The Collins mineral lease covers 1131.5 acres in Bienville Parish spread across 10 semi-contiguous tracts.
The lease
Provision 6 of the form lease provides: In the event of cessation of production for any cause following expiration of the primary term, the lessee would be entitled to continue the lease in force by restoring production
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
Dow Construction, LLC v. BPX Operating Company resolved a bundle of issues arising out of a drilling unit established by the Louisiana Commissioner of Conservation: who has the right to a drilling cost report, the operator’s right to deduct post-production costs, forfeiture of the operator’s right to reimbursement of drilling costs, and prescription.
The facts
If you follow the Texas Railroad Commission closely, you should read Ammonite Oil & Gas v. Railroad Commission of Texas, in which the Supreme Court rejected a mineral owner’s effort to force pool an interest under the Mineral Interest Pooling Act. (Read here for the Austin Court of Appeals ruling and the
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
The Austin Court of Appeals has ruled in Texas Railroad Commission et al v. Opiela, the dispute over a permit for a horizontal well under a Production Sharing Agreement. We reported on the result in the trial court. Here are some highlights of the appeal.
Where did the 65% rule come from?
The court
Golden Eagle Resources II LLC v. Rice Drilling D LLC. presents a small step in the development of subsurface trespass law in Ohio. The federal court considered a motion to dismiss, in which it evaluated the sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action. Such a motion is not a challenge to
Co-author Brittany Blakey
The takeaway from Hahn v. ConocoPhillips Company is that in Texas a NPRI holder may not diminish his rights by ratifying pooling of an oil and gas lease unless there are provisions explicitly purporting to do so.
Kenneth and brother George each owned ½ of the surface estate of a tract and
Co-author Brittany BlakeyThe Texas Supreme Court has granted petition for review of a 2019 decision in Dyer et al v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality . At issue is whether rescission of a Railroad Commission no-harm letter before the TCEQ granted an injection-well permit rendered the permit void.
The Injection Well Act (Chapter 27 of the Texas Water Code) governs the permitting process for underground injection wells in Texas. The Act aims to maintain the quality of fresh water for the public and existing industries while trying to prevent injections that may pollute fresh water. Under the Act, a company seeking to construct and operate an injection well must apply to the TCEQ for a permit. The applicant must also provide a “no-harm” letter from the RRC stating that the injection well will not damage an existing oil or gas reservoir.
I’m an oil and gas guy. Why does this order concern me?
This case is about injection wells for industrial and municipal waste, not for oil and gas waste. But the court’s treatment of the Administrative Procedures Act and the effect of (dueling?) orders of state agencies could inform future actions and orders of both agencies.
The long and complicated timeline
Continue Reading Texas Supreme Court to Review Approval of Injection Well Permit
Co-author Brittany Blakey
Ammonite Oil and Gas Corporation v. Railroad Commission of Texas illustrates the difficulties faced by lessees attempting to force-pool a tract under the Mineral Interest Pooling Act. In this case, the applicant Ammonite failed to make a “fair and reasonable offer” to voluntarily pool before applying to the Railroad Commission.
Facts
Ammonite