Local Governments Continue to Fight States for Right to Govern Fracking
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
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
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
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
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
The question in Rock River Minerals, LP and Carr v. v. Pioneer Natural Resources, et al.: Did an assignment of overriding royalty interests in Texas oil and gas leases include a depth limitation? No....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 Occidental Permian, Ltd. et al v. Citation 2002 Investment LLC the Supreme Court construed a 1987 assignment from Shell Western E& P Inc. to Citation of a large number of properties. The instrument contained these...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
I. Background In the case of Kirkbride v. Antero Res. Corp., the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is faced with a novel argument on the interpretation of a condition precedent within an oil and gas lease. The case comes to the...more
In Texas, no. Read on to learn why. In Nortex Minerals LP v. Blackbeard Operating LLC et al, the question was the meaning of this limited assignment provision in the “Alliance Leases”, oil and gas leases covering 27,000 acres...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
The question in Self v, BPX Operating Company is how to balance the Louisiana Civil Code Art 2292 principle of negotiorum gestio against Louisiana’s conservation statutes....more
Can the Texas lessee perpetuate his oil and gas lease by “constructive participation” in wells drilled by another? Under the facts in Cromwell v. Anadarko E&P Onshore, LLC, the answer is no....more
In Smart v. 3039 RNC Holdings LLC, the court reminds us that it will harmonize all parts of a contract, even one that “is not a model of clarity”, to reach the correct result. ...more
Let’s assume your grandfather owned 99 acres in Washington County. In 1955, he sells a small portion of the farm to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in order to facilitate the construction of new State Route 39. This acreage...more
Can a non-operating working interest in a Texas oil and gas lease be adversely possessed? The Amarillo Court of Appeals said yes in PBEX II, LLC v. Dorchester Minerals, L.P....more
Tips on litigation avoidance: Not making promises you don’t intend to keep is easy enough. Stating a fact or making a promise and things change, you could be a fraudster if you don’t come clean before closing....more
Freeeport-McMoRan Oil and Gas, LLC and Ovintiv USA Inc. v. 1776 Energy Partners LLC presented a recurring question faced by Texas oil and gas producers: When can proceeds of production be withheld by the operator without...more
And what a difference it was! In Apache Corp. v. Apollo Expl. LLC et al, Apache and others acquired an oil and gas lease on 100,000+ acres in the Texas Panhandle. The primary term was three years. The effective date was...more
The calculation of production royalties and the deduction of post-production costs remains a controversial topic here in Pennsylvania. As we have written before, there is another frustrating and often confusing...more
In a recurring theme, harmony and the four-corners rule were front and center in Citation 2002 Inv. LLC et al v. Occidental Permian, Ltd. et al, a case of competing claims over the granting language in an assignment of oil...more
Texas courts continue to address the “fixed or floating” non-participating royalty interest question. The El Paso Court of Appeals’ answer in Bridges v. Uhl et al. was floating, based on the language in that particular...more
Delay in filing suit too often spells doom for the plaintiff, as we learn in Zadeck Succession et al v. Treme et al. Treme (as in the family collectively) claimed their father, Vandiver, was conveyed a 5% working...more
Precious little legal analysis is required to grasp the lesson from Springbok Royalty Partners v. Cook. No mode or manner of legal gymnastics is likely to save parties from the legal effect of a contract they didn’t bother...more