Let’s assume that you purchase a 105 acre farm in Greene County in 2022. You purchase only the surface estate while the seller, Farmer Jones, retains the underlying oil and gas rights. You intend to grow corn and winter...more
Solar developers in the PJM region, particularly in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio, often encounter land with a complex history of mineral development. This history can significantly impact solar projects, from site...more
Is it mine? Is what’s in it mine too? The fight over produced water has become a contentious issue in the oil patch. Primarily, because it is a new and unforeseen source of revenue for operators and landowners....more
According to Darkhorse Water LP v. Birch Operations Inc. et al., the form of an instrument affecting real property in Texas does not affect the interest conveyed by the instrument. It’s what the document says about the...more
Although historically viewed as a waste, produced water that comes to the surface as part of the oil and gas production stream now potentially has value. Produced water can be recycled and reused as part of hydraulic...more
In Cactus Water Services LLC v. COG Operating, LLC., a divided Texas court of appeals answered the question this way: The oil and gas producer prevails over the purchaser of the surface owner’s right to own and sell produced...more
Solar farm developers who do not enter into surface use agreements with Pennsylvania oil, gas and mineral owners (and their lessees) could create legal jeopardy for their solar farm projects. All surface developments in...more
Let’s assume you own a 93-acre farm in Tioga County. In 1986 your grandfather sold the oil and gas rights to his neighbor, John Mize. In the early 1990’s, Mr. Mize signed an oil and gas lease with XYZ Drilling. Several years...more
On April 11, 2022, the Fourth District Court of Appeals issued a significant decision in Zimmerview Dairy Farms, LLC v. Protégé Energy III LLC establishing that a general release of damages signed in connection with a pad...more
On March 24, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act and further clarified the steps a surface owners must take to identify and locate mineral holders before serving notice of abandonment. ...more
On November 18, 2021, in another significant case involving surface owners who were attempting to abandon severed mineral interests under the Dormant Mineral Act, R.C. § 5301.56, et seq. (“DMA”), the Seventh District Court of...more
On March 16, 2021, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued another important opinion in the ongoing tug of war between surface landowners and severed mineral owners over the ownership of valuable mineral rights in Ohio. In Erickson...more
On December 17, 2020, just days after its decision in West v. Bode (previously summarized by Bricker attorneys), the Ohio Supreme Court issued another major decision for surface and mineral owners in Ohio. In Gerrity v....more
In Wheeler et al v. San Miguel Electric Cooperative, we learn – again – the difficulty in asserting a position in litigation that is contrary to the actual words in the agreement you are fighting over....more
In Evans Resources, L.P., et al. v. Diamondback E&P, LLC, two agreements left the terms “constructed” and “utilized” undefined. If the terms had been defined would the outcome have been different? Maybe. Should parties define...more
Generally, if your will leaves your beloved “all … right, title and interest in and to”, said beloved would receive the entirety of your interest, whether a surface estate, mineral estate, or both. But in ConocoPhillips, et...more
As we welcome around 1,100 new Texans a day, water has become our most precious natural resource. According to the 2017 State Water Plan, Texas’ population is expected to increase more than 70 percent between 2020 and 2070,...more
It’s still true, “Whiskey’s for drinkin’, water’s for fightin’.” Gray Reed lawyers Brock Neizgoda and Steven Cooney spoke to TIPRO’s summer conference on the use, control and ownership of water in oil and gas operations. ...more
Since the beginning of recorded mineral law, the owner of the mineral interests has enjoyed an elevated status in its relationship with the surface owner, resulting in the universally accepted notion that the mineral estate...more
You have just arrived on the new ranch property you just purchased, leaving the rat race of city life and ready to get to work on the land. You allowed the seller to reserve the minerals so long as he waived his rights to...more
West Virginia Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in EQT Doddridge County Trespassing Case - "The state Supreme Court will decide if a lower court judge got it right when he ruled natural gas production company EQT trespassed...more
WV Supreme Court Mulls Marcellus Shale Mass Litigation Case from Harrison, WV - "While the case centers on Harrison County, where the surface owners live and the Marcellus Shale operations are underway, the case could have...more
Summary of H.B. 4268 - At its core, the Cotenancy Modernization and Majority Protection Act ("Act") is a revision to the relationship between cotenants owning "oil or natural gas and their constituents." The Act is...more
The recent Lightning Oil Company v. Anadarko E&P Onshore, LLC F/K/A Andarko E&P Company, LP, decision of the Texas Supreme Court, which clarified the rights and obligations of owners of the surface property and the mineral...more
Action Item: The Texas Supreme Court annunciated two critical points in Lightning Oil Co. v. Anadarko E&P Onshore: (1) unauthorized interference may be a trespass only when it impacts the mineral lessee’s ability to exercise...more