Articles Posted in Recent Cases

Betty Lou Bradshaw’s parents owned 1773 acres in Hood County. In 1960, they sold the land and reserved 1/2 of the royalty on oil, gas and other minerals. Betty Lou inherited her parents’ royalty interest.

In 2005, Steadfast Financial (subsequently renamed KCM Financial) acquired the right to purchase the land. In 2006, KCM made a deal with Range Resources by which it simultaneously (1) exercised its right to purchase the land, (2) sold the land to Range, reserving all minerals, and (3) leased the mineral estate to Range. The lease provided for 1/8th royalty, and the bonus was $7,505 per acre.

Betty Lou sued KCM and Range. She alleged that they conspired to limit her royalty on production from the lease to 1/16 (1/2 of 1/8), whereas it should have been 1/8 (1/2 of 1/4), since the going rate for lease royalties in Hood County at the time was 1/4. She alleged that Steadfast had agreed to a lower royalty in order to receive an above-market bonus.

On January 30, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Hooks v. Samson Lone Star, Limited Partnership, No. 12-0920. In doing so, it kept alive a $21 million verdict against Samson and limited its prior holdings barring suits by mineral owners based on the statute of limitations.

The principal claim the Hooks made against Samson alleged breach of a lease provision intended to protect the Hooks’ lease against drainage from wells on adjacent lands. The lease provided that, if a gas well is drilled within 1,320 feet of the lease, Samson must either drill an offset well, release sufficient acreage for an offset well to be drilled, or pay “compensatory royalty” – the amount of royalty the Hooks would be entitled to if the well on adjacent lands had been drilled on their lease.

In 2000, Samson permitted a well on lands adjacent to the Hooks lease, and it approached the Hooks asking permission to pool portions of the Hooks land with that well. Mr. Hooks asked Samson how close the well would be to the Hooks lease boundary. Samson sent him a plat showing that the location of the well would be 1,400 feet from the lease. Based on this, the Hooks agreed to the pooling.

In 2007, in connection with related litigation, the Hooks discovered that the adjacent well in fact was located within 1,320 feet of the Hooks lease, and the Hooks sued Samson for misrepresenting the well’s location and inducing them to agree to the pooling. They sought damages under the lease compensatory royalty clause – the royalty they would have received had the offending well been located on the Hooks’ lease. They argued that the four-year statute of limitations applicable to their claim should not apply because Samson had fraudulently induced them to believe that the well was 1,400 feet from their lease. The jury found that the Hooks should not have discovered the true facts until less than four years before bringing suit. It awarded more than $20 million damages to the Hooks. Continue reading →

Last week the San Antonio Court of Appeals decided Lightning Oil Company v. Anadarko, No. 04-14-001152-CV, a case involving “mineral trespass.”  What is interesting about the case is what the court did not decide.

Lightning Oil Company owns two oil and gas leases covering 3,250 acres within the Briscoe Ranch in Dimmit County. The Briscoe Ranch owns the surface but not the minerals in this 3,250 acres. To the south of Lightning’s leases is the Chaparral Wildlife Management Area, a wildlife sanctuary managed by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. TPWD owns the surface and 1/6 mineral interest in the Chaparral WMA. The Light family (some of whom own Lightning Oil) own the other 5/6 mineral interest. Anadarko holds oil and gas leases on the Chaparral WMA.

The TPWD lease to Anadarko prevents use of the surface of the Chaparral WMA for oil and gas wells except with TPWD consent, and says that Anadarko must use off-site drilling locations “when prudent and feasible.” Anadarko made an agreement with Briscoe Ranch to use the surface of the Ranch to drill horizontal wells under the Chaparral WMA. The first location Anadarko chose is located on the land covered by the Lightning Oil Company leases. So Anadarko proposed to drill a horizontal well from a surface location on Lightning’s lease; the well would penetrate the Eagle Ford formation on Lightning’s lease, but no perforations, or “take points,” in the well would be located on Lightning’s lease.

Last week the Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Steadfast Financial v. Bradshaw, No. 13-0199. The case presents the court with another opportunity to grapple with an issue that Texas courts have struggled with since the court first addressed it in 1937 – what duty does the owner of the mineral estate owe to a non-participating royalty owner?

The term “non-participating royalty owner” is the name commonly given to a royalty interest in minerals created by a grant or reservation in a deed.  “Non-participating” is really redundant; it means that the holder of the royalty estate has no right to lease the mineral estate or to receive any bonus for a lease.  In fact, that is true of all royalty interests. A better name for this type of royalty interest might be “fee royalty interest,” to distinguish it from a royalty interest reserved by the mineral owner in an oil and gas lease.

The owner of a fee royalty interest, having no right to lease or to drill wells, is dependent on the owner of the mineral estate out of which his/her royalty interest must be paid; the royalty interest has no value unless the mineral interest is leased and wells are drilled. In recognition of this fact, court decisions have imposed a duty on the mineral owner to protect the royalty owner’s interest. How this duty is defined, and in what situations the duty is imposed, have been issues Texas courts have struggled with for many years. The cases that have addressed this issue over the years show how the common law develops — very slowly, and with varied results for the litigants involved.

Trail Enterprises’ efforts to collect an inverse condemnation judgment against the City of Houston have finally come to an end. The US Supreme Court has refused to hear its case. Trail Enterprises’ story is instructive to parties who may be thinking of challenging cities’ decisions to ban drilling within their boundaries.

The dispute has a long history.  Lake Houston is a major source of drinking water for the City of Houston. In 1967, the City passed an ordinance restricting the drilling of new oil and gas wells in a “control area” around the lake. That restriction has remained in place except for an eleven-month gap in 1996-97, when the lake was annexed into the City and the City passed a new ordinance protecting the lake. 

In 1995, Trail Enterprises, an owner of mineral interests in the restricted area around the lake, sued the City, claiming that the 1967 ordinance restriction amounted to a “taking” of the mineral interests in violation of the US Constitution. The trial court dismissed that suit, and the Houston Court of appeals affirmed. Trail Enters., Inc. v. City of Houston, 957 S.W.2d 625 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, writ denied). In 1999, Trail sued again, this time arguing that the City’s 1997 ordinance resulted in a taking of its property. The trial court held that the ordinance did not constitute a taking. This time the Houston Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for a trial. Trail Enters., Inc. v. City of Houston, 2002 WL 389448 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 14, 2002, no pet.). But the parties decided to dismiss that case.