The growling and barking presented by a claim for tortious interference is often far worse than the bite. Consider Segundo Navarro Drilling, Ltd. v. Chilton , which is a good example of that phenomenon in an oil and gas transaction. The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendants, holding that:
After four stops at the lower courts, Kenneth Hahn v. ConocoPhillips has been resolved by the Supreme Court of Texas. The Court opined on the effect of two instruments often used to clarify land titles in Texas: ratifications of an oil and gas lease and stipulations of interests.
In re: EP Energy E&P Company, LP considered three lease maintenance provisions in several oil and gas leases. The federal district court ruled that the leases were maintained in force after cessation of production despite creative (some would say “strained”) lease interpretations by a group of lessors. In sum, the court deemed
In Self v. BPX Operating, a case with significant implications for Louisiana operators and royalty owners, the Supreme Court of Louisiana ruled that the doctrine of negotiorum gestio in La. Civil Code art. 2292 does not allow the operator of a drilling unit created by Louisiana’s conversation laws to withhold post-production expenses (PPCs) from
The real takeaway from Pruett v. River Land Holdings LLC is the reminder that the Texas Railroad Commission cannot adjudicate questions of title.
The facts
In 2001 Pruett acquired 323 acres and his mother acquired 194 acres of an original 550-acre tract in Milam County, Texas, which was burdened by an oil and gas lease.
It’s not exactly Deuteronomy 23:19, but the Supreme Court of Texas has an opinion about interest. They don’t like it if it’s compounded. Samson Exploration LLC v. Bordages addressed interest to be charged on unpaid royalties under an oil and gas lease.
The takeaway
Compound interest is disfavored in Texas law. An agreement for interest
In Carl v. Hillcorp Energy the Supreme Court of Texas addressed the relationship between the lessee’s use of gas off-premises under a free-use clause and the lessor’s burden to share post-production costs (PPCs) under the at-the-well gas royalty clause of an oil and gas lease. Spoiler alert: Lessee wins.
The basics
Minerals that have been
In Texas, no. Read on to learn why. In Nortex Minerals LP v. Blackbeard Operating LLC et al, the question was the meaning of this limited assignment provision in the “Alliance Leases”, oil and gas leases covering 27,000 acres of the Alliance Airport in Tarrant County:
Except as provided herein, Lessee may not assign
Contacted at his seaside villa, Captain Renault exclaimed his shock that Elsie and Adrian Opiela are asking the Texas Supreme Court to review questions surrounding the Railroad Commission’s approval of a drilling permit for a Production Sharing Agreement well.
The Commission’s “65% Rule” for multi-tract horizontal wells is invalid because the Commission does not have
Davenport v. EOG Resources, Inc. is an appeal of a temporary injunction. The title of this post tells you the result.
Davenport owned four tracts comprising 5,000 acres in Webb County that were originally part of a larger tract burdened by the 1967 Garner oil and gas lease. EOG has operated the lease since 1999