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
In Franklin v. Regions Bank the Fifth Circuit concluded that a royalty clause in a mineral lease resulted in a gross proceeds royalty; the royalty owners did not bear their proportionate share of post-production costs. Read...more
The takeaway from DDR Weinert, Limited et al v. Ovintiv USA Inc. is that equitable recoupment rescued a royalty payor from its mistaken payment of royalties. But first, The events. The Richters were mineral lessors...more
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
The Supreme Court of Texas has provided helpful guidance as to ownership of subsurface storage rights and pore space. In the recent holding in Myers-Woodward, LLC v. Underground Services Markham, LLC, the court held that "the...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
In a closely watched opinion issued on May 16, 2025, the Texas Supreme Court in Myers-Woodward, LLC v. Undergrounds Services Markham, LLC, — S.W.3d —, No. 22-0878, 2025 WL 1415892 (Tex. May 16, 2025) resolved a long-uncertain...more
In a word, the surface estate owner. If that’s all the learning you are up for today, proceed directly to the musical interludes. If you want to know why the Supreme Court of Texas had to say this again, read on....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
In a significant policy shift, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) policy update designed to expedite the oil and gas leasing process on public lands. Through a newly issued...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