In American Midstream (Alabama Intrastate), LLC v. Rainbow Energy Marketing Corporation, the Texas Supreme Court held that the trial court improperly inserted the words “scheduled” and “physical” into a contract. By...more
In Steelhead Midstream Partners, LLC v. CL III Funding Holding Company, LLC, the Texas Supreme Court authorized a pipeline owner’s breach-of-contract claim—alleging a co-owner used foreclosure to avoid cost-sharing...more
3/14/2025
/ Appellate Courts ,
Breach of Contract ,
Contract Terms ,
Dispute Resolution ,
Enforcement Actions ,
Foreclosure ,
Jurisdiction ,
Oil & Gas ,
Pipelines ,
State and Local Government ,
TX Supreme Court
Unitex WI LLC v. CT Land and Cattle Company LLC rejected the surface owner’s effort to force the mineral lessee to bury a pipeline below plow depth. Surface owner CT’s claim was based on a mineral lease signed by former owner...more
Litigation practice tip before we dive into Right-Way Sand Co. v. South Texas Pipelines LLC (STX). Waiting 27 months after being sued and after the offending activity has occurred before asking for an injunction to “protect...more
What to do with a Texas pipeline easement that doesn’t define the width? In Premcor Pipeline Company v. Wingate they fought about it. The dispute began when Premcor wanted to run a pig through one of two pipelines on...more
In ETC Tiger Pipeline LLC v. DT Midstream Inc. et al. it was not as exclusive as the servitude owner wanted it to be.
...more
Securities and Exchange Commission v. The Heartland Group Ventures LLC et al. explains what a receiver under federal law has the right to do. Much like Nick Saban’s offense against a certain team, she can do just about...more
Most states call it a third-party beneficiary contract. Leave it to Louisiana to be different. In Adams v. Chevron USA Inc., the plaintiffs claimed that oilfield pipe-cleaning activities of Chevron and others contaminated...more
A pipeline company condemning property of a governmental entity? That’s something you don’t see every day. Score a win for “big pipe” against “big government”. In Harris County Fresh Water Supply District No. 61 v. Magellan...more
Does a former working-interest owner of a well bear continuing responsibility for a defective gas line despite having conveyed its ownership interest? The line was constructed by the former owner as operator of record, and it...more
4/28/2022
/ Appeals ,
Construction Defects ,
Liability ,
Mandamus Petitions ,
Mineral Extraction ,
Oil & Gas ,
Ownership Interest ,
Petroleum ,
Pipelines ,
Third-Party Relationships ,
TX Supreme Court ,
Well Drilling
It was jurisprudential Groundhog Day as the Supreme Court of Texas handed down Nettye Engler Energy v. Bluestone Natural Resources, another in a series of postproduction cost disputes, only two days after Puxsutawney Phil...more
The baseball season might be in jeopardy, but litigants are swinging for the fences. In Mary v. QEP Energy, the parties entered into a Pipelins Servitude Agreement over Ms. Mary’s 160 acres. One of QEP’s pipelines extended...more
In Texas, what happens to an obligation to bury pipelines when, after creation of the obligation, the surface and minerals are severed? Henry v. Smith explains....more
In Lexington Land Development LLC v. Chevron Pipeline Company et al, a Louisiana landowner’s suit for damages to land alleged to have been caused by oil and gas operations failed to survive exceptions of prescription and the...more
The battle lines between pipeline companies and landowners are still being drawn. In Bayou Bridge Pipeline v. 38.00 acres nobody had a gun, nobody got taken away, and one side was right and one side was wrong....more
In Hlavinka v. HSC Pipeline P’ship, LLC, a Texas court denied a pipeline company’s claim that it is a common carrier with the power of eminent domain....more
San Miguel Electric Coop is a Texas nonprofit electric cooperative that owns and operates a power plant that supplies electricity to 38 Texas counties. After a four-week absence, they return to these pages, this time in DCP...more
Copano Energy, LLC v. Stanley Bujnoch, Life Estate, et al. asked whether an enforceable easement had been established by email. The trial court and court of appeal said yes, holding in favor of landowner the Bujnochs....more
It is no surprise to Texas Supreme Court watchers that in Energy Transfer Partners et al v. Enterprise Products Partners LP et al. the court rejected claims that the parties had created a partnership by actions that varied...more
2/11/2020
/ Business Disputes ,
Business Formation ,
Condition Precedent ,
Construction Project ,
Contract Disputes ,
Contract Negotiations ,
Contract Terms ,
Energy Projects ,
Oil & Gas ,
Partnership Agreements ,
Partnerships ,
Pipelines ,
TX Supreme Court
In Texan Land & Cattle II, Ltd. v. ExxonMobil Pipeline Company a Texas court of appeals ruled that “oil or gas” is not limited to “crude petroleum,” but includes refined petroleum products gasoline and diesel....more
In Mary et al. QEP Energy Company the question was, given an encroachment of a pipeline onto the property of another, what is the test for determining the good faith, or not, of the party in possession?...more
Today is a two-fer. The questions: When does the “merger doctrine” not work in Texas, and how do courts treat technological developments created after a contract becomes effective?...more
The answer depends on what part of “the oil business” you care about. The 86th Legislature produced a few, but not many, changes in laws affecting the business, (most going into effect on September 1). ...more
6/20/2019
/ Downstream Agreements ,
Drilling Waste Disposal ,
Emergency Alerts ,
Eminent Domain ,
Groundwater Management Plan ,
Independent Contractors ,
Midstream Contracts ,
Mineral Extraction ,
New Legislation ,
Non-Compete Agreements ,
Oil & Gas ,
Photovoltaic ,
Pipelines ,
Public Utilities Commission ,
Restrictive Covenants ,
Royalties ,
Solar Energy ,
Solar Panels ,
Tax Credits
Thanks to the power of the trucking lobby, the prevailing policy on the question of who wins and who loses if a carrier of goods goes unpaid favors the carrier over the broker, shipper, consignor and consignee. ...more
Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, LP. v. Texas Crude Energy, LLC et al is another chapter in the back-and-forth over deduction of post-production costs from royalty payments....more