Free Memorandum - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:99-cv-00550-ECH

Document 264-2

Filed 01/22/2007

Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

THE OSAGE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF OKLAHOMA, Plaintiff, v. No. 99-550 L (into which has been consolidated 00-169 L) Judge Emily C. Hewitt

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

DECLARATION OF RONNIE A. MARTIN I, Ronnie A. Martin, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the following is true and correct. 1. During the Tranche One trial I was qualified by the Court as an expert in oil royalty calculations, the verification of oil royalty paid, and oil royalty practices. I am a senior managing director for FTI Consulting (FTI) in Houston, Texas and am the practice leader for FTI's oil and gas service practice. Previously, I worked for Texaco for thirty-three years. My last position there was vice president of Texaco Exploration Producing, Inc. At Texaco and FTI some of my duties are and were to help clients analyze claims relating to oil and gas issues, particularly with respect to royalty and severance tax valuation issues. I graduated from Mississippi State University in 1969 with a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering and am a member of the National Energy Services Association. 2. The Court, in its January 16, 2007 Order, requested further explanation of the appropriate price to use in calculating damages for July 1989. The Court noted that the $21.00 price which Plaintiff claims was paid by Mobil Oil Corporation for July 1989, Pl.'s Br. 8, is shown in the MMS data as paid by Exxon Mobil Corporation, Pl.'s Br. Ex. 3. The Court further asked the Parties to submit brief explanations of why the price of $21.00 by purchaser "Exxon Mobil Corporation" should or should not be utilized as the highest offered price for July 1989. 3. Exxon Corporation and Mobil Oil Corporation merged in 1999 into Exxon Mobil Corporation. Although the Minerals Management Service (MMS) 2014 data shows the company's current name, Exxon Mobil Corporation, rather than the predecessor company's name, Mobil, the remaining information is unique to the original royalty payor. MMS records indicate that Payor ID 38553 is a Mobil Exploration and Production U.S. Inc. (Mobil) payor code. See Mobil's Payor Name and Payor Code on Exhibit 1. The Payor code shown for Mobil in Exhibit 1 enables me to confirm Def.'s Ex. 1

Case 1:99-cv-00550-ECH

Document 264-2

Filed 01/22/2007

Page 2 of 9

that the MMS 2014 data contained in Plaintiff's Exhibit 31 at number 19 in the column labeled Rank is in fact a Mobil data entry. Both Plaintiff and Defendant have acknowledged the fact that Mobil was a major purchaser in Oklahoma and Kansas in July 1989. 4. Nevertheless, Exxon Mobil's price of $21.00 should not be used as the highest offered price in Oklahoma or Kansas for the month of July 1989. As set out below, Plaintiff improperly used the Mobil MMS 2014 data and made improper assumptions relating to this particular data line. INAPPROPRIATE USE OF MMS 2014 DATA 5. For the month of July 1989, Mobil ultimately submitted three reports of payments to the MMS with respect to an Oklahoma Indian lease with lease number 6010447630. Relevant data from the three payments is shown in Exhibit 2. As can be seen, Mobil made two royalty payments in August 1989 for July 1989 sales, one in the amount of $0.87 and the other in the amount of $0.29. Mobil then made another royalty payment of $1.89 in January 1990 which was also reported for July 1989 sales. The first two payments were reported to be for sales volumes of 0.12 barrels each, while the third reported payment was for a sales volume of 0.72 barrels. 6. The necessity of two payments made in August is likely explained by the fact that one of the payments was made directly to the Indian beneficiaries, while the other was made to MMS on behalf of other beneficiaries2. The calculated unit price for each of these two data lines was $19.33 per barrel. 7. In analyzing this third data line, I have been unable to find information to support Plaintiff's theory that Mobil's $21.00 price was a sales transaction occurring in July 1989 and that it represented a price paid for each day of July 1989. It is possible that this data line was meant to correct errors in the original reports. There is no explanation in the MMS 2014 data as to why Mobil made what appears to be an additional payment of $1.89 for a sales volume of 0.72 barrel in January, five months after it was due. Nor is there any explanation as to the basis of the calculated unit price for this line being $21.00. Mobil's posted prices in Oklahoma varied from $19.75 to $17.75 for 40 API degree gravity oil for various days in July 1989 so the $21.00 price appears to be inconsistent with prices in effect during that month. 8. It is my industry experience from over 15 years of analyzing MMS data and using that analysis in discussions and negotiations related to federal and Indian lease royalty matters that it is appropriate to consolidate payor data lines for the month in calculating a monthly sales price. Selecting only certain entries for the month can

Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 is attached to Plaintiff Osage Nation's Brief in Support of Proposed Calculation of Tranche One damages, Appropriate Rate of Interest to Apply in Determining the Current Value of Those Damages, and Entitlement to Late Fees (PL.'s Br.). 2 DOI allowed individual Indian beneficiaries (allottees) to choose to be paid directly by the royalty payor. As there could be multiple beneficial owners of a single lease, some individuals may have chosen to be paid directly, while others may have allowed the royalty payor to pay MMS for their account. Payment method 02 denotes direct payment to Indian allottees and payment method 03 denotes EFT payment to MMS. Exhibit 2.

1

2

Case 1:99-cv-00550-ECH

Document 264-2

Filed 01/22/2007

Page 3 of 9

lead to an incorrect analysis and conclusion3. Therefore, I believe that the most reasonable use of the multiple lines of data is to consolidate the data into a single monthly lease average transaction. Exhibit 2 illustrates how the three individual lines of data appearing in the MMS 2014 data should be consolidated into a single data line. The first three lines of data contained in Exhibit 2 represent the relevant data from the MMS 2014 data file provided to Plaintiff and Defendant by the MMS. The line of data designated as Consolidated Data represents my consolidation of the three data lines. The Unit Price of $20.58 is derived from adding the three Sales Values ($19.76) and dividing by the sum of the three sales volumes (0.96 barrels). INAPPROPRIATE USE OF DATE OF DELIVERY TRANSACTIONS 9. In order to use any of the MMS 2014 data, an assumption must be made as to the type of transaction the data reflects ­ Date of Delivery (DOD) or Equal Daily Quantity (EDQ). With that assumption, EDQ data in the MMS 2014 database can be used as suggested by the Court for computing Osage royalties as a proxy for offered price for Osage leases whose production was sold on an EDQ basis. 10. The issue of DOD versus EDQ with respect to utilization of the MMS 2014 data as a satisfactory proxy for Osage offered prices is critical. In order to utilize the MMS 2014 data one must be satisfied that the calculated sales price derived from volume and value data is reflective of the price offered on the date of sale or removal. That requirement can be satisfied only if the monthly volumes were delivered in equal volumes on each day of the month. Alternatively, if the volumes were delivered or sold only on certain days of the month, or if the volumes varied from day to day, then the calculated monthly per barrel price will not comply with Osage royalty regulations. MMS data does not contain information concerning the day or days on which sales may have taken place. I determined that certain sales transactions were of sufficient volume that they could be assumed to be EDQ sales and thereby reasonably utilized as offered prices for EDQ Osage sales. Likewise, I determined that certain sales transactions were of insufficient volumes to be considered EDQ transactions. I classified these transactions as DOD sales. 11. Regardless of whether the MMS 2014 data price is $21.00 as shown in Pl's. Br. Exhibit 3 or $20.58 as shown in my attached Exhibit 3 at line ID 18 under the heading of Calculated Unit Value, the Mobil transaction should be excluded as an offered price because it appears to be a DOD transaction. Osage regulations require that royalty be paid on the highest posted or offered price on the date of sale or removal. I considered the sale to be a DOD sale if the total number of barrels for the month was approximately 160 barrels or less, or in a few cases, multiples of 160

