Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog

Published on: August 11, 2014

Want to Buy a Ranch?

The 520,000-acre Waggoner Ranch is for sale for $725 million — about $1,400/acre. It is said to be the largest contiguous ranch in the U.S., and has been owned by the Waggoner family for more than 100 years.

Ownership of the Waggoner Ranch has been in litigation for more than 20 years. The suit was originally filed in 1991 by Electra Waggoner Biggs, one of the heirs, who died in 2001. Electra was a sculptor; her sculpture of Will Rogers on his horse Soap Suds is on the Texas Tech University campus.

The colorful history of the Waggoner family was documented in an article by Gary Cartwright in Texas Monthly in 2004. It’s a great read.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 7, 2014

Two Wins for Chesapeake in 5th Circuit

By John McFarland

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has ruled for Chesapeake in two cases, holding that it can deduct post-production costs from gas royalties. Potts v. Chesapeake Exploration, No. 13-10601, and Warren v. Chesapeake Exploration, No. 13-10619. Both cases were decided by the same three judges, and both opinions were written by Judge Priscilla R. Owen. In both cases, Judge Owen relied on the Texas Supreme Court case of Heritage Resources v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. 1996). Judge Owen was on the Texas Supreme Court when Heritage v. NationsBank was decided, and she wrote an opinion in that case. Judge Owen cites her own opinion in Heritage as the principal precedent for her opinions in Potts and Warren.

The Potts and Warren cases were tried in federal district court. Because Chesapeake’s home office is in Oklahoma, it has the right to remove suits filed against it in Texas to federal court. Federal courts have “diversity” jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different states. In diversity cases, federal courts must follow the law of the states. No federal law is involved. So, in deciding Potts and Warren, the 5th Circuit judges were attempting to predict what a Texas court would do, following prior precedent from Texas courts — in this case, Heritage v. NationsBank.

Heritage v. NationsBank is a seminal case in oil and gas law, some would say infamous. The question in Heritage was whether Heritage, the lessee, could deduct transportation costs for gas from royalties owed to NationsBank. NationsBank’s lease provided that royalties on gas would be “the market value at the well of 1/5 of the gas so sold or used, … provided, however, that there shall be no deductions from the value of the Lessor’s royalty by reason of any required processing, cost of dehydration, compression, transportation or other matter to market such gas.” The Texas Supreme Court held that Heritage could deduct transportation costs from NationsBank’s royalty. In her concurring opinion, Justice Owen said that the no-deductions proviso on NationsBank’s lease was “circular” and “meaningless”:

Continue reading →

Published on: July 30, 2014

New White Paper on Use of Water by Texas Exploration Industry

By John McFarland

The Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank, has published a draft white paper on the exploration industry’s use of water in Texas. The draft paper, “Sustainable Water Management in the Texas Oil and Gas Industry,” was written by John Tintera, of the Austin firm Sebree & Tintera. Tintera, formerly executive director of the Texas Railroad Commission, is now president of the Texas Water Recycling Association. The draft paper can be viewed here: DID264_1_073014.pdf. The Atlantic Council also has a white paper, “Produced Water: Asset or Waste?“, on its website.

Published on: July 29, 2014

Jimmy McAllen’s Judgment Against Forest Oil Affirmed

By John McFarland

Jimmy McAllen’s battle against Forest Oil has moved one step closer to conclusion. Last week the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals affirmed an arbitration award of more than $20 million against Forest Oil for environmental and other damages to the McAllen Ranch and personal injuries to Mr. McAllen.

The fight began in 2004, when McAllen sued Forest. He claimed that Forest had buried mercury-contaminated iron sponge wood chips on the 27,000-acre McAllen Ranch. The wood chips are waste from Forest’s gas plant on the Ranch. He also claimed that he had contracted cancer from pipe containing naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) that Forest had given him to build pens on his Santillana Ranch. The pens were built to house endangered rhinoceroses. McAllen contracted cancer that required amputation of his leg.

