In Byrne Oil Co. v. Walraven, a court of appeals held that a surface owner/lessor cannot bury his lessee’s pipelines and recover costs when adequate time exists to pursue judicial remedies, even after years of operator delay....more
Lula Eades once owned minerals in Loving County, Texas. In 2000, in a single lawsuit the Wink-Loving ISD and Loving County foreclosed on the mineral and royalty interests of more than 80 owners, including Lula. In Ridgefield...more
In Texas, legal battles over the subsurface have typically focused on what comes out of the ground: oil, gas, and minerals. But as subsurface use evolves, it raises a new question: Who owns the empty space left once minerals...more
La Agencia Nacional de Minería (ANM) en Colombia socializó y publicó para comentarios los "Términos de referencia para la adjudicación de contratos especiales de exploración y explotación en Áreas de Reserva Estratégica...more
The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (Public Law No: 119-21, the “Act”) marks a pivotal moment in U.S. energy legislation, signaling a decisive shift back toward traditional fossil fuel development....more
Ambiguity is handy for office-seekers intending to walk back “promises” they later say they really didn’t make. It doesn’t work so well for the stability of land titles. In Thagard Mineral Partnership, LP v. Cass v. RIM, LLP,...more
Defendants – five oil and gas operators – challenged a venue selection clause requiring that suits be filed in Nueces County for disputes over La Salle County acreage. In In re INEOS USA Oil & Gas LLC, a Texas Court of...more
In a recent 44-page ruling, the Interior Board of Land Appeals (Board) vacated in full, without remand, an Order to Perform Restructured Accounting and Pay (Order) issued by the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) that...more
City of Crowley v. TotalEnergies E&P USA, is a post-production cost (PPC) case with a predictable result. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals confirmed its reasoning in Shirlaine W. Props. Ltd. v. Jamestown Res., L.L.C from 2021,...more
As renewable energy development sweeps across rural and agricultural landscapes, developers are encountering a growing legal and logistical challenge: severed estates. These occur when surface rights and mineral rights are...more
El Ministerio de Minas y Energía (MME) de Colombia expidió el 20 de agosto de 2025, la Resolución 40358 de 2025, mediante la cual se modifica la Resolución 40303 de 2022 que establecía lineamientos para facilitar la...more
Texas is the latest in a growing number of states to tackle the issues related to ownership and severability of the pore space underneath land as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) remains a relevant tool in CO2...more
On June 27, the Supreme Court of Texas issued its long-awaited ruling in Cactus Water Services, LLC v. COG Operating, LLC addressing the ownership of produced water under an oil and gas conveyance. In Cactus Water, the Court...more
Dans le cadre du contrôle judiciaire dont faisait l’objet l’affaire Imperial Oil Resources Limited v. Alberta (Minister of Energy) (en anglais seulement), la Cour du Banc du Roi de l’Alberta (la « Cour ») a annulé plusieurs...more
If you drive around Pennsylvania, you are likely not going to encounter a “For Sale” sign offering a cavern in the ground. But the voids, pore spaces, and cavities in the subsurface can be quite valuable now and in the...more
The Texas Supreme Court in Roxo Energy Company, LLC v. Baxsto, LLC reinforced a fundamental contract principle: when fully integrated agreements plainly conflict with prior oral representations, reliance on those inconsistent...more
Section 50102 of the OBBBA makes changes affecting what Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act calls the Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program. Although the program is accompanied by thousands of pages of analysis, it is a one-page...more
Does the Texas Supreme Court’s Decision in Cactus Water Services v. COG Operating Provide Guidance About Lithium and Rare Earth Minerals Ownership in Pennsylvania? Lithium demand is expected to continue to increase as...more
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Texas held in Cactus Water Services, LLC v. COG Operating, LLC, that produced water belongs to the operator. When presented with a case where both the operator and a third party...more
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion in a closely watched case addressing the ownership of produced water — the byproduct of drilling, fracking and formation fluids. In Cactus Water Services v. COG...more
State of Texas. V. Reimer et al. studied lawyer-nerdy questions of standing to bring a lawsuit and statutes of limitations as applied to inverse condemnation suits. Spoiler alert: To the chagrin of the landowners, waiting...more
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...more
On June 27, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court issued a pivotal decision in Cactus Water Services, LLC v. COG Operating, LLC, holding that under the language of the granting clause found in the standard oil and gas lease, produced...more
In Cactus Water v. COG Operating, the Supreme Court affirmed that mineral lessee COG, not water rights owner Cactus (who derived it rights from the surface owner), has the right to possession, custody, control, and...more
On June 27, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Cactus Water Services, LLC v. COG Operating, LLC, No. 23-0676, resolving a high-stakes dispute over the ownership of produced water—a vexing...more