Texas Attorney Blog

As a Texas oil and gas lawyer, I have followed with interest the proposals to add new regulations for onshore, as well as offshore, drilling in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Several initiatives to tighten federal regulation of offshore drilling are making their way through the halls of Congress. These bills are perhaps inevitable, considering the magnitude of the spill, the confused federal and BP response to the spill and the adverse public reaction to both the spill and the subsequent mitigation and clean up efforts. At the same time, however, environmental groups and some in Congress are using the push for new offshore drilling regulations to call for tighter federal rules for onshore oil and gas drilling. These new regulations are designed to make it more difficult for oil and gas companies to start drilling in the first place, and to more closely monitor their post-drilling operations for alleged threats to public health and the environment.

It's perhaps a little too simplistic to blame the BP spill for the new regulatory push onshore. Given the Obama administration's stated goals of favoring alternative energy and the environment over the pro-drilling energy policies of the Bush administration, perhaps new regulations were inevitable. But the debate appears to have taken on greater urgency in some quarters. As Kevin Book of Clear View Energy Partners says (referring to shale drilling), “the perception of risk has changed, and the reason for it can be summed up in one word—Macondo.”

The first signal of new regulations to come surfaced in May, when Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced tighter regulations for oil and gas drilling on public lands. These new rules make it much more difficult for oil and gas companies to obtain drilling approval, and drilling on certain public lands would require a period of public comment. While environmental groups praised the regulations as reversing the allegedly destructive Bush administration drilling policies, the Independent Petroleum Association of the Mountain States (now the Western Energy Alliance) stated in a press release that the new rules would “delay the development of clean, domestic natural gas on Western federal lands.”

The desire for tighter regulations focused Congress' attention on two bills introduced over a year ago. One, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources Act (the CLEAR Act), passed the House on July 30, 2010 and went to the Senate. Among other things, the bill requires oil and gas companies engaged in drilling on federal lands to adopt “best management practices” designed to minimize threats to health and the environment; requires public disclosure of the chemicals used in drilling or hydraulic fracturing (often referred to as "fracing" in the oil industry or "fracking" by the media); and repeals 2005 legislation allowing companies to drill on public lands without a full environmental review process. Another bill, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (the FRAC Act), originally introduced last summer, specifically targets the practice of hydraulic fracturing by removing the exemption of the practice from regulation by the EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This bill and a companion bill introduced at the same time in the Senate have never come up for a vote. Similar language was stripped from the CLEAR Act, but the Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act, introduced in the the Senate by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would require companies to make their fracing formulas public on the Internet.

While the ultimate fate of all these bills has yet to be determined, these initial efforts to increase federal regulation of onshore drilling spurred calls for even further regulation. In late July 2010 a number of environmental groups, including the National Audubon Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club, sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, urging the passage of new onshore drilling regulation to target what they call the damaging environmental and health effects of current practices. In addition, they urged an end to tax benefits for oil and gas companies, more federal money for research into public safety and environmental protection, and an end to “fast-track” approval of oil and gas drilling on federal lands.

What impact will increased federal regulation have on domestic oil and gas drilling? Only time will tell. Oil and gas companies oppose federal regulations, saying that existing state regulations are quite sufficient to protect the environment and public health and safety. Marc Smith, the executive director of the Western Energy Alliance, points out the folly of giving more oversight of onshore drilling to the same federal regulators who failed to prevent the BP oil spill: “It doesn't make sense to take more control away from state oil and gas regulators and give it to the federal agency that just oversaw the worst environmental catastrophe in the history of our nation.” Here in Texas, for example, we have the Texas Railroad Commission, which does an excellent job of regulating oil and gas drilling and production. Industry representatives also claim that the regulations embodied in the CLEAR Act will make drilling on public lands more expensive, increase Government control over the market, and create a new and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.

