SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST - Annual Report: 2009 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

 

 

Form 10-K

 

Commission File No. 1-8032

 

San Juan Basin Royalty Trust

(Exact name of registrant as specified in the Amended and Restated San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Indenture)

 

(866) 809-4553
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

(Title of Class)

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes þ     No o

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  Yes o     No þ

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes þ     No o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes o     No þ

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  þ

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).  Yes o     No þ

 

State the aggregate market value of the Units of Beneficial Interest held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2009: $669,768,399.

 

At February 26, 2010, there were 46,608,796 Units of Beneficial Interest of the Trust outstanding.

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

 

“Units of Beneficial Interest” and “Description of the Properties”, in registrant’s Annual Report to Unit Holders for the year ended December 31, 2009, are incorporated herein by reference for Item 5 (Market for Registrant’s Units, Related Unit Holder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Units) and Item 7 (Trustee’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation) of Part II of this Report.

 

 

PART I

 

Certain information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K contains, and other materials filed or to be filed by the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (as well as information included in oral statements or other written statements made or to be made by the Trust) may contain or include, forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933. Such forward-looking statements may be or may concern, among other things, capital expenditures, drilling activity, development activities, production efforts and volumes, hydrocarbon prices, estimated future net revenues, estimates of reserves, the results of the Trust’s activities, and regulatory matters. Such forward-looking statements generally are accompanied by words such as “may,” “will,” “estimate,” “expect,” “predict,” “project,” “anticipate,” “goal,” “should,” “assume,” “believe,” “plan,” “intend,” or other words that convey the uncertainty of future events or outcomes. Such statements reflect Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP’s (“BROG”), the working interest owner’s, current view with respect to future events; are based on an assessment of, and are subject to, a variety of factors deemed relevant by Compass Bank, the Trustee of the Trust, and BROG and involve risks and uncertainties. These risks and uncertainties include volatility of oil and gas prices, product supply and demand, competition, regulation or government action, litigation and uncertainties about estimates of reserves. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties occur, actual results may vary materially and adversely from those anticipated.

 

 

The Trust is an express trust created under the laws of the state of Texas by the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust Indenture (the “Original Indenture”) entered into on November 3, 1980, between Southland Royalty Company (“Southland Royalty”) and The Fort Worth National Bank. Effective as of September 30, 2002, the Original Indenture was amended and restated (the Original Indenture, as amended and restated, the “First Restated Indenture”) and, effective as of December 12, 2007, the First Restated Indenture was amended and restated (the First Restated Indenture, as amended and restated, the “Indenture”). The Trustee of the Trust is Compass Bank (as a result of the merger discussed below). The principal office of the Trust is located at 2525 Ridgmar Boulevard, Suite 100, Fort Worth, Texas 76116, Attention: Trust Department (toll-free telephone number (866) 809-4553). The Trust maintains a website at www.sjbrt.com. The Trust makes available (free of charge) its annual, quarterly and current reports (and any amendments thereto) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) through its website as soon as reasonably practicable after electronically filing or furnishing such material with or to the SEC.

 

On October 23, 1980, the stockholders of Southland Royalty approved and authorized that company’s conveyance of a 75% net overriding royalty interest (equivalent to a net profits interest) to the Trust for the benefit of the stockholders of Southland Royalty of record at the close of business on the date of the conveyance (the “Royalty”) carved out of that company’s oil and gas leasehold and royalty interests (the “Underlying Properties”) in properties located in the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico. Pursuant to the Net Overriding Royalty Conveyance (the “Conveyance”) the Royalty was transferred to the Trust on November 3, 1980, effective as to production from and after November 1, 1980 at 7:00 a.m.

 

As a result of a merger on March 24, 2006, Compass Bank succeeded TexasBank as Trustee of the Trust. On September 7, 2007, Compass Bank’s parent company, Compass Bancshares, Inc., was acquired by and is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

 

The Royalty was carved out of and now burdens the Underlying Properties as more particularly described under Item 2. Properties herein.

 

The Royalty constitutes the principal asset of the Trust. The beneficial interests in the Royalty are divided into that number of Units of Beneficial Interest (the “Units”) of the Trust equal to the number of shares of the common stock of Southland Royalty outstanding as of the close of business on November 3, 1980. Each stockholder of Southland Royalty of record at the close of business on November 3, 1980 received one freely tradable Unit for each share of the common stock of Southland Royalty then held. Holders of Units are referred to herein as “Unit Holders.” Subsequent to the Conveyance of the Royalty, through a series of assignments and mergers, Southland Royalty’s successor became BROG. On March 31, 2006, a subsidiary of ConocoPhillips completed its acquisition

of Burlington Resources, Inc., BROG’s parent. As a result, ConocoPhillips became the parent of Burlington Resources, Inc., which in turn, is the parent of BROG.

 

The function of the Trustee is to collect the net proceeds attributable to the Royalty (“Royalty Income”), to pay all expenses and charges of the Trust and distribute the remaining available income to the Unit Holders. The Trust does not operate the Underlying Properties and, in fact, is not empowered to carry on any business activity. The Trust has no employees, officers or directors. All administrative functions of the Trust are performed by the Trustee.

 

BROG is the principal operator of the Underlying Properties. A very high percentage of the Royalty Income is attributable to the production and sale by BROG of natural gas from the Underlying Properties. Accordingly, the market price for natural gas produced and sold from the San Juan Basin heavily influences the amount of Royalty Income distributed by the Trust and, by extension, the price of the Units.

 

The Trust is a widely held fixed investment trust (“WHFIT”) classified as a non-mortgage widely held fixed investment trust (“NMWHFIT”) for federal income tax purposes. The Trustee, 2525 Ridgmar Boulevard, Suite 100, Fort Worth, Texas 76116 (toll-free telephone number (866) 809-4553, email address: sjt@bbvacompass.com), is the representative of the Trust that will provide tax information in accordance with the applicable U.S. Treasury Regulations governing the information reporting requirements of the Trust as a WHFIT and a NMWHFIT. The tax information is generally posted by the Trustee at www.sjbrt.com.

 

The Trust received approximately $31.9 million, $144.6 million, and $113.8 million in Royalty Income from BROG in each of the fiscal years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. After deducting administrative expenses and accounting for interest income and any change in cash reserves, the Trust distributed approximately $30.2 million, $143.1 million, and $113.2 million to Unit Holders in each of the fiscal years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The Trust’s corpus was approximately $16.8 million, $17.9 million, and $19.9 million as of December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.

 

The term “net proceeds,” as used in the Conveyance, means the excess of “gross proceeds” received by BROG during a particular period over “production costs” for such period. “Gross proceeds” means the amount received by BROG (or any subsequent owner of the Underlying Properties) from the sale of the production attributable to the Underlying Properties subject to certain adjustments. “Production costs” generally means costs incurred on an accrual basis by BROG in operating the Underlying Properties, including both capital and non-capital costs. For example, these costs include development drilling, production and processing costs, applicable taxes and operating charges. If production costs exceed gross proceeds in any month, the excess is recovered out of future gross proceeds prior to the making of further payment to the Trust, but the Trust is not otherwise liable for any production costs or other costs or liabilities attributable to the Underlying Properties or the minerals produced therefrom. If at any time the Trust receives more than the amount due under the Royalty, it shall not be obligated to return such overpayment, but the amounts payable to it for any subsequent period shall be reduced by such amount, plus interest, at a rate specified in the Conveyance.

 

Compliance with state and federal environmental protection laws could reduce the Royalty Income received by the Trust. Costs of complying with such laws and regulations affect the production costs incurred by BROG in operating the Underlying Properties and may also affect capital expenditures by BROG. The Trust has no information regarding any estimated capital expenditures by BROG specifically allocable to environmental control facilities in the current or succeeding fiscal years.

 

Certain of the Underlying Properties are operated by BROG with the obligation to conduct its operations in accordance with reasonable and prudent business judgment and good oil and gas field practices. As operator, BROG has the right to abandon any well when, in its opinion, such well ceases to produce or is not capable of producing oil and gas in paying quantities. BROG also is responsible, subject to the terms of an agreement with the Trust, for marketing the production from such properties, either under existing sales contracts or under future arrangements, at the best prices and on the best terms it shall deem reasonably obtainable in the circumstances. Additionally, BROG has the obligation to maintain books and records sufficient to determine the amounts payable to the Trustee.

 

Proceeds from production in the first month are generally received by BROG in the second month, the net proceeds attributable to the Royalty are paid by BROG to the Trustee in the third month, and distribution by the

Trustee to the Unit Holders is made in the fourth month. Unit Holders of record as of the last business day of each month (the “monthly record date”) will be entitled to receive the calculated monthly distribution amount for such month on or before ten business days after the monthly record date. The amount of each monthly distribution will generally be determined and announced ten days before the monthly record date. The aggregate monthly distribution amount is the excess of (i) the net proceeds attributable to the Royalty paid to the Trustee, plus any decrease in cash reserves previously established for contingent liabilities and any other cash receipts of the Trust, over (ii) the expenses and payments of liabilities of the Trust, plus any net increase in cash reserves for contingent liabilities.

 

Cash being held by the Trustee as a reserve for liabilities or contingencies (which reserves may be established by the Trustee in its discretion) or pending distribution is placed, in the Trustee’s discretion, in obligations issued by (or unconditionally guaranteed by) the United States or any agency thereof, repurchase agreements secured by obligations issued by the United States or any agency thereof, certificates of deposit of banks having capital, surplus and undivided profits in excess of $50,000,000, or money market funds that have been rated at least AAm by Standard & Poor’s and at least Aa by Moody’s, subject, in each case, to certain other qualifying conditions.

 

The Underlying Properties are primarily gas producing properties. Normally there is a greater demand for gas in the summer and winter months than during the rest of the year. Otherwise, the Royalty Income is not subject to seasonal factors nor in any manner related to or dependent upon patents, licenses, franchises or concessions. The Trust conducts no research activities.

