Know Your Rights - Texas Mineral Law


Know Your Rights - Texas Mineral Law

Place to discuss and learn about oil and gas legal issues in Texas.

Members: 158
Latest Activity: Oct 23, 2023

The information in this group is not intended as legal advice but to provide a general understanding of the law. Readers with legal problems, including those whose questions are addressed here, should consult attorneys for advice on their particular circumstances.

Discussion Forum

Can operator leave adubu out Texas Well plat 33 Replies

In Texas operator has plat for H shale well. The Plat is perfect Rectangular for better N/S lateral. They cut a 24 acres off a  tract  that deep rights control by another operator that will not deal with operator drilling new unit. These 24 acres…Continue

Started by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant. Last reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant Jul 20, 2013.

Looking for O&G attorney in Tyler area 7 Replies

I'm looking for a reasonably priced Oil & Gas or Real Estate attorney to help me with a mineral ownership issue. The minerals are in Smith county so I was looking for someone in the Tyler area. I cant spend a lot of money as the mineral interest…Continue

Started by Dave. Last reply by cccogml Jul 18, 2013.

Texas HB100 Forced pooling bill very bad for Texas mineral owners 32 Replies

REQUEST YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE OPPOSE HB100.The Forced Unitization Bill, HB 100, has been set for a hearing at the House Energy Resources Committee this Wednesday, March 13.  This is an extraordinarily bad bill for landowners and mineral interest…Continue

Started by intrepid. Last reply by adubu Mar 12, 2013.

Lease Language for Texas 3 Replies

I am trying to help my elderly aunt, who has  1 acre of mineral rights which is in an undivided interest of a 40 acre tract in Texas within the Haynesville shale. All the other relatives who have mineral rights in the 40 acres have signed the lease,…Continue

Started by Boomer. Last reply by Ben Elmore Jul 13, 2012.

Production Sharing Agreement 5 Replies

Panola County -We are being encouraged to sign a Production Sharing Agreement by Anadarko that will effect our minerals in Panola County in order to drill a Horizontal Haynseville Shale Well (these minerals have been HBP since the 40's with a 1/8…Continue

Started by C_Willi. Last reply by Ben Elmore Jul 11, 2012.

How long can a operator hold lease after older well is shut-in? Question for Ben or anyone 14 Replies

A James Lime Well in East Texas drilled and produced for 9 years so HBP a 600 acre lease with this one well--- Well made < 150 mmcf of the 9 years and last production about 1500 mcf in month ~50 mcfd --- CHK came in and removed everythink off pad…Continue

Started by adubu. Last reply by Ben Elmore Jun 11, 2012.

Length of time to prepare division orders? 11 Replies

Hello - Evidently we had a producing well drilled in some minerals that we own.  It was completed in May but we still have not received any DO.  How long does it usually take?  Is there a statutory limit on how long it can take? Thanks in advance…Continue

Started by Montana Slim. Last reply by Ben Elmore Mar 26, 2012.

Carried Working Interest in Texas 5 Replies

Here’s a hypothetical situation. Suppose there is a 90-acre undivided tract which is 2/3 leased ... with 1/3 holding out (30 net mineral acres). One operator has all the surrounding property leased ... and pools the 90 acres into a 360-acre pool ...…Continue

Started by Ray. Last reply by Ben Elmore Feb 17, 2012.

Comment Wall

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Know Your Rights - Texas Mineral Law to add comments!

Comment by intrepid on March 10, 2013 at 6:03
Alert: Texas mineral owners need to contact your State Representatives and Senators now and tell them to OPPOSE HB 100 Ns the identical companion SB 136. These Forced Pooling bills restrict your rights in leasing and controlling your mineral rights. Please review: for more information. Please take action NOW. HB100 is up for a committee hearing on Wednesday March 13 in House Energy Resources Committee.
Comment by Ben Elmore on June 6, 2011 at 8:49
Sorry Buddy, I have been on vacation.  That is correct.  Thought the court did not specifically say this, by continuing to pay royalty, the oil company was limited to adverse possession of the leasehold estate.  If the company produced the wells and never paid royalty for the applicable limitaitons period, they would have been able to claim adverse possession of the entire mineral estate.  In reality, the adverse possession was raised only as an alternative defense to the lessors' claim that the lease terminated; i.e., the company's primary argument was the lease did not actually terminate, but even if it had, the company had nevertheless adversely possessed the leasehold estate. 
Comment by Buddy Cotten on May 28, 2011 at 17:48

Dear Ben,


Beg Pardon.  The Pool Case.  I do not know where my mind was.  I was thinking Pool and typed Parks.


NGPL v Pool 124 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. 2003).


To me it was a bewildering decision on the application of adverse possession to severed mineral interests.


What I got out of the case was that if there was a lease in place and you paid royalties, even though the lease had terminated, you in effect had adversely possessed the leasehold estate rather than the mineral estate.


Is that about right?






I am sure there are some progeny cases out there as well

Comment by Ben Elmore on May 24, 2011 at 3:21

Which Parks case?  What is the full cite? 

The Sheppard case is a ridiculously bad decision that misapplies Texas law.  We are stuck with it for now.  Given its holding, there is really not much you can put in a lease to protect from its result, other than a clause stating that its holding does not apply.  Start with that.  I have a similar clause relating to the Heritage Resources v. Nationsbank holding that nullifies the cost free royalty clause.    Other than that I'm not sure what you can do. 

The cross-conveyance issue was not determinative according to the court of appeals, since the Sheppard lease included a clause that pooling would not effect a cross-conveyance.  I don't recall the Supreme COurt really addressing the issue at all, as it relied instead on the pooling agreement that Sheppard was not even a party to.  Under Sheppard, the unit remains valid and binding on the lands previously covered by the terminated lease regardless of the cross-conveyance issue.


I think the best bet is to include a clause that Sheppard does not apply.  Parties can contractually agree to anything they want.  Getting a company to agree to that is the hurdle.

Comment by Buddy Cotten on May 23, 2011 at 9:42

Dear Ben,


What is your take on the Parks case where the lessee adversely possessed the leasehold estate?


Also, with the Sheppard case holding that the expired lease does not kill the unit, do not you agree that the lease form itself should provide a remedy for leases which have ipso facto expired and are unreleased, creating an unmarketable title?


The implication on the Sheppard Case to me is that the unit is potentially valid until dissolved, since there is a cross conveyance of minerals/leasehold.



Buddy Cotten

Comment by Ben Elmore on May 23, 2011 at 7:29
I think it is a good idea and it can also serve as protection if the lessee trys to come back down the road and argue the lessor somehow revived the lease or the lessee tries to claim adverse possession in some manner.
Comment by adubu on May 22, 2011 at 11:41
Ben--Should you always request Lessee file release when you lease expires without any activity during time minerals leased? Other than making it easy for landsman to find that your minerals are avaiable to lease and not HBP is there any other legal reason to have release filed?
Comment by jffree1 on April 18, 2011 at 14:53
Comment by intrepid on April 5, 2011 at 17:42
Great topics and discussions!
Comment by Ben Elmore on March 9, 2011 at 12:12
Sherry, I created a discussion topic and posted your question in there to make it easier to keep all replies and comments related to your topic in one place.  Discussion title is "Question re: Mineral Title"

Members (158)



Not a member? Get our email.


© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service