There is an economic and national security aspect of these proposed regulations that sometimes gets lost in the debate. If regulations for onshore drilling are increased, oil companies will need to spend more time and money in compliance. That means the cost of oil and gas and the products derived from oil and gas will increase for consumers. In addition, increased regulation will almost certainly mean fewer wells will be drilled, and this will result in even greater unemployment for workers in the oil and gas industry and all the many industries that service the oil and gas companies (the majority of which are small businesses). Ultimately, if the higher regulatory cost leads to lower domestic production, we will have to increase, rather than decrease, our reliance on Mid-East oil. This factors should make us consider carefully: is increased reulation is really the direction we should be heading?

As a Texas oil and gas attorney, I have had occasion from time to time to observe the environmental, administrative and legal ramifications of an onshore oil spill, usually caused by vandalism or malfunctioning equipment. Along with everyone else in the world, I am horrified as the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico unfolds, and along with everyone along the Gulf, I am intensely frustrated that the spill has not been stopped yet.

Something else, besides the damage to persons, property and the environment, concerns me. Specifically, there is a lynch mob mentality about BP that has this country in its grip. They have been tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion, and the tar and feathers await.

I am not going to defend BP. They have a long history of regulatory problems. Moreover, from what we know so far, it appears that a couple of very stupid and very negligent decisions by BP may have caused this disaster. However, as John Adams famously said in the Novanglus Essay No. 7, we are "a government of laws, not of men." We also live under state and federal constitutions that promise that we are innocent until proven guilty. Nothing about the cause of this spill or who is responsible has been proven yet. We would be better served by focussing our attention on stopping the spill at this point, rather than flogging BP.

As a Texas oil and gas attorney, I regularly get calls from folks who, long after they have signed an oil and gas lease, are upset with an oil and gas company for something the company is doing or not doing. In most cases, once we review the oil and gas lease, it becomes obvious that they have already given permission for the oil company to do what they are doing in the language of the lease they signed.

I customarily ask these folks why they did not have an attorney look at the lease before they signed it. I have been making a list of the reasons they give. Here are the reasons I hear most often, and my response to each one:

1. "The landman told me that the lease was just a standard form". (Watch my lips on this one: there is no such thing as a standard oil and gas lease. The landman may have meant that the lease they offered was standard for that particular landman, or for the particular oil company the landman was representing. However, there is simply no such thing these days as a standard, industry-wide form.)

2. "The lease did not look that complicated". (If you are not an oil and gas lawyer, do you really know what the terms in that lease mean? Do you know when words in the lease have one meaning in ordinary use and other meaning in the oil and gas industry? Even more important: do you know what's missing?)

3. "The lease said it had a term of only three years, and that's not very long so I didn't think what the lease said was that important". (Oil and gas leases have a "primary term" of between two to five years. The oil and gas company, with some exceptions depending on the exact language of the lease, must drill a well within that time that is capable of producing oil or gas in commercially paying quantities. If they do not, (again, subject to various exceptions and extensions used in some leases), then the lease expires. If they successfully drill a well within the primary term that is capable of producing oil or gas in commercially paying quantities, then the lease will go on for so long as the well produces in commercially paying quantities. That means that the term of that lease may go on past your lifetime. Since it is possible that the oil and gas lease you sign may go on for a long, long time, isn't it just common sense to make sure that it's a lease you can live with for that long?

4. "The landman was just so nice". (Yes, he was nice. It is his job to be nice. If he wasn't nice, he would have been fired a long time ago. Secondly, whether the landman was nice or not, the landman's legal allegiance is to the oil and gas company the landman represents, and not to you).

5. "It costs too much to see a lawyer". (There are many oil and gas attorneys in Texas whose fees are not only reasonable, but whose rates are a fraction of the amount of damage that can be done to your land because of an improper agreement. In addition, the attorneys fees are sometimes offset by the increased bonus payment as the result of a lease negotiated by an attorney. Finally, this lease may last your lifetime. Doesn't it make sense to be sure you can live with it?)