 

The exploration for and the production of gas and oil is a speculative business. The Trust has no means of ensuring continued income from the Royalty at the present level or otherwise. In addition, fluctuations in prices and supplies of gas and oil and the effect these fluctuations might have on royalty income to the Trust and on reserves net to the Trust cannot be accurately projected. The Trustee has no information with which to make any projections beyond information on economic conditions that is generally available to the public and thus is unwilling to make any such projections.

 

 

Although risk factors are described elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the following is a summary of the principal risks associated with an investment in Units of the Trust.

 

Oil and gas prices fluctuate due to a number of factors, and lower prices will reduce net proceeds to the Trust and distributions to Unit Holders.

 

The Trust’s monthly distributions are highly dependent upon the prices realized from the sale of gas and, to a lesser extent, oil. Oil and gas prices can fluctuate widely in response to a variety of factors that are beyond the control of the Trust and BROG. Factors that contribute to price fluctuation include, among others:

 

 

Moreover, government regulations, such as regulation of natural gas transportation and price controls, can affect product prices in the long term.

Lower oil and gas prices may reduce the amount of oil and gas that is economic to produce and reduce net profits to the Trust. The volatility of energy prices reduces the predictability of future cash distributions to Unit Holders.

 

Increased costs of production and development will result in decreased Trust distributions.

 

Production and development costs attributable to the Underlying Properties are deducted in the calculation of net proceeds. Accordingly, higher or lower production and development costs, without concurrent increases in revenues, directly decrease or increase the share of net proceeds paid to the Trust as Royalty Income.

 

If development and production costs of the Underlying Properties exceed the proceeds of production from the Underlying Properties, such excess costs are carried forward and the Trust will not receive a share of net proceeds for the Underlying Properties until future net proceeds from production from such properties exceed the total of the excess costs. Development activities may not generate sufficient additional revenue to repay the costs; however, the Trust is not obligated to repay the excess costs except through future production.

 

Trust reserve estimates depend on many assumptions that may prove to be inaccurate, which could cause both estimated reserves and estimated future revenues to be too high.

 

The value of the Units of the Trust depends upon, among other things, the amount of reserves attributable to the Royalty and the estimated future value of the reserves. Estimating reserves is inherently uncertain. Ultimately, actual production, revenues and expenditures for the Underlying Properties will vary from estimates and those variations could be material. Petroleum engineers consider many factors and make assumptions in estimating reserves. Those factors and assumptions include:

 

 

Changes in these assumptions can materially change reserve estimates. The reserve data included herein are estimates only and are subject to many uncertainties. Actual quantities of oil and natural gas may differ considerably from the amounts set forth herein. In addition, different reserve engineers may make different estimates of reserve quantities and cash flows based upon the same available data.

 

The operators of the Underlying Properties are subject to extensive governmental regulation.

 

Oil and gas operations have been, and in the future will be, affected by federal, state and local laws and regulations and other political developments, such as price or gathering rate controls and environmental protection regulations. Also, climate change laws and regulations may, in the future, have an increasing impact on oil and natural gas production, gathering, marketing and transportation.

 

Operating risks for BROG and other operators of the Underlying Properties can adversely affect Trust distributions.

 

Royalty Income payable to the Trust is derived from the sale of natural gas and oil production following the gathering and processing of those minerals, which operations are subject to risk inherent in such activities, such as blowouts, cratering, explosions, uncontrollable flows of oil, gas or well fluids, fires, pollution and other environmental risks and litigation concerning routine and extraordinary business activities and events. These risks could result in substantial losses which are deducted in calculating the net proceeds paid to the Trust due to injury and loss of life, severe damage to and destruction of property and equipment, pollution and other environmental damage and suspension of operations.

None of the Trustee, the Trust nor the Unit Holders control the operation or development of the Underlying Properties.

 

Neither the Trustee nor the Unit Holders can influence or control the operation or future development of the Underlying Properties. The Underlying Properties are owned by BROG and BROG operates the majority of such properties and handles the calculation of the net proceeds attributable to the Royalty and the payment of Royalty Income to the Trust.

 

The Royalty can be sold and the Trust can be terminated in certain circumstances.

 

The Trust will be terminated and the Trustee must sell the Royalty if holders of at least 75% of the Units approve the sale or vote to terminate the Trust, or if the Trust’s gross revenue for each of two successive years is less than $1,000,000 per year. Following any such termination and liquidation, the net proceeds of any sale will be distributed to the Unit Holders and Unit Holders will receive no further distributions from the Trust. We cannot assure you that any such sale will be on terms acceptable to all Unit Holders.

 

Mineral properties, such as the Underlying Properties, are depleting assets and, if BROG or other operators of the Underlying Properties do not perform additional development projects, the assets may deplete faster than expected.

 

The Royalty Income payable to the Trust is derived from the sale of depleting assets. Accordingly, the portion of the distributions to Unit Holders (to the extent of depletion taken) may be considered a return of capital. The reduction in proved reserve quantities is a common measure of depletion. Future maintenance and development projects on the Underlying Properties will affect the quantity of proved reserves. The timing and size of these projects will depend on the market prices of natural gas. If BROG does not implement additional maintenance and development projects, the future rate of production decline of proved reserves may be higher than the rate currently expected by the Trust.

 

Unit Holders have limited voting rights.

 

Voting rights as a Unit Holder are more limited than those of stockholders of most public corporations. For example, there is no requirement for annual meetings of Unit Holders or for an annual or other periodic re-election of the Trustee. Unlike corporations, which are generally governed by boards of directors elected by their equity holders, the Trust is administered by a corporate trustee in accordance with the Indenture and other organizational documents. The Trustee has extremely limited discretion in its administration of the Trust.

 

 

During the 180-day period before the end of the Trust’s fiscal year to which this Annual Report on Form 10-K relates, the Trust did not receive any written comments from the SEC staff regarding its periodic or current reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that remain unresolved.

 

 

The Royalty conveyed to the Trust was carved out of Southland Royalty’s (now BROG’s) working interests and royalty interests in certain properties situated in the San Juan Basin in northwestern New Mexico. See Item 1. Business for information on the conveyance of the Royalty to the Trust. References below to “gross” wells and acres are to the interests of all persons owning interests therein, while references to “net” are to the interests of BROG (from which the Royalty was carved) in such wells and acres.

 

Unless otherwise indicated, the following information in this Item 2 is based upon data and information furnished to the Trustee by BROG.

 

Producing Acreage, Wells and Drilling

 

The Underlying Properties consist of working interests, royalty interests, overriding royalty interests and other contractual rights in 151,900 gross (119,000 net) producing acres in San Juan, Rio Arriba and Sandoval Counties of

northwestern New Mexico and 3,967 gross (1,163 net) wells, calculated on a well bore basis and not including multiple completions as separate wells. Of those wells, seven gross (5.50 net) are oil wells and the balance are gas wells. BROG reports that approximately 794 of the wells are multiple completion wells resulting in a total of 4,761 completions. The Trust has inquired of BROG whether the acreage is developed or undeveloped. BROG has informed the Trust that all of the subject acreage is held by production, and even though it has not been fully developed in every formation, BROG has classified all of such acreage as developed. Production from conventional gas wells is primarily from the Pictured Cliffs, Mesaverde and Dakota formations. During 1988, Southland Royalty began development of coal seam reserves in the Fruitland Coal formation.

 

The Royalty conveyed to the Trust is limited to the base of the Dakota formation, which is currently the deepest significant producing formation under acreage affected by the Royalty. Rights to production, if any, from deeper formations are retained by BROG.

 

Capital expenses of $33.6 million were included in calculating Royalty Income paid to the Trust in calendar year 2009, and included expenditures for the drilling and completion of 92 gross (17.18 net) conventional wells, 36 gross (19.55 net) coal seam wells, two gross (.84 net) conventional recompletions, and one gross (.85 net) coal seam recompletion. There were 11 gross (1.21 net) conventional wells in progress as of December 31, 2009. All of the wells were development wells. Approximately $25.5 million of capital expenditures covered 256 projects budgeted for 2009. Approximately $16.7 million of those costs were incurred in new drilling activity, which included 50 new wells operated by BROG and no new wells operated by third parties. The balance of the expenditures allocable to current projects was attributable to the workover of existing wells and the maintenance and improvement of production facilities.

 

The $33.6 million of capital expenses reported by BROG for 2009 also included approximately $8.1 million attributable to the capital budgets for prior years. This occurs because capital expenditures are deducted in calculating royalty income in the month they accrue, and projects within a given year’s budget often extend into subsequent years. Further, BROG’s accounting period for capital expenditures runs through November 30 of each calendar year, such that capital expenditures incurred in December of each year are actually accounted for as part of the following year’s capital expenditures. In addition, with respect to wells not operated by BROG, BROG’s share of capital expenditures may not actually be paid by it until the year or years after those expenses were incurred by the operator.

 

During 2008, in calculating Royalty Income, BROG deducted approximately $27.0 million of capital expenditures for projects, including drilling and completion of 118 gross (14.37 net) conventional wells and 40 gross (16.16 net) coal seam wells. There were 18 gross (5.51 net) conventional wells and four gross (1.48 net) coal seam wells in progress as of December 31, 2008. All of the wells were development wells.

 

During 2007, in calculating Royalty Income, BROG deducted approximately $27.4 million of capital expenditures for projects, including drilling and completion of 45 gross (21.47 net) conventional wells and 21 gross (15.31 net) coal seam wells. There were 10 gross (0.35 net) conventional wells and nine gross (4.52 net) coal seam wells in progress as of December 31, 2007. All of the wells were development wells.

 

BROG has informed the Trust that its budget for capital expenditures for the Underlying Properties in 2010 is estimated at $17.9 million. In addition, BROG estimates that during 2010 it will incur capital expenses in the amount of approximately $6.8 million attributable to the capital budgets for 2009 and prior years. BROG reports that based on its actual capital requirements, the pace of regulatory approvals, the mix of projects and swings in the price of natural gas, the actual capital expenditures for 2010 could range from $10 million to $45 million.