3 Payors may make multiple entries for the same product on the same lease for many reasons. For example, as mentioned in footnote 2, a payor may have separate payment methods and would be required to submit separate lines for each payment method. In addition, a payor may make adjustments after the payment and reporting date. If the adjustment is made properly, the payor would "back out" the original line (submit a negative line equivalent to the original line) and submit a corrected line to replace it. The only way to accurately determine the amount paid on a lease by a payor is to sum all the positive and negative lines for a sales month/product code to determine the total sales quantity and value. It is not logical that Mobil would have had separate contracts with Mobil's refining affiliate or another major purchaser for separate sales of such small volumes of oil with two sales at $19.33 and one sale of $21.00.

3

Case 1:99-cv-00550-ECH

Document 264-2

Filed 01/22/2007

Page 4 of 9

barrels4 when data suggested that there was more than one transaction in the month. I did not include data that appeared to be DOD sales. The use of prices that are applicable to only particular days of the month for all days of the month leads to inaccurate royalty calculations as prices can vary significantly over the course of a month, unless one can tell which date the sale took place. In that case, the DOD price is properly used as a posted or offered price for that date. 12. Whether the three lines of data related to Mobil for lease number 6010447630 for the month of July 1989 are considered separate transactions or are considered a single transaction, the appropriateness of these lines of data for use as an offered price is unchanged. In my opinion either alternative is a DOD transaction because of the minimum volume (0.96 barrel for July 1989) and multiple data lines and therefore should be excluded from the analysis. 13. Exhibit 3 is a copy of Attachment 9 contained in my November 16, 2006 declaration. Exhibit 3 shows the MMS 2014 data for July 1989, each with the appropriate "reason for exclusion", ranked in descending order from the highest calculated unit value. As can be seen from Exhibit 3, the first 73 lease-payor transactions of the 1372 total transactions for the month contained reasons for exclusion as described in my November 16, 2006 declaration and as described above. Therefore, I used the lease-payor transaction shown on line 74, which yielded a price of $20.12 per barrel. Conclusions 14. I have reached the following conclusions with respect to Exxon Mobil's July 1989 MMS Form 2014 data: a) Mobil was a major purchaser in Oklahoma and Kansas for the month of July 1989. b) Exxon Mobil's Payor ID 38533 for lease number 6010447630 represents the royalty activity for Mobil Corporation and not Exxon Corporation. c) Mobil's MMS 2014 data price for lease number 6010447630 for July 1989 was $20.58 rather than $21.00 as shown in Pl.'s Br., Exhibit 3. d) Mobil's MMS 2014 data price for lease number 6010447630 for July 1989 is not a proper offered price for Osage royalty requirements because it appears to be a DOD price. e) The most logical highest price obtainable from the MMS 2014 data is $20.12 as shown on line 74 of Attachment 9 of my declaration dated November 16, 2006. The analysis in this declaration supplements my previous expert reports, declaration and testimony at the Osage Tranche One trial.

4

I understand that most crude oil tanker trucks in use in Oklahoma are approximately 160 barrels. Sales of approximately 160 barrels or less (or sales of small multiples of 160, such as 320 barrels) would normally be taken by tanker truck and would, therefore, be sold on a single day.

4

Case 1:99-cv-00550-ECH

Document 264-2

Filed 01/22/2007

Page 5 of 9

Case 1:99-cv-00550-ECH

Document 264-2

Filed 01/22/2007

Page 6 of 9

Case 1:99-cv-00550-ECH

Document 264-2

Filed 01/22/2007

Page 7 of 9 Exhibit 2

July 1989 MMS 2014 Data Lease 6010447630 Payor 38553 Exxon Mobil Corporation

Product

Transaction Description

Lease Number

Payor Id

Receipt Date

Royalty Value Adjust Sales Sale Prior To Payment Fed/ Royalty Sales Royalty Reason Volume Value Allowances Method Indian Unit Price Rate Month/Year Quantity

