Co-author Brittany Blakey*
The Louisiana Supreme Court’s reversal of lower courts in Gloria’s Ranch, L.L.C. v. Tauren Expl., Inc. eliminates a major source of anguish for Louisiana energy lenders and their borrowers. You might recall our report on the court of appeals opinion. Continue Reading Louisiana Lender Not Liable for Lease Violations
As promised, here is a more in-depth analysis of the recent Supreme Court of Texas opinion in TRO-X LP v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. The piece was prepared by Gray Reed lawyers Charles Sartain, Chance Decker and Ethan Wood.
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
Co-author Chance Decker
In Murphy Exploration & Production Co. — USA v. Adams the Texas Supreme Court held that an offset well clause in an oil and gas lease did not require the lessee to drill wells calculated to protect against drainage. Four dissenting justices believed the majority disregarded the well-established meaning of “offset well” used in the oilfield for decades. Continue Reading Texas Supreme Court Redefines an Offset Well Clause
Co-author Brittany Blakey*
A few things you should know about the acreage retention clause:
Two Texas Supreme Court decisions published on the same day confirm that retained acreage clauses that vary in language from one instrument to another will likely vary in effect. Depending on the language, the lessee might not be able to maintain all the acreage it planned on holding. Continue Reading Ask and You Shall (Not?) Receive: Retained Acreage Clauses and the Texas Supreme Court
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 mineral interest owners who have leased to a different working interest owner.
The questions raised by the answer
When are mineral owners who have leased to a non-participating working interest owner entitled to royalties under their lease … before or after payout? Arguably, the lessor (to the non-participating WI owner) is not entitled to lease royalties from the lessee of its cotenant (the operator) until after payout of the well.
Well then, what’s keeping the lease alive if it is past the primary term? Absent pooling, the answer could be “nothing”.
As promised, here is more on these questions in “Show Me the Money: Who is a Payor under the Texas Natural Resources Code?” prepared by my very knowledgeable Gray Reed colleagues Paul Yale, Chance Decker and Ethan Wood.
And a musical interlude about venue.
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
Co-author Chance Decker
You’ve secured the right leases. You’ve drilled nice wells in the right locations. Now, who will pay the royalty owners? Follow Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. v. Apache Corporation, to be sure.
The takeaways
It is often a worthy strategy for the lessee to be aggressive with counterclaims against the lessor. Or how about we’re the Wehrmacht and the other guy is Poland.
Lessees should think twice about that strategy if it means complaining about the lessor’s public statements. In Lona Hills Ranch v. Creative Oil & Gas Operating LLC et al, that strategy ran afoul of the Texas Citizens Participation Act, Texas’s “anti-SLAPP” statute (“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”).
The TCPA authorizes dismissal of a legal action based on, relating to, or in response to a party’s exercise of the right of free speech, right to petition, or right of association. Continue Reading Texas Anti-SLAPP Statute Stalls Lessee’s Counterclaim
Briggs v. Southwestern Energy is another way to say “chaos” in Pennsylvania. The Superior Court ruled that fracking may constitute a trespass when subsurface frac-fluid and proppants cross boundary lines and extend into the subsurface estate of an adjoining property owner from whom the operator does not have a mineral lease, resulting the extraction of natural gas from beneath the adjoining property. Continue Reading Trespass by Fracking Recognized in Pennsylvania