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 Fort Worth Court of Appeals held that the “strip and gore doctrine” applied to a 1984 conveyance of 76 acres, causing the conveyance to also include a severed mineral interest underlying an adjacent 8.25-acre strip of land.
In Burlington Resources, the Texas Supreme Court held that an oil and gas royalty assignment that required the royalty to be delivered “into the pipeline” permits the payor to deduct post-production costs from the royalty owners’ payment, even if the agreement purports to prohibit such a deduction.
On June 28, 2019, a divided Texas Supreme Court issued its opinion in Barrow-Shaver Resources Company v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, LLC, a decision that will impact what evidence a court can consider in oil and gas contract disputes and possibly how oil and gas agreements are negotiated and drafted.
In his article published in Law360, Don Jackson examined the key issue in Briggs v. Southwestern Energy Prod. Co., currently pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
On January 18, 2017, in Ring Energy v. Trey Resources, Inc.,[1] the El Paso Court of Appeals, in a case of first impression, addressed whether a trial court outside of Travis County...
