Mineral owners are often subject to general oil and gas lease forms that include provisions benefitting the surface estate. But, when they own no interest in the surface, who, if anyone, has the right to enforce those provisions?
Winter Storm Uri sent shockwaves through Texas, freezing gas supplies at a time of critical need and plunging the state into widespread power outages. In the aftermath, the courts have been flooded with force majeure claims, many of them hinging on widely used contracts like the NAESB model form.
Assignments of oil and gas leases often consist of broad and abstract granting clause in the body, which then points to an exhibit for a listing of the specific interests being assigned, and it is not uncommon for...
The issue in this case was whether South Texas Pipelines LLC (“STX”), a subsidiary of Enterprise Products Partners L.P., had the power of eminent domain to condemn an easement across the appellants’ (“Landowners”) land for a new pipeline to transport polymer grade propylene (PGP).
In this case, the Texas Supreme Court affirmed the Railroad Commission’s rejection of 16 applications to force pool a narrow winding tract of riverbed minerals with neighboring horizontal wells pursuant to the Texas Mineral Interest Pooling Act (“MIPA”).
What happens when language in the body of an assignment of oil and gas interests conflicts with descriptions in the exhibits? Can limitations in the exhibit, such as depth references, supersede the operative granting language in the body of an agreement?
