accommodation doctrine

Published on: November 19, 2021

Solar Farms vs. Oil and Gas Development

Today the Texas Supreme Court denied review of the El Paso Court of Appeals’ opinion in Lyle v. Midway Solar. I discussed the Court of Appeals’ opinion in a prior post. In brief, mineral owners sued a solar farm developer for constructing a solar farm on land under which they owed minerals, complaining that the solar developer had made no accommodation for mineral development. The Court of Appeals held that the mineral owners’ suit was premature because the minerals were unleased and there were no current plans for mineral development. Their suit was dismissed without prejudice.

If the Lyles exercise their right [to use the surface] as part of developing the minerals, Midway must yield to the degree mandated by the application of the accommodation doctrine. But if the Lyles are not exercising their right, there is nothing to be accommodated. Stated otherwise, until the Lyles seek to develop their minerals, Midway owes no duty to the Lyles respecting the surface usage. Were it otherwise a mineral owners who undertakes no efforts to develop the mineral estate could claim damages from any surface activities that might hinder—at some point in the future—the exploration for oil and gas.

Published on: January 4, 2021

Lyle v. Midway Solar: Solar farm meets accommodation doctrine

By John McFarland

The El Paso Court of Appeals tangled with the accommodation doctrine in Lyle v. Midway Solar, LLC, No. 08-19-00216-CV, and the mineral owner lost.

The Lyles own a 27.5% mineral interest in 315 acres in Pecos County. Gary Drgac owns the surface. Drgac leased the 315 acres to Midway Solar for a solar farm. Midway constructed its solar array, leaving 17 acres on the south end and 80 acres on the north end for “Designated Drill Sites.” Midway did not get a surface waiver from the Lyles. The solar array covers 70% of the surface above the Lyles’ mineral estate.

The Lyles sued Midway for trespass and breach of contract. The breach of contract claim was based on the language in the deed that reserved the mineral interest owned by the Lyles. It provided that the Grantors reserve “the right to such use of the surface estate in the lands as may be usual, necessary or convenient in the use and enjoyment of the oil, gas and general mineral estate ….” It also provided that Grantors would never be liable to Grantees for any damage or injury to the surface estate by reason of such use. The trespass claim was based on the theory that Midway’s use deprived the Lyles of the right to use the land under its solar array and therefore trespassed on the Lyle’s right to use the surface estate of that land. Continue reading →

Published on: December 9, 2019

Lyle v. Midway Solar – Solar Farm Meets Accommodation Doctrine

By John McFarland

Plaintiffs Kenneth Lyle and Linda Morrison have appealed the dismissal of their suit against Midway Solar to the El Paso Court of Appeals, No. 08-19-00216-CV. Lyle and Morrison own the minerals under 315 acres in Pecos County. Midway Solar has constructed a solar farm on 215 of those acres.

Typically, a solar developer will obtain surface-use waivers from mineral owners before building a facility. Midway did not do that. Instead, it set aside portions of the 315 acres, on the north and south ends of the property, to allow for development of the minerals by directional drilling.

Lyle and Morrison contend their minerals are not susceptible to development by directional or horizontal drilling, because of the subsurface geology. They say 70% of their tract cannot be developed for minerals. Their minerals are not now leased and there are no plans to drill wells. There has been production from wells in the vicinity.

Continue reading →