Are you “woke”* vis-vis-vis global warming and the coming-any-day-now destruction of the coral reefs, the arctic ice pack, polar bears, coastlines, the flora, the fauna, you, me, and the entire natural world as we know it? Me neither. That’s because I elect to look past the first dozen or so results from a Google search of “global warming”, “climate change”, and related topics.
Continue Reading There is Another Way to Report on Global Warming
Landman Defeated by the Statute of Frauds
Proving once again that gratitude is the rarest of human emotions, a contract between a landman and his client was deemed unenforceable, leaving the landman with nothing, even though he actually secured oil and gas leases for the client (at least he said that he did). In Moore v. Bearkat Energy Partners, LLC, independent landman Moore signed a contract with the purported agent of Lane. Lane would pay Moore “$600 per mineral acre for each and every lease [Lane] enter[ed] with [Moore’s] assistance.” Moore said he helped Lane secure numerous leases, but Lane refused to pay.
Continue Reading Landman Defeated by the Statute of Frauds
Is the Allocation Well Debate About to Boil Over?
Co-author Paul Yale
Issues surrounding the legality of allocation wells in Texas have been percolating for some time, and lately we’ve heard of potential litigation. So, what’s the fuss about? The results in Klotzman (a Texas Railroad Commission dispute) and Spartan et al v. EOG (a district court case) didn’t resolve the legal questions. Both settled before a ruling. Browning Oil Company v. Luecke provided theoretical underpinnings but didn’t go far enough.
Why does the controversy exist?
Continue Reading Is the Allocation Well Debate About to Boil Over?
Trespass Plaintiff: First, Prove Your Ownership
Chauvin v. Shell Oil Company et al is the pot full of legal unpleasantness that can be stirred up by landmen trying to buy easements, leases, and the like.
A number of plaintiffs – descendants of grantors of two parcels of land in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana – were contacted by pipeline companies seeking servitudes. Apparently believing that betting on litigation offered a better return than the trifecta at the Fairgrounds, the descendants sued Shell and several pipeline companies holding servitudes from Shell for trespass. In the end, the court denied the plaintiff’s claims; they couldn’t carry their burden to prove their ownership of the property.
Continue Reading Trespass Plaintiff: First, Prove Your Ownership
Can Emails Establish an Easement in Texas?
Email is the way we communicate these days. Whether emails create a contract is important if you’re thinking nothing short of scribblings on a piece of old parchment could ever bind anybody or, to the contrary, your goal is to establish an enforceable agreement. Before hitting “send”, consider Bujnoch v. Copano. Questions of fact precluded a summary judgment denying an agreement. A jury will decide the question.
Continue Reading Can Emails Establish an Easement in Texas?
Trump and the Oil Patch One Year In
Let’s take a look at what President Trump has done for the oil industry in his first year (This is not about decorum, dossiers, tweets, or Oprah’s inauguration.) As in the past, I refer to sources whose opinions and insights are more knowledgeable than mine.
No More “Sue and Settle”
Continue Reading Trump and the Oil Patch One Year In
An Oil and Gas Case to Expect From Louisiana, and Another From Texas
Co-author Chance Decker
Gloria’s Ranch v. Tauren et al – the Louisiana lenders’ bad dream
Anyone seeking stability in the law governing E&P activities in Louisiana will view the lower court decision as a grave error that must be corrected. Virtually every mortgage provides safeguards to protect collateral and manage lenders’ risk. The court of appeal reasoned that because of those provisions, the lender controlled the ability of the borrower to execute a release of a mineral lease, resulting in solidary liability when the borrower-lessee failed to release its lease.
Continue Reading An Oil and Gas Case to Expect From Louisiana, and Another From Texas
2017’s Bad Guys in Energy
Once again we look back at the continuing cavalcade of crooks, criminals, miscreants and, to put it kindly, morons the less intellectually gifted, who met justice face-to-face in 2017. This year’s class includes a preacher, a controller, an engineer, a landman, and two lawyers!
Continue Reading 2017’s Bad Guys in Energy
Opinions to Expect From the Texas Supreme Court
Co-author Chance Decker
The Texas Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in three intriguing oil and gas cases. Here’s what you need to know about two of them (We’ll address the third case soon).
Adams v. Murphy Exploration & Production Co. USA
Did lessee Murphy comply with an offset-well clause that doesn’t state where the offset-well must be drilled? When a well was drilled on an adjacent tract, Murphy drilled its offset-well more than 2,000 feet from the triggering well.
Continue Reading Opinions to Expect From the Texas Supreme Court
Mineral Conveyance Thwarted by a Spendthrift Provision
To begin, choose from these candidates for the all-world spendthrift hall of fame:
- Imelda Marcos.
- Every Congress since you and I were little babies.
- Any MLB team that would trade for Giancarlo Stanton.
- All Power Five football schools not named Vanderbilt.
- The eventual winner of the Amazon HQ2 sweepstakes.
- Robert Baratheon, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms.
In Bradley v. Shaffer, Darrell, a beneficiary of a mineral trust established by his grandparents, purported to convey to Bradley his mineral interests that were subject to the trust and any interest held in trust that he might acquire in the future. The trustees sued, alleging that Darrell had no authority to convey his beneficial interest. Bradley argued that an extension of the trust violated the Rule Against Perpetuities. Spoiler: It didn’t.
A primer on Texas trust law … who owns what and other rules:
Continue Reading Mineral Conveyance Thwarted by a Spendthrift Provision