In Ammonite Oil & Gas Corp. v. R.R. Comm’n of Tex., the Texas Supreme Court held that the Railroad Commission (the “RRC”) did not abuse its discretion in denying a “muscle in” application under the Texas Mineral Interest...more
The Texas Supreme Court will review a state regulator’s rejection of 16 applications submitted by Ammonite Oil & Gas Corp. (“Ammonite”) to force pool its mineral estate with adjacent wells operated by EOG Resources Inc....more
The takeaway from Hahn v. ConocoPhillips Company is that in Texas a NPRI holder may not diminish his rights by ratifying pooling of an oil and gas lease unless there are provisions explicitly purporting to do so....more
Ammonite Oil and Gas Corporation v. Railroad Commission of Texas illustrates the difficulties faced by lessees attempting to force-pool a tract under the Mineral Interest Pooling Act. In this case, the applicant Ammonite...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
Coloradoans continue to see fights over oil and gas development in the news. Following last month’s Colorado Supreme Court decision in COGCC v. Martinez, mineral owners in the Wildgrass neighborhood of Broomfield, Colorado,...more
Recently, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia clarified an important issue for the oil and gas industry in Gastar Exploration, Inc. v. Contraguerro, affirming West Virginia’s adherence to the contract theory of...more
On March 6, 2015, the Texas Supreme Court decided a case involving the duties owed to the non-executive holder of a nonparticipating royalty interest by both the executive rights holder and the lessee that negotiated the...more
In Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Sheppard, 282 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. 2008), the Texas Supreme Court held that the termination of Sheppard’s lease (Sheppard was the Lessor) did not terminate her participation in a unit into which her...more