Data Lines Oil ROYALTY DUE 6010447630 38553 31-Aug-89 Oil ROYALTY DUE 6010447630 38553 31-Aug-89 Oil ROYALTY DUE 6010447630 38553 31-Jan-90 Consolidated Data Oil ROYALTY DUE 6010447630 38553 31-Jan-90

00 00 00

0.12 0.12 0.72

2.32 2.32 15.12

0.87 0.29 1.89

02 03 02

I I I

19.33 19.33 21.00

0.3750 0.1250 0.1250

31-Jul-89 31-Jul-89 31-Jul-89

0.06 0.02 0.09

00

0.96

19.76

3.05

I

20.58

31-Jul-89

0.17

Case 1:99-cv-00550-ECH

Document 264-2

Filed 01/22/2007

Page 8 of 9

July 1989 MMS 2014 Data
Reason For Exclusion* 1,2,5 1,2,3,6 2,3,6 1,2,5 1,2,5 1,2,4 1,2,5 1,2,3 2,7 1,3 1,2 1,2 1 1,2,5 1,2,5 1,2,5 1,2,5 2,3,5 1,2 1,2 2 1,2 1,2,5 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 2 1,2 1,2 1 2 1,2 2 2 2 2,3 2,3 2 2,3 2,3 2 1,2,3 2 2 2 1 2 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Exhibit 3 (Martin Nov. 16, 2006 Declaration Attachment 9)
Sale Value 468.48 695.67 3,609.24 4.88 3.92 871.25 2.76 3,472.25 2,008.08 3,831.02 663.45 161.71 10,932.96 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.40 19.76 96.66 25.68 574.05 246.04 14.03 378.90 449.06 308.73 683.28 1,268.32 418.16 2,613.90 309.90 125.17 3,514.80 1,714.42 466.77 3,352.79 3,317.96 3,261.06 3,213.68 1,518.95 2,273.06 6,703.97 3,112.23 2,407.32 3,183.71 3,456.07 1,483.41 789.89 3,680.05 880.37 Sales Volume 0.16 18.08 103.75 0.16 0.16 36.50 0.12 152.04 90.47 178.89 31.25 7.62 516.76 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.40 0.96 4.70 1.26 28.18 12.09 0.69 18.66 22.12 15.21 33.68 62.57 20.64 129.05 15.30 6.18 173.55 84.66 23.05 165.57 163.85 161.04 158.70 75.01 112.25 331.06 153.69 118.88 157.22 170.67 73.26 39.01 181.75 43.48 Royalty Value Less Allowances $ 58.56 $ 43.48 $ 403.17 $ 0.61 $ 0.49 $ 174.22 $ 0.46 $ 52.83 $ 251.01 $ 239.44 $ 110.57 $ 26.95 $ 1,366.62 $ 1.48 $ 1.48 $ 1.48 $ 1.05 $ 3.05 $ 12.08 $ 4.28 $ 95.66 $ 41.01 $ 2.81 $ 75.78 $ 89.81 $ 61.75 $ 85.41 $ 158.54 $ 52.27 $ 326.74 $ 61.98 $ 25.03 $ 702.96 $ 342.89 $ 77.95 $ 670.56 $ 663.59 $ 407.63 $ 517.76 $ 94.94 $ 284.13 $ 716.95 $ 309.65 $ 300.91 $ 15.75 $ 432.02 $ 185.42 $ 98.74 $ 736.01 $ 110.05 Calculated Royalty Rate 0.1250 0.0625 0.1117 0.1250 0.1250 0.2000 0.1667 0.0152 0.1250 0.0625 0.1667 0.1667 0.1250 0.1667 0.1667 0.1667 0.1250 0.1544 0.1250 0.1667 0.1666 0.1667 0.2003 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.2000 0.1670 0.2000 0.2000 0.1250 0.1611 0.0625 0.1250 0.1069 0.0995 0.1250 0.0049 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0.2000 0.1250 Calculated Unit Value $ 2,928.00 $ 38.48 $ 34.79 $ 30.50 $ 24.50 $ 23.87 $ 23.00 $ 22.84 $ 22.20 $ 21.42 $ 21.23 $ 21.22 $ 21.16 $ 21.14 $ 21.14 $ 21.14 $ 21.00 $ 20.58 $ 20.57 $ 20.38 $ 20.37 $ 20.35 $ 20.33 $ 20.31 $ 20.30 $ 20.30 $ 20.29 $ 20.27 $ 20.26 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25

