Oil and Gas Lawyer BlogToday the Supreme court accepted the petition for review in Boerschig v. Rio Grande Electric Cooperative, No. 24-0213, a case in which the trial court granted an easement by estoppel based on a jury verdict. In 2002 Boerschig purchased the 6,397-acre U-Bar Ranch. At the time there was a 1.6 mile distribution line with wooden […]
Search Results for: texas supreme court
Published on:
Clifton v. Johnson — Another fixed vs. floating royalty case lands in Texas Supreme Court
Today the Texas Supreme Court agreed to decide another dispute over whether a conveyance is of a fixed or floating royalty. No. 23-0671, Clifton v. Johnson. The El Paso Court of Appeals held that the instrument in question conveyed a floating royalty – a fraction of the royalty. 2023 WL 444316. The Petitioners argue, among […]
Published on:
Cromwell v. Anadarko – Texas Supreme Court weighs in on construction of lease habendum clause
Suppose Company A obtains an oil and gas lease on Blackacre from the owner of a 1/6 mineral interest in Blackacre, and Company B obtains and oil and gas lease from the owner of the other 5/6 mineral interest. That makes Company A and Company B co-tenants leasehold mineral estate. Usually in such a circumstance […]
Published on:
Texas Supreme Court Opines on Ownership of Produced Water
The Supreme Court has handed down its opinion in Cactus Water Services, LLC v. COG Operating, LLC, a dispute over ownership of produced water. Its holding: COG, the operator, owns the produced water. Between 2005 and 2014, the Colliers granted leases covering 37,000 acres of land in Reeves County to COG. The leases granted lease […]
Published on:
Texas Supreme Court’s Final Word on Ownership of Pore Space
In Myers-Woodward v. Underground Services Markham, No. 22-0878, the Texas Supreme Court removed any doubt that pore space is owned by the owner of the surface estate, not the mineral estate. Myers Woodward owns the surface estate of 160 acres in Matagorda County. It also owns a 1/8th royalty on oil, gas and other minerals […]
Published on:
Texas Supreme Court once again rules against royalty owners in post-production costs case
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.” […]
Published on:
City of Dallas v. Trinity East Energy – Texas Supreme Court Refuses City’s Petition on Appeal of $33 million judgment
In 2014 the City of Denton banned drilling of wells within its city limits. In response the Texas Legislature quickly passed HB 40, giving the Texas Railroad Commission exclusive jurisdiction to issue drilling permits within municipalities and allowing cities to regulate oil and gas activity only if their ordinances relate to “aboveground activity .. at […]
Published on:
Texas Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Appeal of MIPA Case
Today the Texas Supreme Court agreed to hear Ammonite Oil & Gas Corp. v. Railroad Commission of Texas and EOG Resources, an appeal from the Commission’s denial of sixteen applications by Ammonite under the Mineral Interest Pooling Act. I wrote about this case when it was decided against Ammonite by the Austin Court of Appeals. […]
Published on:
Nettye Engler Energy v. Bluestone Natural Resources: Texas Supreme Court affirms ruling against royalty owner
Last week the Texas Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Nettye Engler Energy, LP v. Bluestone Natural Resources II, LLC, No. 20-0639, affirming the lower court’s ruling that Engler’s royalty interest bears its share of gas gathering and processing costs. Engler owns a royalty interest in a section of land in Tarrant County on […]
Published on:
Texas Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Hlavinka v. HSC Pipeline – Important Eminent Domain Issues
The Texas Supreme Court agreed to decide Hlavinka v. HSC Pipeline, about which I have written before. The Court’s summary of the issues: The primary issues in this case are whether (1) Texas law grants eminent domain authority to a pipeline owner shipping polymer grade propylene; (2) a pipeline shipping a product from the pipeline […]