Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog

Published on: October 19, 2015

More on Retained Acreage Clauses

I recently wrote about two appellate opinions dealing with retained acreage clauses in oil and gas leases. A retained acreage clause requires the lessee to release acreage not assigned to a producing well at the end of the primary term, or at the end of a continuous drilling program conducted after the primary term. One commentator has said that the purpose of a retained acreage clause is to “replace the lessor’s need to utilize the implied covenant of reasonable development as the sole means to see that its acreage is fully developed.” Bruce M. Kramer, Oil and Gas Leases and Pooling: a Look Back and a Peek Ahead, 45 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 877, 881 (2013).

A retained acreage clause should be included in any oil and gas lease that covers a significant amount of acreage – more than 100-200 acres. Below is a retained acreage clause, from the TLMA lease form. TLMA is the Texas Land and Mineral Owners Association. I prepared the lease form, and TLMA provides it to all of its members:

Upon expiration of the Primary Term, or upon cessation of “Continuous Drilling Operations” (as hereinafter defined), whichever is later, this Lease shall terminate as to all the lands and depths then covered thereby except lands and depths then designated by Lessee, in accordance with the requirements of this Paragraph, to be within a “Production Unit” (as hereinafter defined) assigned to each well then producing in paying quantities on the Leased Premises or lands properly pooled therewith.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 15, 2015

Oral Argument in Coyote Lake Ranch Water Rights Case

By John McFarland

The Texas Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in the fight between the City of Lubbock and Coyote Lake Ranch over whether the accommodation doctrine applies to severed water rights. Here is a good article from the Texas Tribune summarizing the arguments. The oral arguments can be viewed on the Texas Supreme Court website, here. My earlier discussion of the case can be found here.

Published on: October 12, 2015

San Antonio Court of Appeals Denies Cernys’ Nuisance Claim

By John McFarland

I have written before about landowners’ efforts to collect damages for personal injury and property damage caused by nearby oil and gas exploration operations on the theory that such activities cause a nuisance. Nuisance is a recognized tort claim. To recover, a person must prove that (1) the person has an interest in land (2) the defendant interfered with or invaded the person’s interest in the land by conduct that was negligent, intentional, or abnormal and out of place in its surroundings, (3) the defendant’s conduct resulted in a condition that substantially interfered with the person’s use and enjoyment of his land, and (4) the nuisance caused injury to the plaintiff.

In the case decided by the court of appeals in San Antonio, Cerny v. Marathon Oil, the Cernys bought an acre of land with a residence on it in 2002. In 2012, Marathon began drilling wells in the area. Plains Exploration and Production also constructed production facilities in the area. Eventually, there were 22 well sites within 1 1/2 mile of the Cernys’ home. The Cernys hired experts, who measured chemicals in the air around their home and near oil and gas production sites in the area. The experts included an air quality expert, a forensic meteorologist, and a toxicologist.

The Cernys sued Marathon and Plains, alleging that the fumes, odors and dust from their facilities caused physical health symptoms and made their home uninhabitable. Marathon asked the trial court to dismiss the case, on the ground that the Cernys had no evidence that their facilities were the “proximate cause” of the Cernys’ alleged damages.

Continue reading →

Published on: October 5, 2015

Two Recent Cases on Retained Acreage Clauses

By John McFarland

Modern oil and gas leases often contain provisions that have come to be known as “retained acreage” clauses. Such clauses require the lessee to release acreage not assigned to a producing well at the end of the primary term, or at the end of a continuous drilling program conducted after the primary term. One commentator has said that the purpose of a retained acreage clause is to “replace the lessor’s need to utilize the implied covenant of reasonable development as the sole means to see that its acreage is fully developed.” Bruce M. Kramer, Oil and Gas Leases and Pooling: a Look Back and a Peek Ahead, 45 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 877, 881 (2013).

There is no standard form of retained acreage clause. Lawyers representing lessors have developed their form of the clause, and the clause is often one of the most heavily negotiated provisions of an oil and gas lease.

Two court opinions have recently construed retained acreage clauses.

In ConocoPhillips Company v. Vaquillas Unproven Minerals, Ltd., 2015 WL 4638272 (Tex.Ct.App.-San Antonio Aug. 5, 2015), the lease provided that, at the end of the lessee’s continuous drilling program,

Lessee covenants and agrees to execute and deliver to Lessor a written release of any and all portions of this lease which have not been drilled to a density of at least 40 acres for each producing oil well and 640 acres for each producing or shut-in gas well, except that in case any rule adopted by the Railroad Commission of Texas or other regulating authority for any field on this lease provides for a spacing or proration establishing different units of acreage per well, then such established different units shall be held under this lease by such production, in lieu of the 40 and 640-acre units above mentioned.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 25, 2015

EIA Financial Review of 97 Global E&P Companies

By John McFarland

EIA issued its 2nd quarter financial review of the E&P industry, found here. Highlights:

Production is declining for the first time since the beginning of 2014 (click to enlarge).