ID Lease Number Payor Id 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 6010456770 6020027220 6150049350 6010452400 0300446230 5030076960 5030082800 5180070410 0290194300 0300269410 5180069990 5180069980 0470687360 6070280570 6070280570 6070280570 0291614370 6010447630 0470626390 6070316740 5030069160 5180048480 5180072640 5180078640 5180078630 5180071980 029467439B 0300098300 0300300740 0295538620 5180072390 5180073250 6070614270 5030077340 5030072120 5030077950 5180089580 6010051910 6150039230 6020040530 5100002730 5050512370 6020012870 6020055770 0470861880 6020012150 6020021140 0291217930 6070334820 5100002700 41463 17100 39831 44730 72615 31860 29251 16917 72145 44645 11110 11110 44724 37930 44640 37931 72615 38553 46473 50210 72145 39832 33010 33010 33010 33010 48720 36648 72615 39831 33796 33796 10317 72145 31150 39831 39831 33410 33410 33410 39831 33410 33410 33410 17812 33410 39831 39831 10317 39831

Company Name TEXACO EXPLR & PROD INC (TEPI) EL PASO PRODUCTION OIL & GAS C SUNOCO, INC (R&M) PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. TXO C-O MARATHON OIL COMPANY L.E. JONES OPERATING, INC. MUSTANG FUEL CORPORATION CITGO PETROLEUM CORP. TOTAL PETROLEUM, INC.-OIL BRADMAR PETROLEUM CORPORATION APACHE CORPORATION APACHE CORPORATION GENESIS CRUDE OIL, L. P. MCMAHON, C. L., JR. PETROLEUM INTERNATIONAL INC. GENTRY BOBBIE LOU LIVING TRUST TXO C-O MARATHON OIL COMPANY EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION QUINTANA PETROLEUM CORPORATION BURLINGTON RESOURCES OIL & GAS TOTAL PETROLEUM, INC.-OIL ORYX ENERGY COMPANY KAISER-FRANCIS OIL COMPANY KAISER-FRANCIS OIL COMPANY KAISER-FRANCIS OIL COMPANY KAISER-FRANCIS OIL COMPANY PACIFIC ENTERPRISES ROYALTY CO RAM ASSET MANAGEMENT-RAM GROUP TXO C-O MARATHON OIL COMPANY SUNOCO, INC (R&M) FLINT HILLS RESOURCES FLINT HILLS RESOURCES NATIONAL ENRGY GROUP INC TOTAL PETROLEUM, INC.-OIL NOVA ENERGY CORPORATION SUNOCO, INC (R&M) SUNOCO, INC (R&M) KERR MCGEE REFINING CORP. KERR MCGEE REFINING CORP. KERR MCGEE REFINING CORP. SUNOCO, INC (R&M) KERR MCGEE REFINING CORP. KERR MCGEE REFINING CORP. KERR MCGEE REFINING CORP. CORONADO PETROLEUM CORPORATION KERR MCGEE REFINING CORP. SUNOCO, INC (R&M) SUNOCO, INC (R&M) NATIONAL ENRGY GROUP INC SUNOCO, INC (R&M)

State Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Kansas Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma

Product Condensate Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Condensate Oil Oil Oil Oil Condensate Condensate Condensate Condensate Oil Oil Oil Oil Condensate Condensate Condensate Condensate Condensate Oil Condensate Condensate Oil Condensate Condensate Oil Oil Condensate Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil

