Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

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:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Our firm represents the Opielas, who are involved in a dispute with the Railroad Commission and Magnolia Oil & Gas over a horizontal well located partly on the Opielas’ property. The case has made its way from the Commission to the trial court in Travis County, then to the Austin Court of Appeals, and the case is now pending on petition for review in the Texas Supreme Court.

Briefly, the facts are these:

Enervest applied for a permit for an allocation well to be located partly on the Opielas’ ranch of 640 acres in Karnes County. When the Opielas purchased the ranch it was under an old oil and gas lease held by some producing vertical wells. The Opielas acquired all of the mineral estate but previous owners had sold 3/4ths of the royalty. The lease contains a pooling clause, but a special provision says there can be no pooling for oil wells.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In re Dallas County, Texas and Marian Brown, in her official capacity as Dallas County Sheriff, No. 24-0426, Texas Supreme Court, filed May 23, 2024.

In 2023 the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 1045. The bill creates a new system of “business courts” having jurisdiction of high-stakes business cases. Notably, the judges of these new trial courts are not elected but are appointed by the Governor. The bill also creates a new 15th Court of Appeals to hear appeals of such cases, as well as any case against the State, state agencies and state officials.  This is the first case to challenge the constitutionality of SB 1045. Before the bill, suits against the State were filed in Austin and appeals went to the 3rd Court of Appeals in Austin.

Dallas County and others sued members of the Health and Human Services Commission in Travis County, alleging that HHSC has failed to timely transfer inmates from the Dallas County jail to state hospitals who have been held not competent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, as required by law. The trial court denied the defendants’ plea to the jurisdiction, and defendants appealed that ruling to the Austin Court of Appeals. The defendants filed a statement in that court indicating that, on September 1, 2024 (when the 15th Court of Appeals becomes effective), the appeal would be automatically transferred to the new 15th Court created by SB 1045, because the suit involves a case against state officials.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Today the Texas Supreme Court decided Carl v. Hilcorp Energy Co, No. 24-0036. Its opinion addresses certified questions submitted to it by the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning a class action suit pending in that court.

The Carls’ lease provided for payment of gas royalty based on its “market value at the well.” The lease also provided that royalty must be paid on gas “sold or used off the premises.” Hilcorp used some of the gas produced “off the premises” to transport or process the gas produced from the lease. Hilcorp did not pay royalty on the gas used. The Texas Supreme Court agreed with Hilcorp that it owes no royalty on the gas used off the premises.

This is another in a long line of cases in which the Court relies on its flawed reasoning in Heritage Resources v. Nationsbank. The Court’s reasoning: because the measure of gas royalty is “market value at the well,” the lessor must bear its share of post-production costs. Hilcorp’s use of gas for post-production costs must therefore be part of the cost borne by the lessor. One way to do that is to not pay royalty on the gas used. So, even though the lease provides for royalty on gas “used off the premises,” Hilcorp need not pay royalty on such gas as long as it is used to enhance the value of the gas after it leaves the lease. If Hilcorp were to use some of the gas for other purposes, royalty would be due.

Continue reading →
Contact Information
John McFarland
 Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody, P.C.
401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2700
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: 512-480-5618
This Blog/Web Site is made available for educational purposes only as well as to give general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2015 – 2024, John McFarland
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design