In Endeavor Natural Gas III, LLC v. Comanche Maverick Ranch Investments, L.P., a Texas court held that operator Endeavor could not conduct seismic operations on lessee/surface owner Commanche’s ranch because the parties’ surface-use agreement allowed such operations ” … only after first entering into a mutually agreed-upon seismic surface use permit
For an example of a case gone wrong in so many ways, look no further than Evans Resources LP et al v. Diamondback E & P.
The facts
There were three agreements between several Evans entities and Diamondback for Evans‘ 651 acres in Midland County, Texas: An oil and gas lease allowing pooling with
In Marathon Oil Co. v. Mercuria Energy America, LLC, the Texas Business Court (11th Division) considered a North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) contract to buy and sell natural gas. With three opinions to discuss, this post will be longer than usual.
When the storm hit Texas, seller Marathon failed to
You would think that a Master Service Contract concerning boats and oilfield operations in the Gulf of Mexico would be governed by federal maritime law. In some situations you would be mistaken, says Offshore Oil Services, Inc. v. Island Operating Company, Inc.
The facts
Fieldwood and Island Operating entered into a MSC through which
The Texas Supreme Court in Roxo Energy Company, LLC v. Baxsto, LLC reinforced a fundamental contract principle: when fully integrated agreements plainly conflict with prior oral representations, reliance on those inconsistent prior oral statements is unjustifiable as a matter of law. In other words, a party to a contract cannot justifiably rely
In American Midstream (Alabama Intrastate), LLC v. Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation, the Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court improperly inserted the words “scheduled” and “physical” into a contract. By blue‐penciling these terms, the trial court improperly altered the plain text of the contract. This opinion was issued on the
In Cromwell v. Anadarko E & P Onshore LLC the Supreme Court of Texas did what it so often does: In order to provide “legal certainty and predictability”, the Court considered the plain language of a contract in order to arrive at the parties’ intent.
At issue were habendum clauses in two oil and gas
Thought you’d heard the last of force majuere cases arising from Winter Storm Uri? Think again.
In Marathon Oil Company v. Koch Services LLC. the question was how to measure damages suffered by Koch for Marathon’s failure to deliver gas.
Under a Base Contract Marathon was obligated to deliver gas at the Bennington Hub.
Sewak v. Sutherland Energy Co. Ltd. is of interest for how the court defined terms commonly used in consulting contracts in the oil and gas industry, and how difficult it is to foresee all contingencies when negotiating a contract for services.
The agreement
Sewak agreed to provide geophysicist services to Sutherland Energy (SEC) in conjunction