 

BROG anticipates 305 projects in 2010. Approximately $7.2 million of the $17.9 million budget is allocable to 43 new wells, including 41 wells scheduled to be dually completed in the Mesaverde and Dakota formations. BROG indicates that two of the new wells are projected to be drilled to Fruitland Coal or Pictured Cliffs formations. Approximately $3.8 million will be spent on workovers and facilities projects. Of the $6.8 million attributable to the budgets for prior years, approximately $4.4 million is allocable to new wells and the $2.4 million balance will be applied to miscellaneous capital projects such as workovers and operated facility projects. BROG mentioned that the possible implementation of new air quality rules and rules requiring the minimization of surface disturbances,

implementation of closed-loop systems for the disposal of drilling fluids and cuttings, and the restricted use of open reserve pits could reduce the number of projects due to increased compliance costs.

 

In February 2002, BROG informed the Trust that the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division (the “OCD”) had approved plans for 80-acre infill drilling of the Dakota formation in the San Juan Basin. In July 2003, the OCD approved 160-acre spacing in the Fruitland Coal formation. Eighty-acre spacing has been permitted in the Mesaverde formation since 1997. In 2008, BROG participated in a study involving a total of 15 test wells completed to the Mesaverde and/or Dakota formations, with some of the test wells drilled on a 40-acre spacing basis. BROG also participated in a pilot project for the drilling of two horizontal wells to the Dakota formation, neither of which were drilled on acreage burdened by the Royalty. In 2009, BROG drilled and completed a horizontal well in the Fruitland Coal formation on acreage that is burdened by the Royalty. BROG indicates that it will continue its program of horizontal drilling in 2010 as improved technology makes these wells more efficient and anticipated increases in production outweigh the increased costs incurred in the drilling and completion of horizontal wells as compared to more traditional vertical wells.

 

Oil and Gas Production

 

The Trust recognizes production during the month in which the related net proceeds attributable to the Royalty are paid to the Trust. Royalty Income for a calendar year is based on the actual gas and oil production during the period beginning with November of the preceding calendar year through October of the current calendar year. Production of oil and gas and related average sales prices attributable to the Royalty for the three years ended December 31, 2009, were as follows:

 

 

Production volumes and costs attributable to the Underlying Properties for the three years ended December 31, 2009, were as follows:

 

 

Pricing Information

 

Gas produced in the San Juan Basin is sold in both interstate and intrastate commerce. Reference is made to the discussion contained herein under “Regulation” for information as to federal regulation of prices of oil and natural gas. Gas production from the Underlying Properties totaled 35,067,662 Mcf during 2009.

 

BROG previously entered into three contracts for the sale of all volumes of gas produced from the Underlying Properties to ChevronTexaco Natural Gas, a division of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (“ChevronTexaco”), Coral Energy Resources, L.P. (“Coral”), and PNM Gas Services (“PNM”), respectively. In March 2008, both ChevronTexaco and Coral notified BROG of their election to terminate their respective contracts effective March 31, 2009. Requests for proposal were circulated to potential purchasers of the packages of gas covered by the expiring contracts. Neither BROG nor PNM gave notice of termination with respect to the PNM contract and, by agreement of the parties, the term of that contract has been extended through at least March 31, 2011. On December 11, 2008, the New Mexico Public Regulatory Commission approved the sale of the gas utility assets of PNM to New Mexico Gas Company, Inc. (“NMGC”) and, effective as of January 30, 2009, the PNM contract was assigned to and assumed by NMGC.

BROG has now entered into four new contracts effective April 1, 2009, for the sale of all gas produced from the Underlying Properties other than the gas covered by the NMGC contract. The new purchasers are Chevron Natural Gas, a division of Chevron USA, Inc. (“Chevron”), Pacific Gas and Electric Company, BP Energy Company and Macquarie Cook Energy LLC. All four of the new contracts and the pre-existing NMGC contract provide for (i) the delivery of such gas at various delivery points through March 31, 2011 and from year-to-year thereafter, until terminated by either party on 12 months’ notice; and (ii) the sale of such gas at prices which fluctuate in accordance with the published indices for gas sold in the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico. Although the primary term of the Chevron contract continues until March 31, 2011, a portion of that contract was set to expire on March 31, 2010. BROG has notified the Trust that it has reached agreement with Chevron for the sale of that gas such that all gas produced from the Underlying Properties is now contracted for sale, on the terms described above, through March 31, 2011.

 

BROG contracts with Williams Four Corners, LLC (“WFC”) and Enterprise Field Services, LLC (“EFS”) for the gathering and processing of virtually all of the gas produced from the Underlying Properties. Four new contracts have been entered into with WFC to be effective for terms of 15 years commencing April 1, 2010. The new contracts will consolidate and replace 18 prior contracts with WFC. BROG indicates that the new contracts are anticipated to provide some modest reductions in fees and also improved services, including more rigorous line pressure controls and the right to install compression facilities as needed.

 

However, BROG reports that it has been unable to reach agreement with EFS on gathering and production contracts, and it has joined a group of 51 others in initiating an administrative proceeding before the New Mexico Public Utility Commission, complaining, inter alia, that EFS is insisting upon above-market rates and refusing to agree to essential pressure control services. Gas is currently being gathered and processed by EFS on a month-to-month basis. The Trustee will continue to monitor this matter as it may relate to the Trust.

 

Confidentiality agreements with gatherers and purchasers of gas produced from the Underlying Properties prohibit public disclosure of certain terms and conditions of gas sales contracts with those entities, including specific pricing terms and gas receipt points. Such disclosure could compromise the ability to compete effectively in the marketplace for the sale of gas produced from the Underlying Properties.

 

Oil and Gas Reserves

 

The following are definitions adopted by the SEC and the Financial Accounting Standards Board which are applicable to terms used within this Annual Report on Form 10-K:

 

“Estimated future net revenues” are computed by applying current prices of oil and gas (with consideration of price changes only to the extent provided by contractual arrangements and allowed by federal regulation) to estimated future production of proved oil and gas reserves as of the date of the latest balance sheet presented, less estimated future expenditures (based on current costs) to be incurred in developing and producing the proved reserves, and assuming continuation of existing economic conditions. See 22 CFR 210.4-10(c)(4)(A). “Estimated future net revenues” are sometimes referred to in this Annual Report on Form 10-K as “estimated future net cash flows.”

 

“Present value of estimated future net revenues” is computed using the estimated future net revenues (as defined above) and a discount rate of 10%.

 

“Proved oil and gas reserves” are those quantities of oil and gas, which, by analysis of geoscience and engineering data, can be estimated with reasonable certainty to be economically producible — from a given date forward, from known reservoirs, and under existing economic conditions, operating methods, and government regulations — prior to the time at which contracts providing the right to operate expire, unless evidence indicates that renewal is reasonably certain, regardless of whether deterministic or probabilistic methods are used for the estimation. The project to extract the hydrocarbons must have commenced or the operator must be reasonably certain that it will commence the project within a reasonable time. See 17 CFR 210.4-10(a)(22).

 

“Proved reserves” are the estimated quantities of crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids which geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future years from known oil and gas reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. See 17 CFR 210.4-10(a)(2)(iii).

“Proved undeveloped reserves” or “PUDs” are undeveloped oil and gas reserves.

 

“Reasonable certainty” means (i) if deterministic methods are used, reasonable certainty means a high degree of confidence that the quantities will be recovered or (ii) if probabilistic methods are used, there should be at least a 90% probability that the quantities actually recovered will equal or exceed the estimate. A high degree of confidence exists if the quantity is much more likely to be achieved than not, and, as changes due to increased availability of geoscience (geological, geophysical, and geochemical), engineering, and economic data are made to estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) with time, reasonably certain EUR is much more likely to increase or remain constant than to decrease. See 17 CFR 210.4-10(a)(24).

 

“Reserves” are estimated remaining quantities of oil and gas and related substances anticipated to be economically producible, as of a given date, by application of development projects to known accumulations. In addition, there must exist, or there must be a reasonable expectation that there will exist, the legal right to produce or a revenue interest in the production, installed means of delivering oil and gas or related substances to market, and all permits and financing required to implement the project. See 17 CFR 210.4-10(a)(26).

 

“Undeveloped oil and gas reserves” are reserves of any category that are expected to be recovered from new wells on undrilled acreage, or from existing wells where a relatively major expenditure is required for recompletion. See 17 CFR 210.4-10(a)(31).

 

The independent petroleum engineers’ reports as to the proved oil and gas reserves as of December 31, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009, were prepared by Cawley, Gillespie & Associates, Inc. (“CG&A”). CG&A, whose firm registration number is F-693, was founded in 1961 and is a worldwide leader in the evaluation of oil and gas properties. The technical person at CG&A primarily responsible for overseeing the reserve estimate with respect to the Trust is Zane Meekins. Mr. Meekins has been a practicing petroleum engineering consultant since 1989, with over 22 years of practice experience in petroleum engineering. He is a registered professional engineer in the State of Texas (License No. 71055). He graduated from Texas A&M University in 1987, summa cum laude, with a B.S. in Petroleum Engineering. CG&A and Mr. Meekins have indicated that they meet or exceed all requirements set forth in Standards Pertaining to the Estimating and Auditing of Oil and Gas Reserves Information promulgated by the Society of Petroleum Engineers.

 

The following table presents a reconciliation of proved reserve quantities attributable to the Royalty from December 31, 2006, to December 31, 2009, (in thousands):

 

Estimated quantities of proved oil and gas reserves as of December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 were as follows (in thousands):

 

 

A summary of estimated quantities by geographic area for proved oil and gas reserves and undeveloped oil and gas reserves as of December 31, 2009 were as follows (in thousands):

 

 

Based on information provided by BROG, there were 193 PUDs identified as of December 31, 2008, as compared to 139 as of December 31, 2009. Due to changes in applicable federal regulations, the current estimate no longer includes 59 PUDs identified but not drilled within five years from date of booking. The current estimate has also been adjusted to take into account the elimination of PUDs no longer deemed commercial due to declines in the market price of natural gas, as well as new PUDs identified during the year and those converted to proved developed, all in the ordinary course of business. See Item 2. Properties, above, for a discussion of historical and budgeted investment and progress to convert PUDs to proved developed.

