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
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
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
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 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
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
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 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
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
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 past week, in EOG Resources, Inc. v. Lucky Land Management, LLC, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 8738, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision of the district court granting a preliminary injunction...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
Boren Descendants et al v. Fasken Oil and Ranch, LTD, offers something to talk about beyond interpretation of the fixed-or-floating NPRI question. At issue was this reservation, expressed as a double fraction, in a 1933...more
Let’s assume you own a 175 acre farm in Washington County. Your grandfather acquired the farm back in 1948 from Farmer Brown (the “1948 Deed”). Your grandfather always said that he bought both the surface and oil and gas. In...more
After four stops at the lower courts, Kenneth Hahn v. ConocoPhillips has been resolved by the Supreme Court of Texas. The Court opined on the effect of two instruments often used to clarify land titles in Texas: ...more
Let’s assume you inherited a 150 acre farm in Lycoming County that has been owned by your family since 1909. In 2020, you are approached by ABC Drilling about a new oil and gas lease for the farm. You retain counsel and...more
In ConocoPhillips Co. v. Hahn, the Supreme Court of Texas addressed whether a “fixed” nonparticipating royalty interest (“NPRI”) was later converted to a “floating” NPRI. The court weighed two possible means of this...more
Introduction - “No one has a vested interest in any rule of common law.” Meech v. Hillhaven W., 776 P.2d 488, 494 (Mont. 1989). Luckily the Montana legislature has codified the common law rule of after-acquired title as a...more
Leases for solar energy facilities offer property owners the potential for a predictable, long-term revenue stream. But, because of the potential decades-long duration of a lease for solar energy facilities, things like...more
A troubling and confusing issue here in Pennsylvania concerns the ownership of oil and gas rights under roads and highways. For example, let’s assume Farmer Joe owned 115 acres in Greene County. In 1981, Farmer Joe sells...more
So, you found all the heirs and you have an agreed judgment stipulating title. Time to pay royslties? Maybe. And you have signed division orders. Surely, you can pay now? Maybe. These were the questions facing the parties in...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
Davenport v. EOG Resources, Inc. is an appeal of a temporary injunction. The title tells you the result. Davenport owned four tracts comprising 5,000 acres in Webb County that were originally part of a larger tract...more