Know Your Rights - Texas Mineral Law

Thanks for creating this group, Ben.  It will be so helpful to have a "go to" place when searching for answers on Texas Mineral Law!

Ben, I want to add my thanks to Julie's.  This is a great thing you are willing to take your valuable time to do!  Again, thanks.

Adding my thanks too.  I appreciate you starting this group up.

Thanks for organizing this blog and group.

Thanks Ben. I wish this had been available before I signed my lease. I had never heard of the Haynesville Shale then. As they say, if I had only known then what I know now.   

Thanks Ben.  This group will be helpful to all of us mineral owners.

I totally agree with BTI, if we had known all this before we signed, mainly that deep minerals was never mentioned.

Ben, thanks for taking the time to answer questions, and I have one for you. I learned this week (from a landman) that our small unit has grown from 200+ acres to 900+ acres. Our royalties--if and when they come--will be pretty diluted. He said the RRC recommended the increase. Who is in charge of who?  

The RRC doesnt normally recommend unit sizes. The operator determines the size it wants and seeks approval ffom the RRC. There may be a legitimate basis for the increase. The operator certainly has the duty to drill sufficient wells to develop the entire unit so you might get more wells drilled. Without knowing the specifics I can't say much more. What type of well are we talking about? Do you know the well name and location?

Ben---Please correct me if I'm wrong---- does not the original drilling permit for new units #1 well have to fit state RRC minimal field rules i.e. say for Travis Peak well in Martinsville field Nacgodoches Texas requires minimal 40 acre spacing; therefore permit could be on 40 acre plat. This plat with permit is recorded on RRC site when permit applied for. Later operator can extend unit as long as minerals added are contiguous up to 640+-10% any larger requires State RRC ruling. The final unit size will be filed for record with county clerk's office and not required to place online with RRC so you must go to court house to find final unit plat, but if you are a mineral interest owner in the unit you can request copy of P-12 list, copy of plat from operator before you sign DO to be sure your decimal interest is correct

The RRC will need to know the revised unit size and will want a plat for purposes of it sregulation of spacong, assigning allowables, etc. So the amended P12 and plat are to be filed with the RRC.

Ben--Yes final plat it has to be filed with rrc -- but I think general public would have to go to court house for copy since at this time it's not on line for public view

True but at some point it will be online at the RRC.

Texas Mineral Rights..A landman contacted us in La about purchasing each of our parts of 12 acres. Actually they were wanting us to give up our mineral rights. No one agreed to all this because we did not know the land even existed or that it was a part of 124 acres that the owner???? leased out. He pd back taxes and says he owns the surface and all of us own the mineral rights on the 12 acres which is part of the 124. There was a lot of research to be done being we were mislead through the landmans letter to all of us. The land was not the issue the MIN RIGHTS were the issue. After a trip to Center Tex there was a well in the middle of our 12 acres. According to the RRc the horizontal well is on our 12 and 2 more wells further down. We contacted the landman, the owner and the well company. We were told no one wanted to sell. And no one told us anything about the wells. The drilling co said the well had been producing since Oct 2010 but no Royalties had been paid because they cannot get  a clear title. The owner told us we own the Mr and he owns the surface??? Yet we all have warranty deeds they wanted us to sign buying the surface from us. When finally they admitted we all own the Min Rights on that 12 acres. The land owners lawyer told us if we did not want to accept their offer to contact the drilling co. And we did. The drill co said they were so far behind. They would contact eventually with their own landman and we could provide proof of heirship. Now we do not know the Laws on MR in Texas. The landman said he would assure us there was money going in an acct for us somewhere. We would like to know what we should do next without having to hire an attorney. How do we know what this well is producing? How do we know all of this was leased legally, being the land owner turned in he was total owner of this acreage to lease it out yet they tried to buy it from us. Would we get paid on the royalties just on the 12 or for what ever is producing in that section leased? Should we do anything before or just wait on the Co. We have called the Royalty dept several times and they tell us the same thing. Working on a clear title. We need to know what this well is pumping?And where the money is what we have to do. Is there a time limit.

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"

Great topics and discussions!

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/pdf/HB02087H.pdf#...

 

Here's a link to the text of the bill. 

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?

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.

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.

 

Best,

Buddy Cotten

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.