6. "The oil and gas company promised me everything I wanted, so I didn't care if it was actually written in the oil and gas lease". (Unfortunately most [though not all] verbal promises by the oil and gas company or its landman are not enforceable under Texas law).

7. "The landman told me I had to sign right away, or they would withdraw their offer and I wouldn't get the money they were offering". (It usually takes a while to lease all the acreage that the oil and gas company needs before they drill. There is rarely a situation where it is truly a case of "sign now or no deal".)

8. "My mineral interest is so small, the oil company wouldn't make any changes anyway". (It is certainly true that someone who owns many acres and owns 100% of their minerals will have more leverage with the oil company than someone who owns a small fractional interest in a few acres. However, sometimes even small interests count, when it is just those interests or acres that the oil company needs to make up its production unit. Secondly, many times owners of small interests, such as family members, go together and retain me to negotiate their lease, and together, they have more levcerage than they did acting individually. In my office, the cost to review, evaluate and negotiate a lease is the same whether it's for one family member of twenty. Finally, most oil and gas companies are reasonable, and are open to making reasonable changes even when your interest is small. The key is to have someone who is experienced and who knows what changes are appropriate to ask for given the size of your interest. Even small changes can make a big difference in the overall fairness of a lease).

If you get an offer from an oil and gas company or its landman, simply smile and say: "Thank you. I will seriously consider this. I will send it to my attorney promptly and we will be in touch with you soon". And then call your attorney!!

As a Texas oil and gas attorney, I have viewed the "global warming" debate with growing alarm. When the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") initially issued its fourth report, I was concerned because the IPCC is made up primarily of politicians, not scientists. Next, I read the report thoroughly and then did my own research. My independent research led me to the conclusion that the IPCC's findings were in large part: 1) based on no research at all; 2) were based on non-peer-reviewed research; or 3) illogical, tenuous or unjustified extrapolations from unrelated research. Despite these problems with the report, large numbers of people wanted to join the IPCC and Al Gore in proclaiming that global warming was caused by manmade greenhouse gases. It is even more alarming at how many people continue to chant this mantra, even after the flawed science (or lack of science) behind the IPCC's report has been revealed.

Recent news has demonstrated to an even greater degree just how ill-conceived, biased and misguided the IPCC's report was. Notwithstanding the evidence of how flawed the IPCC's report is, the EPA, at the direction of the Obama Administration, has sought to treat greenhouse gases as toxic, and to regulate them.

Major industries in Texas, including agriculture and oil and gas production, unquestionably produce some carbon dioxide. The idea of regulating the greenhouse gases, and in particular, the CO2, produced by these industries as a toxic substance is irresponsible, however. Not only is this kind of regulation misguided and politically motivated, the economic costs of regulation could be staggering, especially in this recession. Why would the federal government want to beat on us when we're down??

It is especially heartening to see the Texas Governor, Rick Perry, take on the EPA by bringing suit to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gases in Texas. Many of us are cheering for him!

Texas oil and gas attorneys and mineral owners may see more leasing activity in 2010 in the Eagle Ford Shale, a field in southern Texas that oil and gas companies have known about for some time, but that is just now being explored. The field is named after the city of Eagle Ford, Texas, hometown of Bonnie Parker of "Bonnie and Clyde" notoriety. (The city of Eagle Ford was incorporated into the City of Dallas in 1956).

Several oil and gas operators, beginning with Petrohawk Energy Corporation, and including many of the larger companies (Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, XTO Energy Inc., Chesapeake Energy Corporation and several others), are quietly signing up leases and drilling exploratory wells. The "word on the street" is that the cost of drilling a gas well in the Eagle Ford Shale may be substantially less than in the Barnett Shale or the Haynesville Shale, although drilling in the heavy clay present in portions of the Eagle Ford shale presents its own challenges.

