MIT’s Casey Crownhart publishes a newsletter called The Spark. Here is his list of greenhouse gasses and their potency:
Carbon dioxide: The leading actor
I couldn’t in good conscience put together a list of greenhouse gases and not at least mention the big one. Human activities released 37.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2023. It’s the most abundant greenhouse gas we emit, and the most significant one driving climate change.
In Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. v. Puig, No. 04-23-00106-CV, the San Antonio Court of Appeals was asked to construe a royalty reservation in a 1960 deed:
There is saved, excepted and reserved, in favor of the undersigned, B.A. Puig, Jr., out of the above described property, an undivided one-sixteenth (1/16) of all the oil, gas and other minerals, except coal, in, to and under or that may be produced from the above described acreage, to be paid or delivered to Grantor, B.A. Puig, Jr., as his own property free of cost forever. Said interest hereby reserved is Non-Participating Royalty.
Fasken operates wells on the property; the Puig descendants sued Fasken for deducting post-production costs from their royalty. The trial court agreed with Puig, and the court of appeals affirmed, in a well-reasoned opinion relying on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Chesapeake Exploration v. Hyder, 483 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. 2016). “Free and of all cost forever” means what it says and includes both production costs and post-production costs. The court distinguished Heritage Resources v. Nationsbank, 939 S.w.2d 118 (Tex. 1996) because unlike Heritage the royalty clause in this reservation “does not contain a valuation point.” The lease in Heritage provided that royalty was payable on the market value “at the well,” the point at which royalty was valued for purposes of calculating royalty; so even though the lease also provided for no deductions from the lessors’ royalty, the Supreme Court said post-production costs incurred downstream of the well could be deducted.
In Mitchell v. Map Resources, the Texas Supreme Court described the constitutional right of due process as follows:
The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution prevents the government from depriving a person of his or her “property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; see also Tex. Const. art. I, § 19 (“No citizen of this State shall be deprived of … property … except by the due course of the law of the land.”).7 It is well settled that these words “require that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by *189 notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane, 339 U.S. at 313, 70 S.Ct. 652. Notice must be “reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them the opportunity to present their objections.” Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 84, 108 S.Ct. 896, 99 L.Ed.2d 75 (1988) (quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314, 70 S.Ct. 652).8
Gill v. Hill, 688 S.W.3d 863, decided by the Texas Supreme Court in January, grows out of a very similar set of facts the court reviewed in Mitchell v. Map Resources in 2022.
Last month the Railroad Commission published proposed revisions to its rules governing the handling of oilfield waste. This is a comprehensive rewrite of its rules that had not been revised since 1984. The Commission has been working on these revisions for a year. The published proposed rules can be found here. A good article summarizing the changes being considered, from Inside Climate News, can be seen here.
Oilfield waste governed by the rule includes frac water, produced water, and pits used by operators when drilling and completing wells. One purpose of the rules is to protect groundwater. But reserve pits, used to handle waste produced during drilling, aren’t required to be lined to prevent seepage into groundwater unless the groundwater is within 50 feet of the bottom of the pit. No permit is required for reserve pits. Commission Shift, which advocates for reforming Commission practices, has published its critique of the proposed rules, found here.
Comments on the proposed rule can be posted on the Commission website. The comment period ends on September 30.
Unitex WI, LLC v. CT Land and Cattle Co., decided by the Amarillo Court of Appeals, petition for review pending in Texas Supreme Court.
CT Land and Cattle owns the surface estate of 4,000 acres in Scurry and Kent Counties. The land is subject to an oil and gas lease signed in 1948 to Humble Oil & Refining Company. Unitex is the operator of some 200 wells on the property. The oil and gas lease provides: “When required by Lessor, Lessee will bury all pipelines below ordinary plow depth.” Multiple pipelines serving those wells lie on the surface of the land.
CT Land wrote Unitex, requesting that all pipelines be buried, per the burial covenant in the lease. Unitex refused; CT Land sued; and the district court in Lubbock County entered an order requiring Unitex to bury its lines. Unitex appealed.
Rembrance here. My law partner for 45 years.
