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
Pooling
PSA Well Permit Dispute Makes its Way to the Texas Supreme Court
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…
Court of Appeals Rules on Texas PSA Well Permit
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…
Ohio Federal Court Considers Subsurface Trespass
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…
Texas NPRI Not Diminished by Pooling Ratification
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…
Texas Supreme Court to Review Approval of Injection Well Permit
Co-author Brittany Blakey
The 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
Fair and Reasonable Offer Required Before Force-Pooling in Texas
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…
Supreme Court Introduces Totality of the Circumstances Test for Implied Ratification
Co-author Rees LeMay*
“Ratification is not a game of ‘gotcha’”, said the Texas Supreme Court in BPX Operating Co. v. Strickhausen. The Court, in a 5-4 opinion, addressed the standard for an oil and gas lessor’s implied ratification of an unauthorized pooling. Among other lessons, this decision warns royalty owners to be careful when cashing those royalty checks.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Introduces Totality of the Circumstances Test for Implied Ratification
Examining a Unit Operator’s Duties to an Unleased Mineral Owner
Co author Kelley Clark Morris
Samson Expl., LLC et al v. Moak considered the duties owed by a unit operator to an unleased mineral interest owner in tracts within the unit but on which no well is drilled or completed.
Continue Reading Examining a Unit Operator’s Duties to an Unleased Mineral Owner
Trespass But no Damages in a Texas Case
What does it take these days to get money from a Texas jury? Not much, it seems; in XTO v. Goodwin the trick was convincing a higher court that you should keep it.
Let’s start with the minefield that is the law of evidence:
- Expert opinion testimony must be based on facts, and sound reasoning and methodology.
- Conclusory or speculative opinion testimony is not relevant.
- An opinion with no factual substantiation is speculative or conclusory.
- Expert testimony based on unreliable data or flawed methodology is unreliable and does not satisfy the relevancy requirement.
- Unreliable expert testimony is legally no evidence.