The Eagle Ford Shale underlies large portions of Texas, but it doesn't always contain gas. Currently, leasing appears to be limited to Colorado, Dewitt and Karnes Counties. Other counties that may see leasing activity include Bee, Dimmit, Goliad, LaSalle, Lavaca, Live Oak, McMullen, and Webb Counties. An increase in the price of gas (which, given the large amount of current reserves, probably won't happen for a while) would certainly accelerate activity in this play.

As a Texas oil and gas attorney, I have observed that it has been a slow year so far for leasing and drilling activity. But some experts are predicting a change on the horizon for 2010. An article this morning by Jamaal O'Neal in the Longview-Journal.com quotes Professor Ken Morgan, Texas Christian University geology professor and director of the TCU Energy Institute, as saying that higher oil and gas prices may be ahead for 2010. The article quotes research by Baker Hughes that natural gas, which was selling for $10.00 per thousand cubic feet or more in mid 2008, is currently selling for as low as $3.60 per thousand cubic feet. A barrel of crude oil that sells for about $69.00 currently, was bringing $150.00 a barrel during the summer of 2008. Professor Morgan opines that the large amount of natural gas reserves, as well as the world-wide recession, has kept prices for oil and gas low.

Basic economics dictates that when prices are low, oil and gas companies are reluctant to expend the large sums necessary to drill new wells. They are not going to make the investment if they can't get a return. As the world economy recovers, demand for oil and gas will increase, the price of oil and gas will increase and the drilling of new wells will once again generate sufficient returns to support the cost of drilling. Once oil and gas companies begin to drill again, mineral owners will begin to get calls from landmen working for the oil and gas companies, seeking new leases. I may be a bit optimistic, but I see leasing and drilling activity in Texas picking up by March and April 2010.

As a Texas oil and gas attorney for many years, I have seen many booms come and go. During a "boom" period, prices for oil and gas increase. The increase in prices encourages exploration of new sources of oil and gas and development of existing sources. Mineral owners tend to see much more leasing activity during boom periods, and oil and gas companies are much more amenable to entering into leases that are fair to both mineral owner and operator. Conversely, when prices of oil and gas are low, exploration and development sags, leasing activity falls off and when a mineral owner is offered a lease, it is usually a very one-sided lease that favors the oil and gas operator and is very unfair to the mineral owner. We are just coming off a very down period for oil and gas exploration and development in many areas of Texas. I have counseled many mineral owners over the years during these down periods who were offered leases that were, frankly, onerous. In most cases, my client decided to decline the oil and gas company's offer, and await a better offer. So far, each of these owners was ultimately offered a better deal, a fairer lease, and a lease with better compensation for their minerals because they waited. As in life, there are no guarantees in the oilpatch. For example, there is no guarantee that you will be offered another lease, although it is certainly likely that you will. There are some cases in which even a poor lease might be better than no lease at all, especially if you are faced with a situation where your minerals may be drained without compensation if you don't execute a lease. It is also important to realize that even in boom markets, you don't always get everything you want in a lease. It is always a matter of give and take. Frankly, only someone experienced in this area can give you the input to help you make an informed judgment about whether to lease or not, and if you do lease, on what terms.

Any Texas oil and gas attorney who has practiced for any length of time has been through the cycle many times: oil prices go up, and leasing and drilling activity increases. Oil and gas prices decline, and many oil and gas companies pull back on their leasing and drilling efforts. The past year has seen an especially extreme example of this cycle. Last summer, according to WTRG Economics, the price the operator received for oil in some areas of Texas reached $150.00 per barrel or more. According to the Energy Information Administration (a division of the Department of Energy), gas was going for $8.00 per mcf at the wellhead in some places. Leasing was going on at a frantic, almost giddy, pace and substantial primary term payments and royalty percentages were the norm. Then prices declined sharply, to less than $30.00 per barrel of oil and $3.00 per mcf for gas at the wellhead in many areas of Texas. Most operators pulled way back, some walking away from signed leases and others signing leases only at substantially reduced bonus and royalty levels.

