Place to discuss and learn about oil and gas legal issues in Texas.
Latest Activity: on Wednesday
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Add a Comment
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
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.
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.
Here's a link to the text of the bill.
© 2023 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher). Powered by
You need to be a member of Know Your Rights - Texas Mineral Law to add comments!