 

Generally, the calculation of oil and gas reserves takes into account a comparison of the value of the oil or gas to the cost of producing those minerals, in an attempt to cause minerals in the ground to be included in reserve estimates only to the extent that the anticipated costs of production will be exceeded by the anticipated sales revenue. Accordingly, an increase in sales price and/or a decrease in production cost can itself result in an increase in estimated reserves and declining prices and/or increasing costs can result in reserves reported at less than the physical volumes actually thought to exist. The Financial Accounting Standards Board requires supplemental disclosures for oil and gas producers based on a standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows relating to proved oil and gas reserve quantities. Under this disclosure, future cash inflows are estimated by applying annual average prices of oil and gas relating to the enterprise’s proved reserves to the year-end quantities of those reserves, less estimated future expenditures (based on current costs) of developing and producing the proved reserves, and assuming continuation of existing economic conditions. Future price changes are only considered to the extent provided by contractual arrangements in existence at year-end. The standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows is achieved by using a discount rate of 10% a year to reflect the timing of future net cash flows relating to proved oil and gas reserves.

 

Estimates of proved oil and gas reserves are by their nature imprecise. Estimates of future net revenue attributable to proved reserves are sensitive to the unpredictable prices of oil and gas and other variables. Accordingly, under the allocation method used to derive the Trust’s quantity of proved reserves, changes in prices will result in changes in quantities of proved oil and gas reserves and estimated future net revenues.

The 2009, 2008 and 2007 changes in the standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows related to future royalty income from proved reserves are as follows (in thousands):

 

 

Reserve quantities and revenues shown in the tables above for the Royalty were estimated from projections of reserves and revenues attributable to the combined BROG and Trust interests. Reserve quantities attributable to the Royalty were derived from estimates by allocating to the Royalty a portion of the total net reserve quantities of the interests, based upon gross revenue less production taxes. Because the reserve quantities attributable to the Royalty are estimated using an allocation of the reserves, any changes in prices or costs will result in changes in the estimated reserve quantities allocated to the Royalty. Therefore, the reserve quantities estimated will vary if different future price and cost assumptions occur. The future net cash flows were determined without regard to future federal income tax credits, if any, available to production from coal seam wells.

 

For 2009, $3.49 per Mcf of gas and $51.98 per Bbl of oil were used in determining future net revenue. As required under recent regulatory changes, these prices are based on a 12-month unweighted average of the first-day-of-the-month pricing of $3.87 per MMBtu of NYMEX natural gas and $61.18 per Bbl of West Texas Intermediate oil. The downward revision in reserve quantities for 2009 is due primarily to lower average gas prices during 2009 as compared to December 2008. But note that due to changes in applicable federal regulations as to the reporting of reserves, the formula for 2009 is based on average annual prices, while the formula employed in 2008 and prior years is based upon the December 31 spot price. Accordingly, in this transition year, the comparison of annual prices may be less meaningful.

 

The December 31, 2008 price of $4.99 per Mcf of gas and $37.76 per Bbl of oil were used in determining future net revenue. The downward revision in reserve quantities for 2008 was due primarily to lower gas prices in December 2008 as compared to December 2007, in addition to increased lease operating expenses and reduced gas and oil production.

 

The December 31, 2007 price of $7.14 per Mcf of gas and $87.22 per Bbl of oil were used in determining future net revenue.

 

The following presents estimated future net revenues and present value of estimated future net revenues attributable to the Royalty for each of the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 (in thousands, except amounts per Unit):

 

 

Proved reserve quantities are estimates based on information available at the time of preparation and such estimates are subject to change as additional information becomes available. The reserves actually recovered and the timing of production of those reserves may be substantially different from the above estimates. Moreover, the present values shown above should not be considered the market values of such oil and gas reserves or the costs that would be incurred to acquire equivalent reserves. A market value determination would require the analysis of additional parameters. Reserve estimates were not filed with any Federal authority or agency other than the SEC.

Regulation

 

Many aspects of the production, pricing and marketing of crude oil and natural gas are regulated by federal and state agencies. Legislation affecting the oil and gas industry is under constant review for amendment or expansion, frequently increasing the regulatory burden on affected members of the industry.

 

Exploration and production operations are subject to various types of regulation at the federal, state and local levels. Such regulation includes requiring permits for the drilling of wells, maintaining bonding requirements in order to drill or operate wells, and regulating the location of wells, the method of drilling and casing wells, the surface use and restoration of properties upon which wells are drilled and the plugging and abandonment of wells. Natural gas and oil operations are also subject to various conservation laws and regulations that regulate the size of drilling and spacing units or proration units and the density of wells which may be drilled and unitization or pooling of oil and gas properties. In addition, state conservation laws establish maximum allowable production from natural gas and oil wells, generally prohibit the venting or flaring of natural gas and impose certain requirements regarding the ratability of production. The effect of these regulations is to limit the amounts of natural gas and oil that BROG can produce and to limit the number of wells or the locations at which BROG can drill.

 

Federal Natural Gas Regulation

 

The transportation and sale for resale of natural gas in interstate commerce, historically, have been regulated pursuant to several laws enacted by Congress and the regulations promulgated under these laws by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) and its predecessor. In the past, the federal government has regulated the prices at which gas could be sold. Congress removed all non-price controls affecting wellhead sales of natural gas effective January 1, 1993. Congress could, however, reenact price controls in the future.

 

Sales of natural gas are affected by the availability, terms and cost of transportation. The price and terms for access to pipeline transportation remain subject to extensive federal and state regulation. Several major regulatory changes have been implemented by Congress and FERC from 1985 to the present that affect the economics of natural gas production, transportation and sales. In addition, FERC continues to promulgate revisions to various aspects of the rules and regulations affecting those segments of the natural gas industry, most notably interstate natural gas transmission companies, that remain subject to FERC’s jurisdiction. These initiatives may also affect the intrastate transportation of gas under certain circumstances. The stated purpose of many of these regulatory changes is to promote competition among the various sectors of the natural gas industry and these initiatives generally reflect more light-handed regulation of the natural gas industry.

 

Additional proposals and proceedings that might affect the natural gas industry are considered from time to time by Congress, FERC, state regulatory bodies and the courts. The Trust cannot predict when or if any such proposals might become effective, or their effect, if any, on the Trust. The natural gas industry historically has been very heavily regulated; therefore, there is no assurance that the less stringent regulatory approach pursued over the last decade by FERC and Congress will continue.

 

Sales of crude oil, condensate and gas liquids are not currently regulated and are made at market prices. The ability to transport and sell petroleum products are dependent on pipelines whose rates, terms and conditions of service are subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Interstate Commerce Act. Certain regulations implemented by FERC in recent years could result in an increase in the cost of transportation service on certain petroleum products pipelines.

 

Section 45 Tax Credit

 

Sales of gas production from certain coal seam wells drilled prior to January 1, 1993, qualified for federal income tax credits under Section 29 (now Section 45K) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as amended, the “Code”) through 2002 but not thereafter. Accordingly, under present law, the Trust’s production and sale of gas from coal seam wells does not qualify for tax credit under Section 45K of the Code (the “Section 45 Tax Credit”). Congress has at various times since 2002 considered energy legislation, including provisions to reinstate the Section 45 Tax Credit in various ways and to various extents, but no legislation that would qualify the Trust’s current production for such credit has been enacted. For example, in February 2009, new energy tax legislation was enacted

which, among other things, modified the Section 45 Tax Credit in several respects, but did not extend the credit for production from coal seam wells. No prediction can be made as to what future tax legislation affecting Section 45K of the Code may be proposed or enacted or, if enacted, its impact, if any, on the Trust and the Unit Holders.

 

Passive Loss Rules

 

The classification of the Trust’s income for purposes of the passive loss rules may be important to a Unit Holder. As a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, royalty income such as that derived through the Trust will generally be treated as portfolio income that may not be offset or reduced by passive losses.

 

Climate Change Regulation

 

The oil and natural gas industry is also subject to compliance with federal, state and local regulations and laws regarding the affects of climate change. These laws and regulations have impacted, and will in the future continue to impact, the production, gathering, marketing and transportation of oil and natural gas.

 

Other Regulation

 

The oil and natural gas industry is also subject to compliance with various other federal, state and local regulations and laws, including, but not limited to, environmental protection, occupational safety, resource conservation and equal employment opportunity.

 

 

As discussed herein under Part II, Item 9A (Controls and Procedures), due to the pass-through nature of the Trust, BROG provides much of the information disclosed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and the other periodic reports filed by the Trust with the SEC. Although the Trustee receives periodic updates from BROG regarding activities which may relate to the Trust, the Trust’s ability to timely report certain information required to be disclosed in the Trust’s periodic reports is dependent on BROG’s timely delivery of the information to the Trust.

 

On April 28, 2008, the Trust filed a suit against BROG relating to the Arbitration Award in its favor issued in November 2005, in the amount of $7,683,699. The litigation is styled San Juan Basin Royalty Trust vs. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, L.P., No. D1329-CV-08-751, in the District Court of Sandoval County, New Mexico, 13th Judicial District. The Trust alleges breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and seeks a judgment for damages in the amount of $5,025,000, plus interest and punitive damages. The purpose of the arbitration was to resolve certain joint interest audit issues. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the Trust on all five of the issues submitted to arbitration. BROG filed suit in Harris County, Texas alleging that the award should be modified or vacated, and seeking to recover its attorneys’ fees. The trial court denied BROG’s motion to vacate, granted the Trust’s application to confirm and rendered a final judgment in favor of the Trust. BROG paid the award as it related to four of the five issues and appealed the award as to the fifth. In August 2007, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and vacated the award as it related to the unpaid balance.

