In a watershed ruling, the El Paso Court of Appeals extends "waste" liability under the Nat. Res. Code to commercial disposal well operator—potentially increasing exposure for this critical wastewater industry—while preserving the reasonably prudent operator defense.
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).
The Texas Supreme Court held that vague notations on shut-in royalty check receipts cannot modify unambiguous lease terms, confirming that each $50 payment secured a full year of constructive production regardless of check receipt language.
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?
