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2007 3.394 414 265 327 378 332 420 187 210 235 354 157 104 4701704193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2005 3.501 318 358 318 345 391 374 287 259 155 173 254 245 47 1 04193 Energy Corporation of America 2009 3.275 289 279 308 277 362 311 295 204 182 263 247 258 1 04193 Energy Corporation of America 2010 2.948 275 291 232 258 271 237 183 152 207 299 252 291 04193 Energy Corporation of America 2011 3.246 271 240 234 265 248 234 230 214 307 353 308 339 04193 Energy Corporation of America 2012 3.489 360 323 319 281 290 297 281 288 295 278 214 260 4 04193 Energy Corporation of America 2013 3.388 225 247 339 357 345 240 312 322 254 154 232 331 4201704193 Energy Corporation of America 2014 5.299 251 142 237 332 404 570 607 521 574 550 505 506 47 04193 Energy Corporation of America 2015 5.127 479 404 439 451 457 467 455 386 404 419 389 377 4 04193 Energy Corporation of America 2015 4.577 359 371 350 353 424 429 363 353 415 326 395 353 Pr?rction Oil Information: {Volumes in Bbl) some operators may have reported NGL under Oil JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DCM 4703704193 Eastom American Energy Corp. 1995 04193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 1996 04193 Eastem American Energy Corp. 1997 04193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 1993 0 0 4701704193 Eaetem American Energy Corp. 1999 4701704193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2000 04193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2001 04193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2002 04163 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2003 47484-704193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2004 04193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2005 04193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2006 4M04193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2007 04193 Eastern American Energy Corp. 2008 04193 Energy Corporation of America 2009 04193 Energy Corporation of America 2010 0419:! Energy Corporation ofAmerioa 2011 704193 Energy Corporation of America 2012 04193 Energy Corporation of America 2013 04193 Energy Corporation of America 2014 704193 Energy Corporation of America 2015 di? 04193 Energy Corporation of America 2016 0 Pruitction NGL Information: (Volumes' in Bbl) some operators may have reported NGL under Oil OPERATOR YEAR NGL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV 47I 04193 Energy Corporation oIAmerioa 2013 0 0 0 0 0 47 04193 Energy Corporation ofArnerica 2014 04193 Energy Corporation orAmerica 2015 04193 Energy Corporation otArnerica 2016 0 Production Water Information: (Volumes in Gallons) EXHIBIT API JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DOM 4791704193 Ene Cor ration of America 2015 0 Stratigraphy Information: surrtx FM THICKNESS THICKNESSJIUALITY ELEV DATUM 4701704193 Original Loo Litlle Lime WaIIReoord 2636 Reasonable 4701704193 Original Loo Big Lime WellReoord 2676 Reasonable 4701704193 Original Loo Keener WaIIReoord 2194 Reasonable 4701704193 Original Loo WellReoord 2241 Reasonable 4701704193 Original Loo Squaw Well Record 2274 Reasonable 4701704193 Original Loo Weir WelIReoord 2455 Reasonable 4 193 Original Loo BeraaSa WallReoord 2660 Reasonable 4 1 193 Original Loo Gordon WellReoord 2654 Reasonable 4 6 04193 OrlginalLoo Fifth WellReoord 3170 Reasonable 4 04166 OriglnalLoo Warren Well Record 3534 Reasonable 4791704193 Original Lo: WellReoord 3606 Reasonable 4 D4193 Original Loo Balltown WellReoord 4292 Reasonable 47 193 Original Loo Riley WellReoord 4750 Reasonable 4WO4193 6313c"! WeIReoord 5210 Reasonable Th?) is no Wireline (E-Log) data for this well Th8 is no Plugging data for this well Tlgl'b is no Sample data for this well Case Document 22-1 Filed 06/01/18 Page 28 of 33 14 Reasonable 118 Reasonable 47 Reasonable 33 Reasonable 26 Reasonable 135 Reasonable 20 Reasonable 58 Reasonable 23 Reasonable 4o Reasonable 55 Reasonable 36 Reasonable 50 Reasonable 50 Reasonable 1162 Ground Level 1162 Ground Level 1162 Ground Level 1162 Ground Level 1162 Ground Level 1162 Ground Level 1162 Ground Level 1162 Ground Level 1162 Ground Level 1162 Ground Level 1162 Ground Level 1162 Ground Level 1162 Ground Level 1162 Ground Level Select County: (017) Doddridge 1' Salad {Check All) EnlerPermiW: 06061 1? Location Production 1? Plugging OwnenlComplellon 1' Suatlgraphy 1" Sample