M & M Res., Inc. v. DSTJ, LLP, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 9331 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 2018, no pet.)

Plaintiffs in title disputes sometimes will allege a claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act in order to seek attorneys’ fees. In this case, the court held that the claim could only be asserted as a trespass to try title claim, where attorneys’ fees are not recoverable.

Here, an oil and gas company hired landmen to acquire oil and gas leases in Jefferson County. Landmen acquired 22 leases and assigned them to the oil and gas company using a form that included an overriding royalty reservation and a provision indicating the assignment would terminate upon any late royalty payments. The landmen allegedly recorded the assignment without giving the oil and company an opportunity to review or approve the form. Years later, the landmen claimed royalty payments were untimely and sought termination of the assignment. The landmen claimed that, even though the oil and gas company had not reviewed or accepted the assignment, it ratified the assignment by its conduct.

Yates Energy Corp. v. Broadway Nat’l Bank, No. 04-17-00310-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 10517 (App.—San Antonio Dec. 19, 2018, no pet.)

The San Antonio Court of Appeals recently analyzed the Texas Correction-Instrument Statutes in Yates v. Broadway. The court held that, if a grantor or grantee have conveyed their interests to heirs, successors, or assigns, then those heirs, successors, or assigns must sign a correction instrument in order for it to effectively correct the original instrument. For many practitioners, this was the expected outcome; however, the case provides an interesting example of complexities that can be involved when attempting to correct an instrument years after it is executed.

Endeavor Energy Res., L.P. v. Energen Res. Corp., No. 11-17-00028-CV, 2018; Tex. App. LEXIS 8705 (Tex.App.—Eastland Oct. 25, 2018, pet. filed)

The Eastland Court of Appeals recently issued its opinion in Endeavor v. Energen adopting a limited interpretation of an “accumulation” clause within a continuous development provision. The Court held that the clause only allowed the lessee to extend the “next” 150-day term, not to be accumulated and used on any well.

Apache Deepwater, LLC v. Double Eagle Dev., LLC, 557 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2017, pet. denied Dec. 14, 2018)

Retained acreage provisions continue to be a popular subject in Texas oil and gas law. The Texas Supreme Court recently denied a petition for review in the closely-watched case, Apache v. Double Eagle. In that case, the parties disagreed as to whether a retained acreage clause provided for a single partial termination at the end of the primary term (i.e., a “snapshot-in-time” termination), or a continuous partial release throughout the secondary term (i.e., “rolling termination”). This case bolsters the old adage: “say what you mean and mean what you say.” Texas courts will not fill in the blank otherwise.

Green v. Chesapeake Expl., L.L.C., No. 02-17-00405-CV, 2018 Tex.; App. LEXIS 10307 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Dec. 13, 2018, no pet.)

In urban oil and gas plays such as the Barnett Shale, horizontal drilling has “paved the way” for oil and gas operators to drill through and produce minerals underlying highways, streets, and roadways. Even in rural areas across Texas, after help has been used to get mineral rights, numerous horizontal wells have been drilled underneath roads and highways. As a result, several reported cases in recent years have involved title to minerals underlying roadways. Landmen of the vertical era may have paid little attention to mineral title underlying roadway tracts. After all, one option may have been simply to drill the vertical well next to the road or to omit the roadway tract from the unit. However, horizontal drilling significantly altered this analysis, as geological implications and long horizontal laterals may dictate that the horizontal wellbore pass under the roadway, significantly increasing the odds that a roadway tract will be a “drillsite tract.” The result is that mineral title and pooling issues are more likely of critical concern.

OBO, Inc. v. Apache Corp., 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 8392,
(Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.)

Parties to a joint operating agreement sometimes elect to have a non-owner serve as the operator. For example, interest owners may determine that they are unwilling or unable to perform the operator duties under the operating agreement, and will instead elect hire an unaffiliated contract operator. However, placing a non-owner in the position of operator is problematic for a number of reasons. For example, most model form operating agreements either directly or indirectly indicate that ownership is a condition precedent to serving as operator. Moreover, numerous obligations, protections, and other provisions of model form operating agreements may become confusing, unworkable, or even meaningless when applied to a non-owning operator.

Some of those issues are illustrated by the recent case OBO, Inc. v. Apache, involving the American Petroleum Institute’s Model Form Unit Agreement and Model Form Unit Operating Agreement. In that case, the Houston 14th District Court of Appeals was faced with determining whether an elected Unit Operator is permitted to delegate operatorship duties to a contract operator, and whether that contract operator can be liable to nonoperators for breach of any duties imposed on the operator under that Unit Operating Agreement.

Three recent Texas cases have focused on the interpretation of express offset provisions in oil and gas leases.  Over the last year, the Texas oil and gas industry has experienced what some commentators have called “Shale Boom 2.0,” with increased drilling activity in South Texas and the Permian Basin, leading to some marketing bottlenecks and spikes in the number of drilled but uncompleted wells.

Whatever the cause, at least three reported appellate cases in the last 18 months have focused on the construction of express offset clauses in oil and gas leases.  Oil and gas landmen and lawyers alike should take note of these decisions, as they each underscore that Texas courts do not interpret oil and gas leases merely by reference to the industry’s general rules, but instead on a careful analysis of the actual language used by the parties in the lease.  And as one recent case illustrates, the “surrounding circumstances” of the shale boom might lead to results some would not expect.