Co-author Lydia WebbEver since the Sabine Oil and Gas Corp. bankruptcy (the top of the first, If it were baseball), where a New York court construed Texas property law to hold that a gathering agreement was not a covenant running with the land, we at Gray Reed, and you if you’re following, have speculated
In Swift Energy Operating LLC v. Regency Field Services LLC, claims for damage to leased minerals allegedly caused by contamination spreading from an H2S-CO2 injection well were barred by limitations. When the cause of action accrued was the essential question.
Continue Reading Lease Contamination Claim Squelched by Limitations
You may recall our report that the Supreme Court of Texas was to take up the question of whether an insurance policy required indemnification of over $100 million in defense costs related to the Macondo well blowout. The court has ruled in Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Houston Casualty Company. Anadarko, the insured, prevailed on
Co-author Niloufar HafiziThe Colorado oil and gas industry breathed a collective sigh of relief when the state Supreme Court announced its unanimous decision in Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission v. Martinez. The court sided with the Commission in rejecting a proposed rule by a group of teenage plaintiffs that would have precluded the
Co-author Niloufar “Nikki” Hafizi
The 2012 Macondo Well blowout and Deepwater Horizon rig explosion gave rise to a slew of lawsuits. Our subject today is one of them. In Houston Casualty Company v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. the Beaumont court of appeals construed an insurance policy’s excess liability coverage provision. At stake was whether Underwriters had to indemnify Anadarko for over $100 million in defense costs. In an opinion much-decried by energy companies, the court thought not.
The Texas Supreme Court will review the decision, so let’s look at what the court of appeals said.
Continue Reading Texas Supreme Court to Consider Macondo Blowout Insurance Dispute
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
Occasionally we visit issues larger than one-off courthouse decisions. Here are a few selected stories on the extent to which fracking contributes to rising levels of methane and, maybe, to climate change. There are conflicting facts and opinions, so decide for yourself. If you find a tilt in one direction, we’re just levelling the field. See the last entry.
Continue Reading What’s New in the Methane Debate?
UPDATED
In light of the adverse effects the storm, floods and tornadoes will have on oil and gas production, transportation and processing operations, we offer several bits of advice:
Force majeure
Winds and floods are among the very reasons for the seldom-invoked force majeure provisions of your oil and gas leases, operating agreements, transportation agreements and other contracts. If your operations are affected by the storm, study your contracts and be mindful of what you will need to do and when in order to invoke the protections force majeure clauses offer.
Continue Reading Hurricane Harvey and Oil and Gas Operations – What To Do
Forest Oil Corporation v. El Rucio Land and Cattle Inc. et al deserves your attention for four reasons:
It was a bad day for the Parrs in Aruba Petroleum v. Parr. The trial court judgment was against the operator for intentional nuisance. The Parrs recovered $2.9 million for pain and suffering and mental anguish and for loss of market value of their home caused by Aruba’s gas wells in Wise County, Texas. (See