Published on:

Yet another suit alleging underpayment of royalties has been filed against Chesapeake in the Barnett Shale. The petition can be viewed here: Addax v. Chesapeake Among the long list of plaintiffs is Kimbell Art Foundation. The petition alleges that plaintiffs are lessors under more than 8,000 leases in 280 pooled units with more than 725 producing gas wells. Defendants are Chesapeake and its working interest partner in the Barnett, Total E&P USA, Inc. Plaintiffs’ counsel is Burns Charest LLP.

The suit focuses on two complaints against the defendants. The first is based on the gathering agreement between Chesapeake and Access Midstream. The second is based on how Chesapeake has calculated the plaintiffs’ royalty interests in the pooled units. Continue reading →

Published on:

Three recent articles have intensified the debate over whether allocation wells are authorized by a typical oil and gas lease. Two of the articles appear in the most recent edition of the Section Report of the Oil, Gas & Energy Resources Law Section of the State Bar. The first, written by Ernest E. Smith, makes clear in its title the position of the author: Applying Familiar Concepts to New Technology: Under the Traditional Oil and Gas Lease, a Lessee Does not Need Pooling Authority to Drill a Horizontal Well that Crosses Lease Lines. View here: Applying Familiar Concepts  A later version of his article will be published in the Texas Journal of Oil, Gas and Energy Law at the University of Texas School of Law. The second article is by Ronald D. Nickum, an oil and gas attorney in Amarillo, titled Non Consent Allocation – Will it Survive Judicial Scrutiny. View here:  Non Consent Allocation Mr. Nickum’s article is more skeptical about the legality of allocation wells.

Professor Smith’s article is written in rebuttal to an article to be published in the Baylor Law Review written by Professor Bret Wells, Allocation Wells, Unauthorized Pooling, and the Lessor’s Remedies, which can be viewed here. Professor Wells argues that allocation wells are a form of pooling not authorized by a typical oil and gas lease and give rise to claims for trespass and punitive damages.

The Texas Railroad Commission ruled in the Klotzman case that it had the authority to issue permits to drill horizontal wells that cross multiple lease lines without pooling those leases together. Although the Commission has never adopted a rule defining or authorizing permits for such wells, an “allocation well” has generally come to be understood as a well that crosses one or more lease lines and that produces from more than one lease without pooling those leases and without any agreement with the royalty owners as to how production will be allocated among the leases crossed by the well. Because of the uncertainty as to the legality of allocation wells, exploration companies sought legislation in the last legislative session expressly authorizing such wells. That bill, HB 1552, died in committee. It is expected that similar legislation will be filed in the upcoming session.

Published on:

Trans-Pecos Pipeline is pursuing condemnation proceedings to acquire right-of-way for its pipeline, a project of Energy Transfer Partners to build a 143-mile, 42-inch pipeline from Fort Stockton into Mexico. Presidio County landowner John Boerschig is challenging the company’s right to use eminent domain to acquire an easement across his ranch. Last week he sued the company in U.S. District Court in Pecos, contending that Texas laws on eminent domain deny him due process of law in the condemnation process. He argues that pipeline companies asserting the right to use eminent domain should have to prove their right to condemn before they can obtain a judgment awarding an easement. Boerschig’s attorney Renae Hicks said  “It’s a no-strings-attached, standard-less delegation of government power to a private entity. There’s no accountability, they do not have to report to anyone.” He argues that a pipeline’s status as a public utility, which under Texas law entitles it to use eminent domain, can be legally challenged only after the condemnation award of the special commissioners appointed to determine the amount owed for the condemned easement. After the commissioners’ award, the pipeline’s right to condemn can be challenged in court, but in the meantime the pipeline has the right to tender the amount awarded by the commissioners into court and begin laying the pipeline on the easement awarded. So the pipeline can be constructed even while the landowner is challenging the company’s condemnation authority.