 

With respect to that fifth issue, which was the subject of the appeal, the Trust had asked for damages based on either of two alternative claims. The appellate court ruled that the alternative claim selected by the arbitrator in awarding the Trust approximately $5,000,000 was not technically included within the scope of what the parties intended to submit to arbitration. The appellate court did not rule on whether or not the arbitrator properly decided the fifth issue in favor of the Trust. The litigation filed in New Mexico seeks recovery on the claim which had been resolved in favor of the Trust by the arbitrator.

 

The appellate court also remanded the case to the District Court, where BROG pursued its claim for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of approximately $450,000. Following a trial on the merits of BROG’s claims conducted on June 3, 2009, the District Court ruled in favor of the Trust and ordered that BROG should take nothing in its claims against the Trust. BROG has filed a Notice of Appeal as regards that ruling.

 

Certain motions for summary judgment filed by BROG and the Trust in the New Mexico litigation were heard on January 5, 2010. The parties are awaiting the trial court’s ruling on these motions. The trial on the merits has been set for the week of May 24, 2011, and in the interim, a mediation of the issues has been set for April 8, 2010.

BROG has informed the Trust that pursuant to an Order to Perform (the “MMS Order”) issued by the Minerals Management Service (“MMS”) dated June 10, 1998, the Jicarilla Apache Nation (the “Jicarilla”) alleged that in valuing production for royalty purposes one must perform (i) a major portion analysis, which calculates value on the highest price paid or offered for a major portion of the gas produced from the field where the leased lands are situated; and (ii) a dual accounting calculation, which computes royalties on the greater of (a) the value of gas prior to processing or (b) the combined value of processed residue gas and plant products plus the value of any condensate recovered downstream without processing. The MMS Order alleged that BROG’s dual accounting calculations on Native American leases were based on less than major portion prices. In December 2000, BROG and the Jicarilla entered into a settlement agreement resolving the issues associated with the dual accounting calculation. The major portion calculation issue remains outstanding. A judgment or settlement could entitle BROG to reimbursement from the Trust for past periods.

 

According to BROG, on March 28, 2007 the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs of the United States Department of Interior issued an administrative order in BROG’s appeal of the major portion calculation issue of the MMS Order entitled MMS-98-0141-IND Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP (the “Administrative Order”). The administrative order rejected that portion of the MMS Order requiring BROG to calculate and pay additional royalties based on the major portion price derived by the MMS. In May 2007, rather than file a direct appeal of the Administrative Order against BROG, the Jicarilla filed suit solely against the Department of Interior in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in an action entitled 1:07-CV-00803-RJL, Jicarilla Apache Nation v. Department of Interior (the “DOI Case”). In the DOI Case, the Jicarilla seek a declaration that the Administrative Order is unlawful and of no force and effect, as well as an injunction requiring enforcement of the rejected major portion element of the MMS Order. While a judgment or settlement in the DOI Case could impact the Royalty income of the Trust, the Trust has not, at this time, received any report from BROG as to the status of the DOI Case, or any estimate of the amount of any potential loss or the portion of any such potential loss that might be allocated to the Royalty.

 

On March 14, 2008, and as more fully reported in the Trust’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2008, BROG notified the Trust that the distribution for March 2008 would be reduced by $4,921,578. BROG described this amount as the Trust’s portion of what BROG had paid to settle claims for the underpayment of royalties in the case styled United States of America ex rel. Harrold E. (“Gene”) Wright v. AGIP Petroleum Co. et al., Civil Action No. 5:03CV264 (formerly 9:98-CV-30) (E.D. Tex.). The Trust’s compliance auditors have filed an audit exception to that reduction, and the Trust’s legal advisors continue to analyze this settlement as it may apply to the Trust.

 

In addition to the legal proceedings described above, BROG is involved in various legal proceedings, the outcome of which may impact the Trust. Should certain legal proceedings to which BROG is a party be decided in a manner adverse to BROG, the amount of Royalty Income received by the Trust could materially decrease. The Trust has not received from BROG any estimate of the amount of any potential loss in such proceedings, or the portion of any such potential loss that might be allocated to the Royalty.

 

 

No matters were submitted to a vote of Unit Holders, through the solicitation of proxies or otherwise, during the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2009.

 

PART II

 

 

The information under “Units of Beneficial Interest” in the Trust’s Annual Report to Unit Holders for the year ended December 31, 2009, is herein incorporated by reference. The Trust has no directors, executive officers or employees. Accordingly, the Trust does not maintain any equity compensation plans and there are no Units reserved for issuance under any such plans.

 

 

 

 

The “Description of the Properties” in the Trust’s Annual Report to Unit Holders for the year ended December 31, 2009, is herein incorporated by reference.

 

Gas and Oil Production

 

Total gas and oil production from the Underlying Properties for the five years ended December 31, 2009 were as follows:

 

 

Royalty Income for a calendar year is based on the actual gas and oil production during the period beginning with November of the preceding calendar year through October of the current calendar year. Gas and oil sales attributable to the Royalty for the past five years are summarized in the following table:

 

 

Sales volumes attributable to the Royalty are determined by dividing the net profits received by the Trust and attributable to oil and gas, respectively, by the prices received for sales volumes from the Underlying Properties, taking into consideration production taxes attributable to the Underlying Properties. Since the oil and gas sales attributable to the Royalty are based on an allocation formula dependent on such factors as price and cost, including capital expenditures, the aggregate sales amounts from the Underlying Properties may not provide a meaningful comparison to sales attributable to the Royalty.

 

The fluctuations in annual gas production that have occurred during these five years generally resulted from changes in the demand for gas during that time, marketing conditions, and increased capital spending to generate production from new and existing wells, as offset by the natural production decline curve. Production from the

Underlying Properties is influenced by the line pressure of the gas gathering systems in the San Juan Basin. As noted above, oil and gas sales attributable to the Royalty are based on an allocation formula dependent on many factors, including oil and gas prices and capital expenditures.

 

BROG previously entered into three contracts for the sale of all volumes of gas produced from the Underlying Properties to ChevronTexaco, Coral, and PNM, respectively. In March 2008, both ChevronTexaco and Coral notified BROG of their election to terminate their respective contracts effective March 31, 2009. Requests for proposal were circulated to potential purchasers of the packages of gas covered by the expiring contracts. Neither BROG nor PNM gave notice of termination with respect to the PNM contract and, by agreement of the parties, the term of that contract has been extended through at least March 31, 2011. On December 11, 2008, the New Mexico Public Regulatory Commission approved the sale of the gas utility assets of PNM to NMGC and, effective as of January 30, 2009, the PNM contract was assigned to and assumed by NMGC.

 

BROG has now entered into four new contracts effective April 1, 2009, for the sale of all gas produced from the Underlying Properties other than the gas covered by the NMGC contract. The new purchasers are Chevron, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, BP Energy Company and Macquarie Cook Energy LLC. All four of the new contracts and the pre-existing NMGC contract provide for (i) the delivery of such gas at various delivery points through March 31, 2011 and from year-to-year thereafter, until terminated by either party on 12 months’ notice; and (ii) the sale of such gas at prices which fluctuate in accordance with the published indices for gas sold in the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico. Although the primary term of the Chevron contract continues until March 31, 2011, a portion of that contract was set to expire on March 31, 2010. BROG has notified the Trust that it has reached agreement with Chevron for the sale of that gas such that all gas produced from the Underlying Properties is now contracted for sale, on the terms described above, through March 31, 2011.

 

BROG contracts with WFC and EFS for the gathering and processing of virtually all of the gas produced from the Underlying Properties. Four new contracts have been entered into with WFC to be effective for terms of 15 years commencing April 1, 2010. The new contracts will consolidate and replace 18 prior contracts with WFC. BROG indicates that the new contracts are anticipated to provide some modest reductions in fees and also improved services, including more rigorous line pressure controls and the right to install compression facilities as needed.

 

However, BROG reports that it has been unable to reach agreement with EFS on gathering and production contracts, and it has joined a group of 51 others in initiating an administrative proceeding before the New Mexico Public Utility Commission, complaining, inter alia, that EFS is insisting upon above-market rates and refusing to agree to essential pressure control services. Gas is currently being gathered and processed by EFS on a month-to-month basis. The Trustee will continue to monitor this matter as it may relate to the Trust.

 

Confidentiality agreements with gatherers and purchasers of gas produced from the Underlying Properties prohibit public disclosure of certain terms and conditions of gas sales contracts with those entities, including specific pricing terms and gas receipt points. Such disclosure could compromise the ability to compete effectively in the marketplace for the sale of gas produced from the Underlying Properties.

Royalty Income

 

Royalty Income consists of monthly Net Proceeds attributable to the Royalty. Royalty Income for the five years ended December 31, 2009 was determined as shown in the following table:

 

 

 

 

Distributable Income

 

“Distributable Income” (as that term is used herein) consists of Royalty Income plus interest, less the general and administrative expenses of the Trust and any changes in cash reserves established by the Trustee.

 

For the year ended December 31, 2009, Distributable Income was $30,173,056, representing a 79% decrease from 2008. For the year ended December 31, 2008, Distributable Income was $143,081,245, representing a 26% increase from 2007. Distributable Income in 2007 was $113,221,235.

 

The Trust received Royalty Income of $31,888,681 and interest income of $303,206 in 2009. After deducting administrative expenses of $2,018,831, Distributable Income for 2009 was $30,173,056 ($0.647367 per Unit). In 2008, Royalty Income was $144,588,156, interest income was $388,454, and administrative expenses were $1,895,365, resulting in Distributable Income of $143,081,245 ($3.069833 per Unit). The decrease in Distributable Income from 2008 to 2009 was primarily attributable to lower natural gas pricing. BROG has informed the Trust that although reported volumes were higher in 2009 as compared to 2008, that was primarily due to unusually low volumes in February 2008 caused by unplanned downtime at a plant operated by a third party, as well as poor weather conditions. Interest earnings in 2009 were lower as compared to 2008, primarily due to the amount of additional interest paid to the Trust in 2008 as a result of the granting of certain audit exceptions. Administrative expenses were higher in 2009, as compared to 2008 primarily as a result of differences in timing in the receipt and payment of these expenses and also due to increased costs associated with the litigation described in Part I, Item 3.

