In a landmark oil and gas ruling, the Texas Business Court held that only cases filed on or after Sept. 1, 2024, may be removed under H.B. 19, rejecting retroactive application and clarifying the statute’s prospective scope.
A non-operator waived its right to compel arbitration under a JOA by litigating the merits for nearly four years and moving to compel arbitration just a month before trial in a JIB payment dispute with the operator.
The current answer to this question is no. In R.R. Comm’n of Tex. v. Opiela, the Austin Court of Appeals concluded that PSA/allocation wells are not the same as pooling under Texas law.
In this recent case, the Eastland Court of Appeals considered whether a gathering and processing agreement’s dedication provisions were void under the statute of frauds and whether broad contractual damage waivers barred recovery of both direct and indirect lost profits.
The court held that approving a drilling zone on non-city land didn't violate Local Gov’t Code § 253.005(c), which only applies to municipal leases. It also found the City Council has authority under the Unified Development Code to adjust drilling zones for public welfare.
A lessee under 16 non-standard leases resumed production after a brief pause without drilling or reworking. The court held the leases didn't terminate due to the continuous development clause and interpreted the habendum clause as allowing production to resume without new operations.