That is what happened in the latest condemnation case decided by the Texas Supreme Court, Texas Rice Land Partners v. Denbury, , 363 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. 2012). In that case, Denbury sought to condemn an easement for a pipeline that would carry carbon dioxide across Texas Rice Land’s property. Texas Rice Land challenged Denbury’s right to condemn an easement; the trial court sustained Denbury’s authority, and it built its easement. But the Supreme Court held that Texas Rice Land had the right to challenge Denbury’s use of eminent domain, whether it was a common carrier. It remanded the case to the trial court for trial on that issue. On remand, the trial court again agreed that Denbury had eminent domain powers, but the Beaumont Court of Appeals  reversed and remanded again, 457 S.W.3d 115 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2015). Denbury has appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, which granted Denbury’s petition for review on April 1. In the meantime, Denbury has constructed its pipeline across Texas Rice Land’s property and is using it to transport carbon dioxide.

For more on the Denbury case, read my posts here and here.

Published on:

The Gardiners claimed that a compressor station across the road from their property created a nuisance that damaged the value of their property. A trial resulted in a $2 million judgment for the Gardiners. After an eight-year battle, the Texas Supreme Court decided the Gardiners would have to try their case again. The case is another in a recent spate of cases alleging nuisance damages for operations in the oil field. Continue reading →

Published on:

Here are two good websites providing information about shale plays all across the world, from the worldwide law firm Norton Rose Fulbright:

Its Hydraulic Fracking Blog gives commentary on legislation across the country affecting drilling and operations in shale plays.

Its Shale Gas Handbook explains how the technology works, and prospects for shale oil and gas development in countries from Europe to China.

Published on:

Great graphic from the Energy Information Administration:

EIA Gas chart

It’s amazing how production has held up and even increased despite low gas prices. Production declines have shown up only at the beginning of this year, even though prices have been below $3.00 since January 2015.

EIA gas price chart

Published on:

One of the speakers at our firm’s recent oil and gas seminar for land and mineral owners was Chris Atherton, President of EnergyNet, Inc. EnergyNet is an online auction site for oil and gas assets- mineral and leasehold interests. It now controls 75% of the online auction business for oil and gas assets in the U.S.; so far in 2016, it has sold 354 asset packages for $155 million. It makes its money by taking a commission on each sale. Properties are sold both in online auctions and in sealed-bid sales.

Recently, the Texas General Land Office began using EnergyNet for its auctions of oil and gas leases on state lands. It also auctions leases for Colorado, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming, and it has recently signed up the Bureau of Land Management to conduct lease sales. An example of an EnergyNet offer for lease of a state tract in Loving County, Texas can be viewed here.

One of EnergyNet’s first big deals was sale of a package of 220,000 net mineral acres owned by Chevron in 2003, in dozens of counties in multiple estates. Chevron wanted at least $80 million. By breaking the assets down into smaller parcels, EnergyNet sold them for $120 million.

Published on:

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio handed down an opinion this week in Adams v. Murphy Exploration & Production Co.-USA, deciding the meaning of “offset well” as used in an oil and gas lease.

The plaintiffs in the case signed an oil and gas lease to Murphy containing the following provision:

It is hereby specifically agreed and stipulated that in the event a well is completed as a producer of oil and/or gas on land adjacent and contiguous to the leased premises, and within 467 feet of the premises covered by this lease, that Lessee herein is hereby obligated to, within 120 days after the completion date of the well or wells on the adjacent acreage, as follows:

(1) to commence drilling operations on the leased acreage and thereafter continue the drilling of such offf-set well or wells with due diligence3 to a depth adequate to test the same formation from which the well or wells are producing from on the adjacent acreage; or

(2) pay the Lessor royalties as provided for in this lease as if an equivalent amount of production of oil and/or gas were being obtained from the off-set location on these leased premises as that which is being produced from the adjacent well or wells; or

(3) release an amount of acreage sufficient to constitute a spacing unit equivalent in size to the spacing unit that would be allocated under the lease to such well or wells on the adjacent lands, as to the zones or strata producing in such adjacent well.

Continue reading →

Published on:

The Supreme Court last week denied the petition for review of the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals’ decision in Forest Oil v. El Rucio Land and Cattle Company. Forest was acquired by Sabine Oil & Gas during the course of the case, which started in 2004. Jimmy McAllen and his company obtained a $20 million arbitration award against Forest, and the Corpus Christi Court affirmed the award. The Texas Supreme Court has now declined to hear the case. I have written about this interesting case here and here.

TexasBarToday_TopTen_Badge_Small

Contact Information