In 2007, the Trust received Royalty Income of $113,803,339 and interest income of $1,401,849. After deducting administrative expenses of $1,983,953, Distributable Income for 2007 was $113,221,235 ($2.429184 per Unit). The increase in Distributable Income from 2007 to 2008 was primarily attributable to higher natural gas pricing.

 

BROG has informed the Trustee that the New Mexico Oil and Gas Proceeds Withholding Tax Act (the “Withholding Tax Act”) requires remitters who pay certain oil and gas proceeds from production on New Mexico properties on or after October 1, 2003, to withhold income taxes from such proceeds in the case of certain nonresident recipients. The Trustee, on advice of New Mexico counsel, has observed that “net profits interests,” such as the Royalty, and other types of interests, the extent of which cannot be determined with respect to a specific share of the oil and gas production, are excluded from the withholding requirements of the Withholding Tax Act. Unit holders are reminded to consult with their tax advisors regarding the applicability of New Mexico income tax to distributions received from the Trust by a Unit holder.

 

Operating Expenses

 

Monthly operating expenses of the Underlying Properties, exclusive of property taxes, in 2009 averaged approximately $2,680,517, which is lower than the $2,738,966 average in 2008 primarily because demand-related increases in the cost of contract services and materials have been somewhat mitigated by the decline in natural gas sales prices. The average for 2007 was $2,328,983.

 

Settlements

 

As part of the September 4, 1996, settlement of the litigation filed by the Trustee on June 4, 1992 against BROG and Southland, the Trustee and BROG established a formal protocol pursuant to which joint interest auditors retained by the Trustee gained improved access to BROG’s books and records as applicable to the Underlying Properties. The audit process was initiated in 1996 and, since inception, has resulted in audit exceptions being granted by and payments or credits received from BROG totaling approximately $28 million.

 

Capital Expenditures

 

Capital expenses of $33.6 million were included in calculating Royalty Income paid to the Trust in calendar year 2009, and included expenditures for the drilling and completion of 92 gross (17.18 net) conventional wells, 36 gross (19.55 net) coal seam wells, two gross (.84 net) conventional recompletions, and one gross (.85 net) coal seam recompletion. There were 11 gross (1.21 net) conventional wells in progress as of December 31, 2009. All of the wells were development wells. Approximately $25.5 million of capital expenditures covered 256 projects budgeted for 2009. Approximately $16.7 million of those costs were incurred in new drilling activity, which included 50 new wells operated by BROG and no new wells operated by third parties. The balance of the expenditures allocable to current projects was attributable to the workover of existing wells and the maintenance and improvement of production facilities.

 

The $33.6 million of capital expenses reported by BROG for 2009 also included approximately $8.1 million attributable to the capital budgets for prior years. This occurs because capital expenditures are deducted in calculating royalty income in the month they accrue, and projects within a given year’s budget often extend into subsequent years. Further, BROG’s accounting period for capital expenditures runs through November 30 of each calendar year, such that capital expenditures incurred in December of each year are actually accounted for as part of the following year’s capital expenditures. In addition, with respect to wells not operated by BROG, BROG’s share of capital expenditures may not actually be paid by it until the year or years after those expenses were incurred by the operator.

 

Results of the 4th Quarters of 2009 and 2008

 

For the three months ended December 31, 2009, Distributable Income was $12,423,712 ($0.266553 per Unit), which was less than the $30,688,371 ($0.658424 per Unit ) of income distributed during the same period in 2008. The decrease in Distributable Income resulted primarily from lower natural gas prices.

Royalty Income of the Trust for the fourth quarter is based on actual gas and oil production during August through October of each year. Gas and oil sales for the quarters ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 were as follows:

 

 

The average price of gas and oil decreased in the fourth quarter of 2009 compared to the same period of 2008. The price per barrel of oil during the fourth quarter of 2009 was $26.11 lower than that received in the fourth quarter of 2008 due in part to the global economic contraction which has depressed energy demand and contributed to lower natural gas wellhead prices, including the posted index prices applicable to gas sold from the San Juan Basin. In addition, many experts attribute the decline in gas prices to record or near record inventories in storage and increased domestic production from the various shale formations. Gas production decreased in the fourth quarter of 2009 because new production brought on line in 2009 failed to completely offset the natural decline in production from existing wells.

 

Capital costs for the fourth quarter of 2009 totaled $5,290,920 compared to $7,133,274 during the same period of 2008. Lease operating expenses and property taxes for the fourth quarter of 2009 averaged $2,605,473 per month compared to $3,125,598 per month in the fourth quarter of 2008. Operating expenses were lower in the fourth quarter of 2009 than for the fourth quarter of 2008 primarily because demand-related increases in the cost of contract services has been somewhat mitigated by the decline in natural gas sales prices. Based on 46,608,796 Units outstanding, the per-Unit distributions during the fourth quarters of 2009 and 2008 were as follows:

 

 

 

The Trust invests in no derivative financial instruments, and has no foreign operations or long-term debt instruments. The Trust is a passive entity and is prohibited from engaging in any business or commercial activity of any kind whatsoever, including borrowing transactions, other than the Trust’s ability to borrow money periodically as necessary to pay expenses, liabilities and obligations of the Trust that cannot be paid out of cash held by the Trust. The amount of any such borrowings is unlikely to be material to the Trust. The Trust periodically holds short-term investments acquired with funds held by the Trust pending distribution to Unit Holders and funds held in reserve for the payment of Trust expenses and liabilities. Because of the short-term nature of these borrowings and investments and certain limitations upon the types of such investments which may be held by the Trust, the Trustee believes that the Trust is not subject to material interest rate risk. The Trust does not engage in transactions in foreign currencies which could expose the Trust or Unit Holders to any foreign currency related market risk. The Trust does not market the gas, oil and/or natural gas liquids from the Underlying Properties. BROG is responsible for such marketing.

 

 

Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Trust Corpus

 

December 31, 2009 and 2008

 

 

Statements of Distributable Income

 

For each of the years ended December 31

 

 

Statements of Changes in Trust Corpus

 

For each of the years ended December 31

 

 

These Financial Statements should be read in conjunction with the accompanying Notes to Financial Statements included herein.

 

San Juan Basin Royalty Trust

 

Notes to Financial Statements

 

 

The San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (“Trust”) was established as of November 1, 1980. Southland Royalty Company (“Southland”) conveyed to the Trust a 75% net overriding royalty interest (“Royalty”) carved out of Southland’s working interests and royalty interests (the “Underlying Properties”) in the properties located in the San Juan Basin in northwestern New Mexico. Through an acquisition completed March 24, 2006, Compass Bank succeeded TexasBank as “Trustee” (herein so called) of the Trust. On September 7, 2007, Compass Bancshares, Inc. was acquired by Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (“BBVA”) and is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of BBVA.

 

On November 3, 1980, units of beneficial interest (“Units”) in the Trust were distributed to the Trustee for the benefit of Southland shareholders of record as of November 3, 1980, who received one Unit in the Trust for each share of Southland common stock held. The Units are traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

 

The terms of the Trust Indenture provide, among other things, that:

 

 

 

The amounts to be distributed to Unit holders (“Monthly Distribution Amounts”) are determined on a monthly basis by the Trustee. The Monthly Distribution Amount is an amount equal to the sum of cash received by the Trustee during a calendar month attributable to the Royalty, any reduction in cash reserves and any other cash receipts of the Trust, including interest, reduced by the sum of liabilities paid and any increase in cash reserves. If the Monthly Distribution Amount for any monthly period is a negative number, then the distribution will be zero for such month and such negative amount will be carried forward and deducted from future monthly distributions until the cumulative distribution calculation becomes a positive number, at which time a distribution will be made. Unit holders of record will be entitled to receive the calculated Monthly Distribution Amount for each month on or before 10 business days after the monthly record date, which is generally the last business day of each calendar month.

 

The cash received by the Trustee consists of the proceeds received by the owner of the Underlying Properties from the sale of production less the sum of applicable taxes, accrued production costs, development and drilling costs, operating charges and other costs and deductions, multiplied by 75%.

 

The initial carrying value of the Royalty ($133,275,528) represented Southland’s historical net book value at the date of the transfer of the Trust. Accumulated amortization as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 aggregated $116,431,797 and $115,348,030, respectively.

 

San Juan Basin Royalty Trust

 

Notes to Financial Statements — (Continued)

 

 

 

The financial statements of the Trust are prepared on the following basis:

 

 

The financial statements of the Trust differ from financial statements prepared in accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) because revenues are not accrued in the month of production; certain cash reserves may be established for contingencies which would not be accrued in financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP; expenses are recorded when paid instead of when incurred; and amortization of the Royalty calculated on a unit-of-production basis is charged directly to trust corpus instead of an expense. The basis of accounting used by the Trust is widely used by royalty trusts for financial reporting purposes.

 

In preparing the financial statements, the Trust has evaluated, for potential disclosure, events or transactions subsequent to the end of the most recent annual period through the issuance date of these financial statements. No such transactions or events resulted in additional disclosure.

 

 

For Federal income tax purposes, the Trust constitutes a fixed investment trust which is taxed as a grantor trust. A grantor trust is not subject to tax at the trust level. The Unit holders are considered to own the Trust’s income and principal as though no trust were in existence. The income of the Trust is deemed to have been received or accrued by each Unit holder at the time such income is received or accrued by the Trust rather than when distributed by the Trust.

 

The Trust is a widely held fixed investment trust (“WHFIT”) classified as a non-mortgage widely held fixed investment trust (“NMWHFIT”) for federal income tax purposes. The Trustee is the representative of the Trust that will provide tax information in accordance with the applicable U.S. Treasury Regulations governing the information reporting requirements of the Trust as a WHFIT and a NMWHFIT.

