Michael Szymanski

Author: Michael Szymanski

Michael’s main practice is litigation with a specific emphasis on oil and gas issues. Prior to joining McGinnis Lochridge, Michael worked as a geophysicist for over three years for a major seismic reprocessing company. Later, while attending law school, Michael worked full-time in the Land Department of an oil and gas company as a Lease Analyst, processing and monitoring more than $15 million of annual company drilling projects in the company’s South Texas and Wyoming assets. Michael’s substantive background in the oil and gas industry is invaluable in oil and gas related litigation.

15Jun

Appellate Court Holds that “Shall Not Affect” and “Other Benefits” Language Reserved the Entirety of Royalty Interest

Posted by: Austin Brister and Michael Szymanski in Case Law Update

WTX Fund, LLC v. Brown, No. 08-17-00104-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 94 (Tex. App.—El Paso Jan. 8, 2020, pet. filed)

In WTX Fund v. Brown, the El Paso Court of Appeals reviewed a dispute as to whether language in a 1951 mineral deed was sufficient to reserve a royalty interest in whole or in part. That issue turned largely on the meaning of the phrases “shall not affect” and “benefits.” Ultimately, the El Paso Court of Appeals held that, under the holistic four-corners approach, the proper interpretation was that the deed reserved the entirety of the grantor’s royalty interest.

11Jun

Texas Supreme Court Holds that Assignment Conveyed Entire Lease Interest, Not Merely A Wellbore Interest

Posted by: Jordan Mullins and Michael Szymanski in Case Law Update

Piranha Partners v. Neuhoff, No. 18-0581, 63 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 474, 2020 Tex. LEXIS 136 (Tex. Feb. 21, 2020)

Where parties assign an interest in a lease with a single existing well, disputes can sometimes arise when the leasehold is further developed. Was the parties’ intent for the assignment to be limited to that single wellbore or did it also include production from later-drilled wells? The Texas Supreme Court reviewed a dispute as to whether an assignment of an overriding royalty interest conveyed an interest limited to an entire lease, a single well, or to the lands identified in the assignment.

8Jun

Appellate Court Holds that “Blanket Easement” for Multiple Pipelines Did Not Require Single Route Across Property

Posted by: Austin Brister and Michael Szymanski in Case Law Update

Atmos Energy Corp. v. Paul, No. 02-19-00042-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 1926 (Tex.App.-Ft. Worth, Mar. 5, 2020, no pet.)

In this case the Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that a “blanket easement” for multiple pipelines did not require the grantee to lay the additional pipelines along the same route as the initial pipeline, but rather the grantee was permitted to lay the additional pipeline anywhere upon the entire tract so long as its location does not unreasonably interfere with grantor’s property rights.