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
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
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
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
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 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
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 In re Pearl Resources LLC, a Houston bankruptcy court rejected the Texas General Land Office’s attempt to partially terminate state oil and gas leases in Pecos County, despite finding the operator had breached offset well...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
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
Who owns produced water in Texas? And what is produced water anyway – oil and gas waste and part of the mineral estate, or groundwater and part of the surface estate? We may be closer to an answer to these questions now...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