 

The Royalty constitutes an “economic interest” in oil and gas properties for federal income tax purposes. Unit holders must report their share of the production revenues of the Trust as ordinary income from oil and gas royalties and are entitled to claim depletion with respect to such income. The Royalty is treated as a single property for depletion purposes. The Trust has on file technical advice memoranda confirming such tax treatment.

 

Sales of gas production from certain coal seam wells drilled prior to January 1, 1993, qualified for federal income tax credits under Section 29 (now Section 45K) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), through 2002 but not thereafter. Accordingly, under present law, the Trust’s production and sale of gas from coal seam wells does not qualify for tax credit under Section 45K of the Code (the “Section 45 Tax Credit”). Congress has at various times since 2002 considered energy legislation, including provisions to reinstate the

 

San Juan Basin Royalty Trust

 

Notes to Financial Statements — (Continued)

 

Section 45 Tax Credit in various ways and to various extents, but no legislation that would qualify the Trust’s current production for such credit has been enacted. For example, in February 2009, new energy tax legislation was enacted which, among other things, modified the Section 45 Tax Credit in several respects, but did not extend the credit for production from coal seam wells. No prediction can be made as to what future tax legislation affecting Section 45K of the Code may be proposed or enacted or, if enacted, its impact, if any, on the Trust and the Unit holders.

 

The classification of the Trust’s income for purposes of the passive loss rules may be important to a Unit holder. As a result of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, royalty income such as that derived through the Trust will generally be treated as portfolio income that may not be offset or reduced by passive losses.

 

Tax positions taken by the Trust related to the Trust’s pass-through status and state tax positions have been reviewed, and the Trustee is of the opinion that material positions taken would more likely than not be sustained by examination. In accordance with the Trust’s basis of accounting discussed in Note 3, the Trust would only recognize the impact of tax positions that were not upheld at the time of payment. As of December 31, 2009, the Trust’s tax years 2006 to 2009 remain subject to examination.

 

 

BROG previously entered into three contracts for the sale of all volumes of gas produced from the Underlying Properties to ChevronTexaco Natural Gas, a division of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (“ChevronTexaco”), Coral Energy Resources, L.P. (“Coral”), and PNM Gas Services (“PNM”), respectively. In March 2008, both ChevronTexaco and Coral notified BROG of their election to terminate their respective contracts effective March 31, 2009. Requests for proposal were circulated to potential purchasers of the packages of gas covered by the expiring contracts. Neither BROG nor PNM gave notice of termination with respect to the PNM contract and, by agreement of the parties, the term of that contract has been extended through at least March 31, 2011. On December 11, 2008, the New Mexico Public Regulatory Commission approved the sale of the gas utility assets of PNM to New Mexico Gas Company, Inc. (“NMGC”) and, effective as of January 30, 2009, the PNM contract was assigned to and assumed by NMGC.

 

BROG has now entered into four new contracts effective April 1, 2009, for the sale of all gas produced from the Underlying Properties other than the gas covered by the NMGC contract. The new purchasers are Chevron Natural Gas, a division of Chevron USA, Inc. (“Chevron”), Pacific Gas and Electric Company, BP Energy Company and Macquarie Cook Energy LLC. All four of the new contracts and the pre-existing NMGC contract provide for (i) the delivery of such gas at various delivery points through March 31, 2011 and from year-to-year thereafter, until terminated by either party on 12 months’ notice; and (ii) the sale of such gas at prices which fluctuate in accordance with the published indices for gas sold in the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico. Although the primary term of the Chevron contract continues until March 31, 2011, a portion of that contract was set to expire on March 31, 2010. BROG has notified the Trust that it has reached agreement with Chevron for the sale of that gas such that all gas produced from the Underlying Properties is now contracted for sale, on the terms described above, through March 31, 2011.

 

BROG contracts with Williams Four Corners, LLC (“WFC”) and Enterprise Field Services, LLC (“EFS”) for the gathering and processing of virtually all of the gas produced from the Underlying Properties. Four new contracts have been entered into with WFC to be effective for terms of 15 years commencing April 1, 2010. The new contracts will consolidate and replace 18 prior contracts with WFC. BROG indicates that the new contracts are anticipated to provide some modest reductions in fees and also improved services, including more rigorous line pressure controls and the right to install compression facilities as needed.

 

However, BROG reports that it has been unable to reach agreement with EFS on gathering and production contracts, and it has joined a group of 51 others in initiating an administrative proceeding before the New Mexico Public Utility Commission, complaining, inter alia, that EFS is insisting upon above-market rates and refusing to agree to essential pressure control services. Gas is currently being gathered and processed by EFS on a month-to-month basis. The Trustee will continue to monitor this matter as it may relate to the Trust.

 

San Juan Basin Royalty Trust

 

Notes to Financial Statements — (Continued)

 

Confidentiality agreements with gatherers and purchasers of gas produced from the Underlying Properties prohibit public disclosure of certain terms and conditions of gas sales contracts with those entities, including specific pricing terms and gas receipt points. Such disclosure could compromise the ability to compete effectively in the marketplace for the sale of gas produced from the Underlying Properties.

 

 

Information as to significant purchasers of oil and gas production attributable to the Trust’s economic interests is included in Note 5 above and Item 2 of the Trust’s Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

 

During 2007, as part of the ongoing negotiations between the Trust and BROG concerning a number of revenue and expense audit issues, an aggregate of $1,489,209 was included in calculating net proceeds paid to the Trust, together with interest of $1,480,765 in settlement of certain of those audit issues.

 

In 2008, as part of the ongoing negotiations between the Trust and BROG concerning a number of revenue and expense audit issues, an aggregate of $2,497,044 was included in calculating net proceeds paid to the Trust, together with interest of $376,427 in settlement of certain of those audit issues.

 

In 2009, as part of the ongoing negotiations between the Trust and BROG concerning a number of revenue and expense audit issues, an aggregate of $2,482,978 was included in calculating net proceeds paid to the Trust, together with interest of $395,676 in settlement of certain of those audit issues.

 

In each instance, the settlements described above as having been paid to the Trust in 2007 through 2009 were received in the form of increased revenues, reduced overhead, interest on late payments, or other payments or allocations, many of which do not appear as separate line items in the tables included in the Trustee’s Discussion and Analysis.

 

On April 28, 2008, the Trust filed a suit against BROG relating to the Arbitration Award in its favor issued in November 2005, in the amount of $7,683,699. The litigation is styled San Juan Basin Royalty Trust vs. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, L.P., No. D1329-CV-08-751, in the District Court of Sandoval County, New Mexico, 13th Judicial District. The Trust alleges breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and seeks a judgment for damages in the amount of $5,025,000, plus interest and punitive damages. The purpose of the arbitration was to resolve certain joint interest audit issues. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the Trust on all five of the issues submitted to arbitration. BROG filed suit in Harris County, Texas alleging that the award should be modified or vacated, and seeking to recover its attorneys’ fees. The trial court denied BROG’s motion to vacate, granted the Trust’s application to confirm and rendered a final judgment in favor of the Trust. BROG paid the award as it related to four of the five issues and appealed the award as to the fifth. In August 2007, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court and vacated the award as it related to the unpaid balance.

 

With respect to that fifth issue, which was the subject of the appeal, the Trust had asked for damages based on either of two alternative claims. The appellate court ruled that the alternative claim selected by the arbitrator in awarding the Trust approximately $5,000,000 was not technically included within the scope of what the parties intended to submit to arbitration. The appellate court did not rule on whether or not the arbitrator properly decided the fifth issue in favor of the Trust. The litigation filed in New Mexico seeks recovery on the claim which had been resolved in favor of the Trust by the arbitrator.

 

The appellate court also remanded the case to the District Court, where BROG pursued its claim for attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of approximately $450,000. Following a trial on the merits of BROG’s claims conducted on June 3, 2009, the District Court ruled in favor of the Trust and ordered that BROG should take nothing in its claims against the Trust. BROG has filed a Notice of Appeal as regards that ruling.

 

San Juan Basin Royalty Trust

 

Notes to Financial Statements — (Continued)

 

Certain motions for summary judgment filed by BROG and the Trust in the New Mexico litigation were heard on January 5, 2010. The parties are awaiting the trial court’s ruling on these motions. The trial on the merits has been set for the week of May 24, 2011, and in the interim, a mediation of the issues has been set for April 8, 2010.

 

BROG has informed the Trust that pursuant to an Order to Perform (the “MMS Order”) issued by the Minerals Management Service (“MMS”) dated June 10, 1998, the Jicarilla Apache Nation (the “Jicarilla”) alleged that in valuing production for royalty purposes one must perform (i) a major portion analysis, which calculates value on the highest price paid or offered for a major portion of the gas produced from the field where the leased lands are situated; and (ii) a dual accounting calculation, which computes royalties on the greater of (a) the value of gas prior to processing or (b) the combined value of processed residue gas and plant products plus the value of any condensate recovered downstream without processing. The MMS Order alleged that BROG’s dual accounting calculations on Native American leases were based on less than major portion prices. In December 2000, BROG and the Jicarilla entered into a settlement agreement resolving the issues associated with the dual accounting calculation. The major portion calculation issue remains outstanding. A judgment or settlement could entitle BROG to reimbursement from the Trust for past periods.

 

According to BROG, on March 28, 2007 the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs of the United States Department of Interior issued an administrative order in BROG’s appeal of the major portion calculation issue of the MMS Order entitled MMS-98-0141-IND Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company LP (the “Administrative Order”). The administrative order rejected that portion of the MMS Order requiring BROG to calculate and pay additional royalties based on the major portion price derived by the MMS. In May 2007, rather than file a direct appeal of the Administrative Order against BROG, the Jicarilla filed suit solely against the Department of Interior in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in an action entitled 1:07-CV-00803-RJL, Jicarilla Apache Nation v. Department of Interior (the “DOI Case”). In the DOI Case, the Jicarilla seek a declaration that the Administrative Order is unlawful and of no force and effect, as well as an injunction requiring enforcement of the rejected major portion element of the MMS Order. While a judgment or settlement in the DOI Case could impact the Royalty income of the Trust, the Trust has not, at this time, received any report from BROG as to the status of the DOI Case, or any estimate of the amount of any potential loss or the portion of any such potential loss that might be allocated to the Royalty.