Case 1:99-cv-00550-ECH

Document 264-2

Filed 01/22/2007

Page 9 of 9

July 1989 MMS 2014 Data
Reason For Exclusion* 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,3 1,2 1,2 1,2 2,5 1,2 1,2 1 1,2 1,2 1,2 2 1,2,3,5 1,3 2 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Exhibit 3 (Martin Nov. 16, 2006 Declaration Attachment 9)
Sale Value 376.20 218.66 114.39 498.66 289.30 312.17 93.93 265.69 7,570.12 386.88 202.24 925.60 9.10 899.20 203.68 3,860.71 200.32 1,209.35 70.01 1,349.27 (6,142.63) 7,926.92 80.93 9,946.04 Sales Volume 18.58 10.80 5.65 24.63 14.29 15.42 4.64 13.13 374.11 19.12 10.00 45.77 0.45 44.48 10.08 191.12 9.92 59.93 3.47 66.96 (305.04) 393.65 4.02 494.24 Royalty Value Less Allowances $ 47.02 $ 27.33 $ 14.30 $ 99.74 $ 36.16 $ 62.43 $ 11.74 $ 53.14 $ 315.41 $ 48.36 $ 25.28 $ 154.26 $ 1.82 $ 112.40 $ 25.46 $ 772.14 $ 25.04 $ 151.17 $ 11.67 $ 168.66 $ 6.69 $ 216.35 $ 10.12 $ 1,243.26 Calculated Royalty Rate 0.1250 0.1250 0.1250 0.2000 0.1250 0.2000 0.1250 0.2000 0.0417 0.1250 0.1250 0.1667 0.2000 0.1250 0.1250 0.2000 0.1250 0.1250 0.1667 0.1250 (0.0011) 0.0273 0.1250 0.1250 Calculated Unit Value $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.25 $ 20.24 $ 20.24 $ 20.24 $ 20.24 $ 20.24 $ 20.23 $ 20.22 $ 20.22 $ 20.22 $ 20.22 $ 20.21 $ 20.20 $ 20.19 $ 20.18 $ 20.18 $ 20.15 $ 20.14 $ 20.14 $ 20.13 $ 20.12

ID Lease Number Payor Id 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 0300646280 6020060570 0300616150 5180072400 0300646260 5180073260 0300608040 5180072630 6010425940 0300292480 0300292470 5180048490 5180093050 6010453060 6010003290 5180076800 0300384250 0300771410 5180052400 5100002140 0300590530 0300688350 029553862A 5110000190 13855 33796 13855 33796 13855 33796 13855 33010 44510 46459 72615 39832 36275 44730 11270 33796 27420 13855 72615 39831 27813 27813 39831 17555

Company Name DOMINION EXPLR & PROD. INC. FLINT HILLS RESOURCES DOMINION EXPLR & PROD. INC. FLINT HILLS RESOURCES DOMINION EXPLR & PROD. INC. FLINT HILLS RESOURCES DOMINION EXPLR & PROD. INC. KAISER-FRANCIS OIL COMPANY FREEPORT-MCMORAN, INC. HEC PETROLEUM INC. TXO C-O MARATHON OIL COMPANY ORYX ENERGY COMPANY J M PETROLEUM CORPORATION PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY FLINT HILLS RESOURCES APACHE ENERGY RESOURCES CORP. DOMINION EXPLR & PROD. INC. TXO C-O MARATHON OIL COMPANY SUNOCO, INC (R&M) HARRELL PETROLEUM, INC HARRELL PETROLEUM, INC SUNOCO, INC (R&M) CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY

State Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma

Product Oil Oil Oil Condensate Oil Condensate Oil Condensate Oil Condensate Oil Condensate Condensate Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Condensate Oil Condensate Condensate Oil Condensate

* Other exclusions may apply. Exclusion Codes Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Description Not a major purchaser Appears to be a DOD Incorrect royalty rate Incorrect adjustment Small volume (less than 1 barrel per day) Sales value Other data anomaly