Forest responded that McAllen was bound by a prior settlement agreement that required him to arbitrate any claims arising out of Forest’s operations on his ranch. McAllen opposed arbitration. The trial court denied Forest’s motion to require arbitration, and the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals affirmed. Forest appealed to the Texas Supreme Court, which held that McAllen was bound by the arbitration agreement. Forest Oil v. McAllen, 268 S.W.3d 51 (Tex. 2008).

Continue reading →

Published on: July 23, 2014

Texas Railroad Commission Proposes New Rule on Authority of Pipelines to Condemn Private Property

By John McFarland

The Texas Railroad Commission has published a proposed rule that will change how pipelines are classified as “common carriers” and “gas utilities.” That classification determines whether pipelines can exercise the power of eminent domain — the power to condemn rights-of-way for pipelines.

In 2011, the Texas Supreme Court held in Texas Rice Land Partners v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC that the Railroad Commission’s method of classifying pipelines as common carriers and gas utilities was not sufficient to grant them eminent domain authority. The court held that, in order for a pipeline to have condemnation powers, it must serve a “public purpose,” and that in order for a pipeline to serve a public purpose, “a reasonable probability must exist, at or before the time common-carrier status is challenged, that the pipeline will serve the public by transporting gas for customers who will either retain ownership of their gas or sell it to parties other than the carrier.” Once a landowner challenges its status as a common carrier, “the burden falls upon the pipeline company to establish its common-carrier bona fides if it wishes to exercise the power of eminent domain.” The court held that the RRC’s policy of classifying pipelines as common carriers or gas utilities based solely on the pipelines’ checking of a box on a form filed with the RRC was not sufficient to establish the public purpose of the line.

Since Denbury, the pipeline industry has struggled to find a way to efficiently establish pipelines’ common-carrier status without having to litigate the issue with every landowner it wants to cross over. Initially the industry sought legislation authorizing the RRC to have one hearing to establish that a proposed new line will in fact qualify for common-carrier status. Under the bill, that determination would then be binding on all landowners whose property will be crossed by the pipeline. Those landowners would be given the opportunity to participate in the hearings; notice of the hearings would be given by publication in local newspapers. The Texas Farm Bureau, the forestry industry, and other landowner groups opposed the bill. Most major oil and gas associations favored the bill. The bill never made it out of committee.

Continue reading →

Published on: July 16, 2014

More About “Allocation Wells”

By John McFarland

Mike McElroy of the Austin firm McElroy, Sullivan, Miller, Weber & Olmstead, has written an article in the Section Report of the Oil, Gas & Energy Resources Law (Spring 2014), titled “Production Allocation: Looking for a Basis for Discrimination,” defending the practice of oil and gas operators’ drilling of “allocation wells.” The term “allocation well” has come to be used by staff at the Texas Railroad Commission and by the industry to refer to a horizontal well that is drilled across lease lines without pooling the tracts on which the well is located. Mike argues that the RRC has authority to issue allocation well permits and that a standard oil and gas lease, with or without a pooling clause, authorizes the lessee to drill allocation wells.

This firm represented the complaining party in the Klotzman case, in which we argued that the RRC has no authority to issue allocation well permits and that the drilling of an allocation well violates the terms of a typical oil and gas lease unless the lease expressly grants such authority. So, below is a rebuttal to some of the points made by Mike McElroy in his article.

Mike says that “Lessors and their lawyers see horizontal drilling and production allocation as opportunities to amend (re-trade) old leases.” The question that must be asked is, does the lease authorize the lessee to drill an allocation well? If the answer is no, then the lessee must obtain an amendment of the lease to drill the well. The lessor may bargain for consideration in exchange for granting the lessee the right to drill the well. If the answer is yes, as Mike argues, then the lessee needs no agreement from the lessor to drill the well.