 

On March 14, 2008, and as more fully reported in the Trust’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2008, BROG notified the Trust that the distribution for March 2008 would be reduced by $4,921,578. BROG described this amount as the Trust’s portion of what BROG had paid to settle claims for the underpayment of royalties in the case styled United States of America ex rel. Harrold E. (“Gene”) Wright v. AGIP Petroleum Co. et al., Civil Action No. 5:03CV264 (formerly 9:98-CV-30) (E.D. Tex.). The Trust’s compliance auditors have filed an audit exception to that reduction, and the Trust’s legal advisors continue to analyze this settlement as it may apply to the Trust.

 

 

Proved oil and gas reserve information is included in Item 2 of the Trust’s Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

San Juan Basin Royalty Trust

 

Notes to Financial Statements — (Continued)

 

 

9.  Quarterly Schedule of Distributable Income (Unaudited)

 

The following is a summary of the unaudited quarterly schedule of distributable income for the two years ended December 31, 2009 (in thousands, except per unit amounts):

 

 

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

Compass Bank, Trustee

San Juan Basin Royalty Trust

 

We have audited the accompanying statements of assets, liabilities and trust corpus of the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related statements of distributable income and changes in trust corpus for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2009. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Trustee. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

 

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by the Trustee, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

As described in Note 3 to the financial statements, these financial statements were prepared on a modified cash basis of accounting, which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

 

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the assets, liabilities and trust corpus of the San Juan Basin Royalty Trust as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the distributable income and changes in trust corpus for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2009, on the basis of accounting described in Note 3 to the financial statements.

 

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated March 1, 2010 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

 

Weaver and Tidwell, L.L.P.

 

Fort Worth, Texas

March 1, 2010

 

 

Within the two most recent fiscal years, there have been no changes in and disagreements with the Trust’s independent accountants.

 

 

The Trust maintains a system of disclosure controls and procedures that is designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the Trust’s filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. Due to the pass-through nature of the Trust, BROG provides much of the information disclosed in this Form 10-K and the other periodic reports filed by the Trust with the SEC. Consequently, the Trust’s ability to timely disclose relevant information in its periodic reports is dependent upon BROG’s delivery of such information. Accordingly, the Trust maintains disclosure controls and procedures designed to ensure that BROG accurately and timely accumulates and delivers such relevant information to the Trustee and those who participate in the preparation of the Trust’s periodic reports to allow for the preparation of such periodic reports and any decisions regarding disclosure.

 

The Indenture does not require BROG to update or provide information to the Trust. However, the Conveyance transferring the Royalty to the Trust obligates BROG to provide the Trust with certain information, including information concerning calculations of net proceeds owed to the Trust. Pursuant to the settlement of litigation in 1996 between the Trust and BROG, BROG agreed to newer, more formal financial reporting and audit procedures as compared to those provided in the Conveyance.

 

In order to help ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information required to be disclosed in the Trust’s periodic reports, the Trust employs independent public accountants, joint interest auditors, marketing consultants, attorneys and petroleum engineers. These outside professionals advise the Trustee in its review and compilation of this information for inclusion in this Form 10-K and the other periodic reports provided by the Trust to the SEC.

 

The Trustee has evaluated the Trust’s disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2009 and has concluded that such disclosure controls and procedures are effective, at the “reasonable assurance” level (as such term is used in Rule 13a-15(f) of the Exchange Act), to ensure that material information related to the Trust is gathered on a timely basis to be included in the Trust’s periodic reports. In reaching its conclusion, the Trustee has considered the Trust’s dependence on BROG to deliver timely and accurate information to the Trust. Additionally, during the quarter ended December 31, 2009 there were no changes in the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting. The Trustee has reviewed neither the Trust’s disclosure controls and procedures nor the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting in concert with management, a board of directors or an independent audit committee. The Trust does not have, nor does the Indenture provide for, officers, a board of directors or an independent audit committee.

 

Trustee’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

 

Compass Bank, in its capacity as trustee (the “Trustee”) of San Juan Basin Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. The Trust’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed under the supervision of the Trustee to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of the Trust’s financial statements for external purposes in accordance with a modified cash basis of accounting, which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

 

As of December 31, 2009, the Trustee assessed the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting based on the criteria for effective internal control over financial reporting established in “Internal Control — Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

Based on the assessment, the Trustee determined that the Trust maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, based on those criteria.

 

Weaver and Tidwell, L.L.P., the independent registered public accounting firm that audited the financial statements of the Trust included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, has issued an attestation report on the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009. The report, which expresses an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, is included in this Item under the heading “Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting”.

 

Report of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

 

We have audited San Juan Basin Royalty Trust’s (the “Trust”) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, based on criteria established in Internal Control — Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (the “COSO criteria”). Compass Bank (the “Trustee”) is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the Trustee’s Report On Internal Control Over Financial Reporting in Item 9A. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Trust’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

 

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, based on the assessed risk. Our audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

A trust’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with the Trust’s modified cash basis of accounting, which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. A trust’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the trust; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with its modified cash basis of accounting, and that receipts and expenditures of the trust are being made only in accordance with authorizations of the trustee; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the trust’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

 

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

 

In our opinion, the Trust maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, based on the COSO criteria.

 

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the statements of assets, liabilities and trust corpus as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 and the related statements of distributable income and changes in trust corpus for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2009 of the Trust and our report dated March 1, 2010 expressed an unqualified opinion thereon.

 

Weaver and Tidwell, L.L.P.

 

Fort Worth, Texas

March 1, 2010

 

 

Not applicable.

 

 

All information required to be disclosed by the Trust in a Current Report on Form 8-K during the fourth quarter of the year ended December 31, 2009, has previously been reported on a Form 8-K.

 

PART III

 

 

The Trust has no directors, executive officers or employees; the Trust is managed by a corporate trustee. Accordingly, the Trust does not have an audit committee, audit committee financial expert or a code of ethics applicable to executive officers. The Trustee, however, has adopted a policy regarding standards of conduct and conflicts of interest applicable to all directors, officers and employees of the Trustee. The Trustee is a corporate trustee which may be removed, with or without cause, at a meeting of the Unit Holders, by the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of all the Units then outstanding.

 

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

 

The Trust has no directors or officers. Accordingly, only holders of more than 10% of the Trust’s Units are required to file with the SEC initial reports of ownership of Units and reports of changes in such ownership. Based solely on a review of these reports, the Trust believes that the applicable reporting requirements of Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 were complied with for all transactions which occurred in 2009.

 

 

The Trust has no directors, executive officers or employees. Accordingly, the Trust does not have a compensation committee or maintain any equity compensation plans, and there are no Units reserved for issuance under any such plans. During the past three years the Trustee received total remuneration as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

The Trust has no directors, executive officers or employees. Accordingly, the Trust does not maintain any equity compensation plans and there are no Units reserved for issuance under any such plans.

(a) Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners.  The following table sets forth as of February 19, 2010 information with respect to the only Unit Holder who was known to the Trustee to be a beneficial owner of more than 5 percent of the outstanding Units.

 

 

 

(1) This information was provided to the SEC and to the Trustee in a Schedule 13G/A filed with the SEC on February 10, 2010, on behalf of First Eagle Investment Management, LLC.

 

(b) Security Ownership of Trustee.  As of February 19, 2010, Compass Bank beneficially owned 12,783 Units, or less than one percent of the Units. Compass Bank has sole voting power over 12,783 of these Units and has the sole power to dispose of 12,355 of these Units and shared power to dispose of 428 of these Units.

 

 

The Trust has no directors or executive officers and is not empowered to carry on any business activity. Accordingly, there are no relationships or related transactions to which the Trust was a party that are required to be disclosed. See Item 11 for the remuneration received by the Trustee during the year ended December 31, 2009 and Item 12 for information concerning Units owned by the Trustee.

 

 

The following table presents fees for professional audit services rendered by Weaver and Tidwell, L.L.P., the Trust’s principal accountants, for the audit of the Trust’s annual financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 and fees billed for other services rendered to the Trust by Weaver and Tidwell, L.L.P. during those periods.

 

 

Audit Fees consist of fees billed for professional services rendered for the audit of the Trust’s annual financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, review of the interim financial statements included in the Trust’s quarterly reports and services that are normally provided by Weaver and Tidwell, L.L.P. in connection with statutory and regulatory filings or engagements.

 

Audit-Related Fees consist of fees billed for assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of the Trust’s financial statements. This category includes fees related to audit and attest services not required by statute or regulations and consultations concerning financial accounting and reporting standards.

 

Tax Fees consist of fees for professional services billed for tax compliance, tax advice and tax planning. These services include assistance regarding federal and state tax compliance, return preparation, preparation of the B-schedules and tax booklet.

 

All Other Fees consist of fees billed for products and services other than the services reported above.

 

The Trust has no directors or executive officers. Accordingly, the Trust does not have an audit committee and there are no audit committee pre-approval policies or procedures relating to services provided by the Trust’s

independent accountants. Pursuant to the terms of the Indenture, the Trustee engages and approves all services rendered by the Trust’s independent accountants.

 

PART IV

 

 

The following documents are filed as a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K:

 

Financial Statements

 

Included in Part II of this Annual Report on Form 10-K:

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Trust Corpus
Statements of Distributable Income
Statements of Changes in Trust Corpus
Notes to Financial Statements

Financial Statement Schedules

 

Financial statement schedules are omitted because of the absence of conditions under which they are required or because the required information is given in the financial statements or notes thereto.

 

Exhibits

 

 

 

SIGNATURE

 

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

 

SAN JUAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST

 

 

Lee Ann Anderson

Vice President and Senior Trust Officer

 

Date: March 1, 2010

 

(The Trust has no directors or executive officers)

EXHIBIT INDEX