Three scientists with the Department of Earth Sciences at Southern Methodist University have published the results of a study of blowouts of old wells in the Permian Basin caused by injection of produced water. The summary from the study:
Wastewater, a byproduct during oil extraction, is generally injected back into the ground. Permian Basin has witnessed several incidents of leakage of wastewater in the last 3 years. Recently in January 2022, huge amounts of wastewater were expelled at a high pressure from an old well. We used satellite data and wastewater injection data to understand the cause of these events. We found that the wastewater injection happening nearly several kilometers away is responsible for these leakages. We also discovered a highly pressurized wastewater lake below the surface in this region using geophysical modeling. Due to high pressures, the land in this region rose by 40 cm in just 2 years. Meanwhile, a part of this region sunk by 3 cm because of the leakage in January 2022. Our findings raise concerns about the potential for more leakages in the near future if action is not taken.
The study focused on the Central Basin Platform in the Permian Basin:
Last week the Texas Supreme Court handed down its decision in Ammonite v. Railroad Commission, upholding the Commission’s denial of Ammonite’s MIPA application. Justice Young filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Busby. The case has little implication for most mineral owners in Texas but is an important loss for the State of Texas and an important decision for future MIPA applications.
The State of Texas owns the lands within the beds of navigable rivers and waterways, some 80,000 miles of rivers and streams. Where oil and gas development occurs adjacent to rivers, operators often lease those riverbeds and include them in pooled units. Revenues from leasing of State lands goes to the State’s permanent school fund, which funds primary education. But EOG Resources, developing horizontal wells in the Eagle Ford Shale along both sides of the Frio River, decided not to lease the State’s riverbed, and left it out of the units.
Ammonite Oil & Gas, owned by William Osborn (my first cousin) leases riverbeds and stranded State tracts from the General Land Office and works to get them included in adjacent pooled units. If it is unable to reach agreement Ammonite files an action under the MIPA.
Last December a federal court in Oklahoma issued an order in a long-continuing suit between the United States and the Osage Nation, as plaintiffs, and Enel Green Power North America. United States v. Osage Wind, LLC, et al., No. 4:14-cv-00704-JCG-JFJ (US Dist. Ct. N.D. Okla., Dec. 20, 2023) Enel’s subsidiary operates a wind farm on 8,400 acres of land in Osage County, with 84 wind turbines. The Osage Nation and the US government are seeking to enjoin Enel from operating its wind farm. The court’s order holds that the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction requiring Enel to remove its wind turbines.
The Osage have a fascinating history, most recently made famous by the book Killers of the Flower Moon by David Gran, and the 2023 release of the movie by the same name starring Leonardo DiCaprio.
In the early 19th century the Osage controlled a huge area between the Missouri and Red Rivers, the Ozarks to the east, and the foothills of the Wichita Mountains to the south. The US government first required the tribe to move to a reservation in southeastern Kansas, containing some 325,000 acres of land. In 1870 Congress passed and the tribe ratified the Drum Creek Treaty, providing that the Osage Nation’s land in Kansas be sold and the proceeds paid to the Osage Nation. The Osage received $1.25 an acre for the land, which they used to purchase their present-day reservation in Oklahoma, now the county of Osage, some 1,470,000 acres. The surface estate of those lands was later “allotted” to individual tribe members, some 640 acres each, and most of those lands were later sold. But the mineral estate in the tribal lands remained with the Osage Nation, managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
In Hamilton v. ConocoPhillips, the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals construed a Production Sharing Agreement – to my knowledge the first appellate court to do so.
A Production Sharing Agreement is an agreement between mineral owners and an operator to allow the operator to drill a horizontal well whose lateral will be located partly on the leased premises and partly on other lands. Generally, such agreements provide that the allocation will be based on the number of productive lateral feet of the well on each tract crossed by the well. If a well crosses Tract A and Tract B, and 60% of the productive lateral is on Tract A, then the parties agree that the royalty owners in Tract A will be paid royalty on 60% of the production from the well. Such an agreement is a form of combining multiple tracts to produce from a single well–essentially a form of pooling with a different method of allocation.
In Hamilton, Lloyd Hamilton owned a mineral interest in the original Hamilton Ranch in DeWitt County, covering some 5,000 acres, which the Hamilton family leased to Burlington Resources Oil & Gas (now a subsidiary of ConocoPhillips). After the lease was signed the family partitioned the land and Lloyd received a separate surface tract, subject to the lease. The family then signed a Production Sharing Agreement allowing Burlington to drill wells located partly on the Ranch.
