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
The modern producing gas well is a sophisticated and complex piece of equipment. The basic well head itself consists of several meters, valves and other components, each of which is under constant stress and pressure. ...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
Suing a state and its public officials is difficult because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. There are exceptions. State of Texas v. Signal Drilling, et al. presents several of them....more
This case arises from a dispute over the parties’ obligations under several oil and gas leases. The parties engaged in an arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement. The arbitration panel entered awards in favor of...more
Did the lessor’s deposit of royalty checks for production from a pooled unit that she contends was improper ratify the improper pooling? In Strickhausen v. Petrohawk et al, a jury will have to sort out the answer....more
In resolving disputes among the mineral interest family, there is no bright-line rule delineating the duty of the executive right holder. In Texas Outfitters Limited v. Nicholson, the Texas Supreme Court explained why. The...more
Less than a year ago, we discussed the “Unanswered Questions” left in the wake of Devon Energy Prod. Co., LP v. Apache Corp. (which did answer the question, “Who is a ‘Payor’ Under the Texas Natural Resources Code?”). ...more
An opinion that observes “Obviously the jury was not overly enamored with Appellants.” is worth discussing. The decision is Stephens et al v. Three Finger Black Shale Partnership et al....more
Are you buying oil and gas leases in Ohio and expecting to be paid for your work? Consider Dundics v. Eric Petroleum, in which the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that land professionals who do not possess an Ohio real estate...more
Louisiana practitioners and their clients tend to know this particular point of Louisiana law, but it could surprise out-of-staters (known in their native habitat as “Texans”), so it’s worth a reminder...more
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. ...more
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...more
The question posed in our recent discussion of Devon Energy v. Apache Corporation was the meaning of “payor” under the Texas Division Order Statute. ...more
In Ohio, in calculating royalties in a market-value-at-the-well lease (as distinguished from a “proceeds” lease), post-production costs are to be shared proportionately by the working interest and royalty owners. ...more