In Cromwell v. Anadarko E & P Onshore LLC the Supreme Court of Texas did what it so often does: In order to provide “legal certainty and predictability”, the Court considered the plain language of a contract in order to...more
The so called “Anadarko Washout” involves a washout of oil and gas leases on undivided working interests owned by non-operating mineral cotenants. This particular species of lease washouts is based on two recent cases from...more
Let’s assume you own 105 acres in Greene County, Pennsylvania. In 2020, you signed an oil and gas lease with ABC Exploration. During the negotiations, you agreed that only those post-production costs which actually...more
In this case (Scout Energy Mgmt., LLC v. Taylor Properties, No. 23-1014, 2024 WL 5249490 [Tex. Dec. 31, 2024]), the Texas Supreme Court held that vague notations on shut-in royalty check receipts cannot modify an unambiguous...more
A landowner’s failure to provide consent for surface use related to oil and gas operations does not necessarily preclude the lessee from conducting activities if the lease agreements allow surface use....more
In Williams O & G Resources, LLC v. Diamondback Energy, Inc., a federal magistrate judge concluded that the Texas Relinquishment Act does not apply to public-school lands patented after 1931. The report and recommendation was...more
In this lease termination case (Pruett v. River Land Holdings, LLC, No. 03-22-00478-CV, 2024 WL 1745652, at *1 [Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 24, 2024, no pet.]), the Austin Court of Appeals was tasked with examining a cessation of...more
On Friday, May 9th, the Supreme Court of Texas addressed important issues regarding the enforcement of written contractual representations in its per curiam opinion styled Roxo Energy Co., LLC et al. v. Baxsto, LLC, ---...more
Under Van Dyke, deeds with double-fraction royalty reservations referencing “1/8” are presumed to reserve a floating royalty interest unless clearly contradicted. Defenses like waiver, ratification, and limitations cannot...more
Upstream oil and gas producers and oilfield service companies are facing new uncertainties from recently imposed federal tariffs. In early 2025, the US expanded tariffs on a broad range of imports, suddenly increasing costs...more
A lessee who halts production for less than 40 days and resumes without drilling or reworking does not terminate the lease. The continuous development clause keeps the lease active, and the cessation clause allows resumed...more
In this recent case, the Texas Supreme Court resolved whether ratification of a lease or signing of a stipulation agreement could transform a fixed non-participating royalty interest (NPRI) into a floating NPRI....more
This lease royalty case involved a dispute over whether the lessee was permitted to deduct volumes of gas used off the premises to power post-production activities on other gas produced from the same well. Carl v. Hilcorp...more
Unitex WI, LLC v. CT Land & Cattle Co., LLC, No. 07-23-00390-CV, 2024 WL 3249338 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 28, 2024, pet. filed)...more
Montgomery Trustee v. ES3 Minerals and Echo Minerals is another Texas fixed or floating royalty case. Before diving into the details, perhaps it’s best to describe the pattern the courts seem to fall into to resolve these...more
Many oil and gas leases across Pennsylvania allow the driller to divert and use volumes of raw gas to power and fuel production operations both on and off the leasehold. Is a driller obligated to pay a royalty on that volume...more
In Carl v. Hillcorp Energy the Supreme Court of Texas addressed the relationship between the lessee’s use of gas off-premises under a free-use clause and the lessor’s burden to share post-production costs (PPCs) under the...more
Foreshadowing a grim future for family weddings and funerals, Bell and Petsch v. Petch is a property dispute over five tracts of land in Gillespie County, Texas, in which siblings are the combatants. The events are less...more
In Devon Energy Production Company, LP et al v. Sheppard et al, the Supreme Court of Texas construed what it referred to as a “bespoke” and “highly unique” royalty clause in several oil and gas leases to prohibit the...more
On January 24, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania held that Act 85 of 2019, which permits drilling horizontal oil and gas wells across existing drilling units, is not unconstitutional....more
Just because parties agree that disputes over a contract will be subject to binding arbitration doesn’t mean there won’t be wrestling at the courthouse beforehand. In LLOG Exploration Offshore, LLC v. Samson Contour Energy...more
Today we will skip our usual routine of explaining how court rulings on the question of the day might affect your interests. Instead we will discuss the fallout from abysmal document drafting. In Rosetta Resources Operating...more
The Supreme Court of Texas has once again tackled the heavily contested issue of postproduction costs in royalty calculations. In Nettye Engler Energy, LP, v. BlueStone Natural Resources II, LLC, No. 20-0639, the Court was...more
In resolving a dispute over post-production cost deductions from oil and gas royalties (PPC’s), the court in Shirlaine West Properties Ltd et al v. Jamestown Resources, LLC and Total E&P USA, Inc. opined that the case ” … is...more
In Emerald Land Corp. v. Trimont Energy (BL) LLC, a Louisiana federal court considered whether a lessee was required to remove flowlines buried beneath the surface and canal bottoms of property subject to mineral leases....more