Companies are losing cash (click to enlarge):

Continue reading →

Published on: September 24, 2015

Good Article from Texas Tribune on RRC Commissioner Porter

By John McFarland

Texas Tribune September 24, 2015 – by Ross Ramsey:

What happens when an elected official says “we” is that we think they’re talking about us — the people who elected them. Sometimes, that’s right. In fact, it’s right most of the time.

Not at the Texas Railroad Commission. It’s a three-person state commission elected by Texas voters and seemingly owned and operated by the oil and gas industry it regulates. Go hear one of their speeches at an industry conference sometime and listen for this: Do they call it “your industry” when talking to oil and gas people, or do they call it “our industry.” A recent sampling suggests the latter.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 21, 2015

Texas Railroad Commission Report to Sunset Commission

By John McFarland

The Texas Railroad Commission has submitted its “Self-Evaluation Report” to the Texas Sunset Commission, in anticipation of Sunset Commission review of the RRC in the next legislative session in 2017.

Under Texas’ sunset law, every Texas agency must periodically undergo review by the Sunset Commission and be re-authorized by legislative action. The Sunset Commission reviews and recommends changes to legislation governing the agency – or may recommend abolishment of the agency.

Initially reviewed in 2011, the Railroad Commission’s Sunset bill did not pass in the 2011 legislative session. Instead, the 82nd Legislature continued the Railroad Commission under Sunset review for another two years. In 2013, the Sunset Commission again reviewed the RRC and recommended significant changes, including changing the agency’s name, limiting when Commissioners could solicit and receive campaign contributions, and requiring the automatic resignation of a Commissioner running for another elected office. The Sunset Commission also recommended several funding changes, including eliminating the statutory cap on the Oil and Gas Regulation and Cleanup Fund and creating a new pipeline permit fee to help support the agency’s pipeline safety program.

The Sunset recommendations were incorporated into Senate Bill 212. The Senate passed this bill in 2013, but ultimately the bill was left pending in the House Energy Resources Committee. The only significant legislation that did pass was a requirement that commissioners resign to run for another office – a bill vetoed by the Governor. The legislature required the RRC to undergo sunset review again in 2017.

The RRC’s Self-Evaluation Report, required by the Sunset Commission, can be found here. Largely self-laudatory, it does contain lots of data about RRC activities. Excerpts: Continue reading →

Published on: September 14, 2015

The Power to Regulate Pollution

By John McFarland

During my vacation I read The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution, 1783-1789, by Joseph J. Ellis. Ellis tells the story of the writing and passage of the US Constitution, orchestrated, he asserts, by George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison (the quartet).

Before the adoption of the Constitution, the thirteen states were essentially independent countries who had won their independence but failed to found a new country. The “United States” were always referred to in the plural. The genius of the quartet, says Ellis, was the compromise they crafted in the Constitution in the debate over federal vs. state power. States were understandably reluctant to relinquish their sovereignty, but the quartet knew that the new nation, to survive, had to have federal power – to levy taxes, provide for common defense, and regulate commerce among the states. The Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government. The Bill of Rights – the first ten amendments to the Constitution, passed simultaneously — enumerates the rights retained by the states and the people, limitations on federal power. The tenth amendment provides: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The contours of this compromise are still being debated in courts across the land. “States rights” were fighting words in the civil war, and today are the battle cry of states seeking to curb the federal government’s regulation of health care, water quality, voting rights, and abortion.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 4, 2015

Texas Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Coyote Lake Ranch vs. City of Lubbock

By John McFarland

The Texas Supreme Court yesterday granted Coyote Lake Ranch’s petition to review the Amarillo Court of Appeals’ opinion holding that the accommodation doctrine does not apply to severed groundwater. View my previous post on the case here.

Published on: September 4, 2015

ExxonMobil v. Lazy R Ranch – a Case to Watch

By John McFarland

In January, the El Paso Court of Appeals decided the appeal of Lazy R. Ranch, LP, et al. vs. ExxonMobil Corporation. The court reversed a summary judgment in favor of Exxon and remanded the case to the trial court for a trial on the merits. Exxon has asked the Texas Supreme Court to review the El Paso Court’s decision. Exxon argues that it has conclusively proven that Lazy R’s claims are barred by limitations.

The Lazy R Ranch is 20,000 acres in Ector, Crane, Ward and Winkler Counties. Exxon had operations on the ranch for many years. In 2009, the Ranch hired an environmental firm to investigate several sites on the property for oil-related contamination. The environmental firm found substantial hydrocarbon contamination at five sites, and found that at one of the sites the contamination had percolated down into the groundwater and that contamination at the other sites also posed a risk of leaching down into the groundwater. Lazy R sued Exxon for an injunction to require Exxon to take sufficient steps to prevent further spread of the contamination into the subsurface and groundwater.

The trial court ruled that the Ranch had waited too long to sue and dismissed its claims. The El Paso Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute of limitations does not apply because the Ranch is only suing for an injunction to require Exxon to abate a continuing nuisance, the spread of hydrocarbon contamination into the subsurface.

Continue reading →