Mose Buchele has written a series of articles, also aired on KUT, about the pipeline industry’s failed efforts to make it easier for pipelines to exercise the power of eminent domain after the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Tex., LLC, 363 S.W.3d 192, 198 (Tex. 2012), about which I have written previously. Good reading. Links are below.
Last week I presented a paper at the Texas State Bar Advanced Real Estate CLE Conference for attorneys in San Antonio. I was asked to write a paper giving real estate attorneys a basic introduction to negotiating oil and gas leases. It might seem odd that real estate attorneys would want a primer on oil and gas leases; most people would assume that an attorney practicing real estate law in Texas would know about oil and gas leasing. And that used to be true, when the majority of attorneys had a rural general practice. General practitioners in Texas knew the basics of real estate and oil and gas law and often helped their landowner clients negotiate leases. Today, most real estate attorneys have little to do with oil and gas matters, and as practices have become more specialized the oil and gas specialty has diverged from the real estate specialty.
I was given thirty minutes to make my presentation – hardly enough time to do justice to the subject of oil and gas leases. The exercise of preparing my remarks caused me to focus on some basic concepts that I’ve not recently thought about, and I decided they would make a good topic for discussion here.
The oil and gas lease is in many ways a unique form of contract. It is the foundation of the oil and gas industry in the U.S. Because most minerals in the U.S. — unlike most of the world — are privately owned, some way had to be found for those willing to risk capital to exploit oil and gas to obtain rights to those resources. The oil and gas lease was the result. In its basic form, the oil and gas lease has remained unchanged since the early days of the industry.
There has been a lot of discussion lately about the demand on groundwater from its use to hydraulically fracture wells, and possible contamination of wells by hydraulic fracturing and improper completion of wells.
Air Products and Chemicals is promoting the use of nitrogen foam instead of water in fracking in shallower formations.
http://www.cryogas.com/pdf/Link_Nitrogen%20Fracs_Water_Air%20Products.pdf
Colleen Schreiber has written an excellent article in the June 13 edition of Livestock Weekly, “Landowners Hold Off Oil and Gas Lobby on Common Carrier Bills,” describing the blow-by-blow negotiations and lobbying in the pipeline industry’s efforts to “solve” the problems created by the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Tex. Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Tex., LLC, 363 S.W.3d 192, 198 (Tex. 2012).
Lined up on one side: pipeline lobbyists supporting bills by Rep. Tryon Lewis, R. Odessa, in the House, and Robert Duncan, R. Lubbock, in the Senate, including the powerful Koch brothers, owners of Koch Enterprises.
On the other side: Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, Texas Farm Bureau, Texas Land and Mineral Owners’ Association, the Bass family, and plaintiffs’ lawyers.
The examiners who heard the Klotzmans’ protest of EOG Resources’ application for an allocation well permit have issued their Proposal for Decision in the case. A copy of the PFD can be viewed here: 2013-06-25 PFD EOG Klotzman (2).pdf Our firm represents the protestants in the case. For my prior discussion of the case and allocation well permits, see here and here and here. The parties now have until July 10 to file exceptions to the proposal, and replies to exceptions are due within 10 days thereafter. After that, if no changes to the PFD are made, it will go before the Railroad Commissioners for their decision.
Last Friday, the Texas Supreme Court affirmed judgment in favor of XTO in its battle with Homer Merriman over whether XTO’s well should have been moved so as to accommodate his cattle-working operation.
I wrote about this case when the Supreme Court decided to hear it. Mr. Merriman owns 40 acres in Limestone County. When he bought the land, the seller reserved the mineral estate and the land was then subject to an oil and gas lease. Merriman built his home on the land. Although he works full-time as a pharmacist, Merriman also runs cattle. He leases land in Limestone County for grazing, and once a year he uses his 40 acres to round up and work his cattle, with portable pens that are assembled for the operation and then taken down. The rest of the year he grazes cattle on the 40 acres, where he also lives.
In 2007, XTO Energy approached Mr. Merriman and told him it intended to drill a well on his tract. Merriman objected to the proposed well location, arguing that it would prevent him from using the 40 acres for his cattle working operations. XTO discussed with Merriman moving the location to the southwest corner of his tract, where Merriman said it would be acceptable, but XTO ultimately decided not to accommodate Merriman’s request. Merriman then sued XTO seeking an injunction to prevent the drilling of the well at its chosen location. Despite the suit, XTO drilled the well. The trial court granted summary judgment for XTO, and the Waco Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Merriman “has alternative uses of his land that are not impracticable or unreasonable. Merriman further has alternative methods of conducting his cattle operation [on other lands] that are not impracticable or unreasonable.”