Continue reading →

Published on: July 9, 2014

The Declining Cost of Solar Energy

By John McFarland

Austin Energy, the City of Austin’s municipally owned electric utility, recently announced a deal with Recurrent Energy to buy up to 150 megawatts of electricity from a solar farm to be constructed by Recurrent in West Texas, at 5 cents per kilowatt hour, guaranteed for 20 years. Austin Energy is the nation’s 8th-largest municipal utility. As reported in the Austin Chronicle, the deal means that Austin Energy could reach its goal of 200 megawatts of solar power by 2020 well ahead of schedule. Austin Energy has its own solar farm in Webberville that can generate up to 30 megawatts. Austin Energy’s current plans provide for increased reliance on renewable energy sources:

Austin Energy.JPG

The cost of solar electricity has now become competitive with other fuels — although still with support from tax credits. Austin Energy’s estimate of its fuel costs:

Wind (West Texas): 2.6-6.1 cents/kWh

Continue reading →

Published on: July 7, 2014

Texas and the EPA

By John McFarland

The State of Texas and the EPA have been at loggerheads on energy policy and federal regulation for some time. The latest blast from Texas comes in response to the EPA’s new proposed regulations to limit carbon emissions from power plants. On June 2, the EPA published proposed rules that would require states to develop a program to reduce their carbon emissions. Under the proposed rules, each state is given a target for emissions reductions by 2030. Texas’ target: to reduce carbon emissions from power plants by 38 percent by 2030. States are given broad flexibility in how to achieve their assigned target.

Texas emitted 656 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2011, nearly twice as much as California, and about 12 percent of the nation’s total. Power plants in Texas emit about 40 percent of Texas’ carbon dioxide. Texas generates more electricity than any other state, and a large portion of that comes from coal plants.

EPA measures states’ emissions of carbon dioxide in pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of electricity produced. Texas emits about 1,284 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of electricity produced. More than 30 other states emit more carbon per megawatt-hour than Texas. Under EPA’s proposal, 13 other states must make a larger percentage reduction in emissions per megawatt-hour than Texas, including Washington, Oregon and New York.

Continue reading →

Published on: July 2, 2014

Texas Railroad Commission’s New GIS Viewer Up and Running

By John McFarland

In the last legislative session, the Texas Legislature gave the Texas Railroad Commission money to upgrade its website. The RRC’s new GIS Viewer is now available for use. http://wwwgisp.rrc.state.tx.us/GISViewer2/ This map-based access to RRC information on wells, pipelines and records makes it much easier for the public to access RRC records.

One of its tasks that the RRC does well is provide easy access to its records. It has always been one of the most open and accessible regulatory agencies in the state, and it goes to great lengths to make its records easily available to the public. Its new GIS Viewer greatly enhances this capability.

There is as yet no tutorial on how to use the new Viewer, but if you play with it for a while, you will see how easy it is to use. When you open it, you see a map of the State, with the RRC’ district boundaries shown.

Continue reading →

Published on: June 26, 2014

Amarillo Court of Appeals Refuses to Apply Accommodation Doctrine to Groundwater

By John McFarland

Last week, the Amarillo Court of Appeals issued its opinion inn City of Lubbock v. Coyote Lake Ranch, LLC, No. 07-14-00006-CV, holding that the accommodation doctrine did not apply to restrict the City’s use of Coyote’s land to develop the City’s groundwater under the land.

In 1953, the City of Lubbock bought the rights to groundwater under the land now owned by Coyote Lake Ranch. In that deed, the City acquired all groundwater rights, and “the full and exclusive rights of ingress and egress in, over and on said lands so that the Grantee of said water rights may at any time and location drill water wells and test wells on said lands for the purpose of investigating, exploring, producing, and getting access to percolating and underground water.” The deed granted the right to lay water lines, build reservoirs, booster stations, houses for employees, and roads, “together with the rights to use all that part of said lands necessary or incidental to the taking of percolating and underground water and the production, treating and transmission of water therefrom and delivery of said water to the water system of the City of Lubbock only.”

In 2012, the City proposed a well field plan for the property and began testing and development under that plan. Coyote sued, asking for a temporary injunction to halt the City’s activity. Coyote claimed that the City failed to accommodate Coyote’s existing uses of the property (the opinion does not say what those uses are), and that the City could use alternatives that would lessen damage to Coyote’s use of the land. The trial court granted the temporary injunction, holding that Coyote was likely to be able to show at trial that the City’s plan could be “accomplished through reasonable alternative means that do not unreasonably interfere with [Coyote’s] current uses.” The City appealed from that order.

Continue reading →