Like breaking into CIA headquarters, sneaking into the Vatican, or hanging off the side of the Burj Khalifa, sometimes getting the deal done seems impossible. The key to any successful mission is planning for disastrous contingencies—be they rats in an air duct, malfunctioning suction gloves, or having to reach out to a third party to finance the bid you just won. Your mission—should you choose to accept it—is to learn how to avoid the fallout of an oil and gas acquisition gone bad by studying Pacific Energy & Mining Co. v. Fidelity Exp. & Prod. Co.
Continue Reading Attempt to Prove a Texas Partnership Fails
MSA Indemnity Denied Under the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act
Co-author Brittany Blakey*
Cardoso-Gonzales v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. addressed the all-important indemnity and insurance provisions in Master Service Agreements in light of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act.
Continue Reading MSA Indemnity Denied Under the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act
Texas Supreme Court Affirms Washout of a Back–in Interest
Co-author Trenton Patterson*
We’re not saying you should do it, but there is a recipe for ridding oil and gas leases of pesky burdens: Enter into a new lease covering the same interest as the earlier lease and omit any reference to an intent that the later be subordinate to the earlier. You don’t even have to release the earlier lease. So says TRO-X, L.P. v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
You might remember a report on this case at the court of appeal, where we marveled at the skillful (or fortuitous, we’ll never know) way the Anadarko landman won the day via email.
Continue Reading Texas Supreme Court Affirms Washout of a Back–in Interest
Who is the “Payor”? Part Two
The question posed in our recent discussion of Devon Energy v. Apache Corporation was the meaning of “payor” under the Texas Division Order Statute. The answer, as far as it went, was that in a well drilled without a joint operating agreement the statute does not require the operator to pay lease royalties to
Big Damages in a Texas Trade Secret Case
Co-author Sonya Reddy
Defendants accused of stealing trade secrets often claim that publicly available information can’t constitute a trade secret. Sometimes yes, but mineral ownership that can be determined from the public record only after lengthy, expensive, and labor-intensive research in the county courthouse can have trade-secret protection, according to Eagle Oil & Gas Co. v. Shale Exploration, LLC.
It began like a routine exploration venture …
Continue Reading Big Damages in a Texas Trade Secret Case
Farmout Agreement Worked Over by the Court
Co-author Chance Decker
What could go wrong when the well recovers two times its costs in nine months? Plenty, as we see in Dimock v. Sutherland Energy.
In a Seismic Exploration and Farmout Agreement, Dimock farmed out a 15-section area in Hardeman County, Texas, to Sutherland to drill the Hamrick #3. Project payout was that point when revenues equaled two times Sutherland’s capital costs. The parties disagreed over whether payout occurred. The question was whether a $1 million seismic shoot after the well was drilled was a capital cost.
First, why do I care?
- “Boilerplate” in contracts is there for a reason.
- Should important terms be defined? This case suggests yes.
- Grammar matters. An errant comma cost one of the parties money and time.
- Defending a fiduciary duty claim will not be an enjoyable experience due to the high standard of behavior required of fiduciaries in Texas. Avoid fiduciary duties if you can. Seek them from the other guy if you can.
Fraud Claim Rejected for Unreasonable Reliance
Co-author Chance Decker
The ruling from the Supreme Court of Texas in JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al v. Orca Assets, G.P., L.L.C. was foreseeable. Experienced energy professionals who pass on the opportunity to examine title for themselves are not sympathetic plaintiffs in a suit claiming reliance on oral statements of the lessor.
How did this happen?
Continue Reading Fraud Claim Rejected for Unreasonable Reliance
An Indemnity Agreement Means What it Says
We are reminded in Claybar v. Samson Exploration that a court will (if it’s doing its job) enforce an agreement according to what it actually says, not by that which one party or the other would have liked it to say or imagines that it said.
Continue Reading An Indemnity Agreement Means What it Says
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
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?