Terrence Henry, a writer for StateImpact Texas, has written a recent article, “Why Oil and Gas Lobbyists Were Big Spenders in Texas.” He analyzes two reports on spending on lobbyists and campaigns compiled by Texans for Public Justice. Lobbyists for energy and natural resources companies spent between $31.4 million and $62.5 million on lobbyists during the most recent legislative session, according to the report, 19% of the total of between $155 million and $328 million spent on the session. Incredible numbers. There are no limits on such spending in Texas.
Texas Railroad Commissioners were big beneficiaries of both campaign contributions and lobbying by oil and gas interests. Sunset-recommended reforms of the Commission, opposed by the Commissioners, failed to pass once again. The only RRC-related reform that did pass (but which the Governor has vetoed) was a requirement that a commissioner resign if he/she decides to run for another office. Andrew Wheat, a researcher at Texans for Public Justice, says that’s because the oil and gas industry supported that measure: “The [oil and gas industry] is interested in paying their bills while they’re commissioners. But they don’t want to pony up huge amounts of money every time one of these people wants to run for higher office.”
One important bill supported by the energy industry did not pass. It would have limited public participation in hearings at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in applications for emissions permits. The bill was opposed by communities and environmental groups. And pipeline companies’ bills to make it easier for them to exercise the power of eminent domain to condemn pipeline easements also failed to pass.
A friend recently made me aware of a publication by the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M called “Mineral Law West of the Pecos,” written by Judon Fambrough, a lawyer who is with the Center. Judon has written much good stuff about land and mineral law in Texas, and this publication is no exception. (The Center has many good articles and publications on its website of interest to land and mineral owners.) Judon’s article contains a good summary of the history of land grants in West Texas, mineral reservations, the Relinquishment Act and “mineral-classified” land, what constitutes a “mineral,” and recent litigation over State ownership of minerals in West Texas. His article is well written and informative and should be in every oil and gas lawyer’s library. The law of Texas land grants in West Texas (and South Texas) is complex and fascinating.
Judon provides this link to maps online at the Texas General Land Office, which show tracts in West Texas subject to any mineral classification or reservation by the State:
The session is over, and the Texas legislature has failed once again to pass sunset legislation for the Texas Railroad Commission. The legislature instead authorized continuation of the RRC for another four years, with sunset review to be repeated in the 2017 legislative session.
Under Texas sunset act, every state agency must go through a comprehensive review of its functions and performance every twelve years by the Sunset Advisory Commission, a 12-member commission appointed by the Lieutenant Governor and the Speaker of the House. The RRC underwent sunset review in 2010; the report of the Sunset Advisory Commission at that time criticized the agency for failing to vigorously enforce its rules and assess penalties for rule violations, and recommended structural reforms of the agency, including replacement of the three elected commissioners with a single appointed commissioner. But the legislature failed to pass any legislation recommended by the Commission, instead requiring that sunset review be repeated for its 2013 session.
The 2012 Sunset Commission report no longer recommended replacing the three elected commissioners with an appointed commissioner. Instead, it recommended ethics reforms, including limiting the time when commissioners could solicit campaign contributions and prohibiting commissioners from accepting contributions from any company with a contested case pending before the RRC. It also required a commissioner running for a different elective office to resign from the RRC. The commissioners vigorously opposed these recommendations and the legislation introduced to enact the reforms.
A recent article in the New York Times highlights the difference between “oil,” or “owal” as we say in Texas, and the heavy crude oil mined from Canadian tar sands. A major waste product of that mining is coke. The tarry substance mined in Canada goes through an initial refining process to separate the crude from tarlike bitumen, caled “coking.” The tarry solid left from the process is called coke. It can be burned, and is an essential ingredient in making steel. The coke created from Canadian tar sands has a high sulfur content. Some of the Canadian tar sands are now being coked in a refinery in Detroit owned by Marathon Petroleum, and the coke by-product is sold to Koch Carbon, owned by Charles and David Koch. (I’m not making this up.) The Koch brothers have recently been in the news for considering an offer to buy the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune. They are also famous for supporting conservative and libertarian political causes.
Here is the picture from the NYT article showing the stockpile of coke along the Detroit River belonging to the Kochs:
The crude oil generated by the coking process is the oil that is supposed to go through the Keystone pipeline running from Canada to the Texas coast, if that pipeline ever gets regulatory approval. According to the NYT article, Canada has 79.8 million tons of coke stockpiled. Efforts are underway to export Canadian coke to China and Mexico as a fuel. California, which also produces heavy crude that has to be coked, exports about 128,000 barrels of coke per day, mostly to China. The EPA does not permit it to be burned in the US. The Oxbow Corporation, owned by William I. Koch (a brother of David and Charles), is one of the world’s larges dealers in petroleum coke, selling about 11 million tons a year.