Now the price of oil and gas is increasing, and phoenix-like, the Texas energy industry begins to rise from the ashes. This time, there are some dark clouds on the horizon, coming in from our nation's capitol, that do not bode well for the energy industry. President Obama, while proclaiming that he wants to achieve independence from foreign oil sources, is considering two things that would cripple our domestic oil and gas industry. Specifically, he wants to eliminate intangible drilling costs and depletion allowance as deductions for oil and gas operators on their federal income tax. He wrongly calls these "subsidies", in an attempt to gain support for this policy.

The deduction for intangible drilling costs allows oil and gas companies to deduct the cost of exploring for oil and gas from later oil and gas income. These costs include such things as seismic tests, surveys, engineering fees, wages, etc. The intangible drilling cost deduction encourages oil and gas companies to explore for new energy sources. The depletion allowance allows oil and gas companies to deduct a portion of the value of their mineral deposits as those deposits are used up, just as the owner of a machine used to produce goods is allowed to depreciate his machine.

It took decades for the domestic energy industry to recover from the ill-conceived, poorly timed and wrongly executed policies of Jimmy Carter. President Carter's policies drove many smaller companies out of business, and encouraged other producers and refiners to move outside of the United States. When we experience those times of high gasoline prices in the United States, it is primarily Carter that we have to thank. Unfortunately, we now seem to have another President headed down this same irresponsible path.The announced policies of Obama are bad policy policy for at least four reasons: 1) most energy production in this country comes from small, independent companies, not "big guys" like Exxon or Mobil, and these small companies are going to be hurt badly by this policy; 2) these policies will result in much higher prices at the pump for consumers, who are having a hard enough time already; 3) Carter's policies drove the "big guys" overseas, and now Obama's policy would diminish the remaining independents; and 4) the higher energy prices will contribute in a big way to inflation. Is this really the way to achieve energy independence? I think not!

Part of what I do for clients as a Texas oil and gas attorney is to calculate oil and gas royalties so that they can be sure they are being paid correctly. I thought it might be useful to you to explain how an ownership percentage and royalty are calculated.

1. First, we take your percentage of mineral ownership in the land in question, and we multiply that by the number of surface acres in your entire tract. The resulting number is your net mineral acres. For example, if two relatives together own a one-half interest in a forty acre tract, or ½ times 40, they have twenty net mineral acres.

2. Secondly, if the land is located in a pooling unit, (sometimes also called a pro-ration unit), we multiple the total number of acres in the tract by a pro-ration fraction. The reason for this is that each royalty owner in a pooling unit is only entitled to their proportionate share of the oil or gas produced by the entire pooling unit. A pooling unit is an area around a well that is set by the Texas Railroad Commission, and is intended to approximate the area drained by a producing well. Pooling units can range in size from 80 to 640 acres or more. For example, for a forty acre tract that is located in a 320 acre pooling unit, that forty acre tract is entitled to 40/320, or 0.12500, of the minerals (whether oil or gas or both) produced by that 320 acre unit.

3. Third, we multiply that result by the royalty fraction in the oil and gas lease you signed.

4. Finally, we divide that result by the number of current owners to determine what portion of the total production from the pooling unit each owner is entitled to.

By way of example, let’s say you and a relative own 20 net mineral acres in a 40 acre tract. Let’s also say that the pooling unit is 320 acres. This fraction in our example would be 40/320. Next we multiply that result by the royalty fraction in the oil and gas lease that was signed, which in our example is 1/6. Finally, we divide that result by the number of owners, which in our example is two.

Here is the calculation for our example in numeric form:

First, I convert the fractions to decimals so they are easier to multiply:

20/40 = 0.5

40/320 = 0.12500

1/6 = 0.166666

1/2 = 0.5

Next, I multiply out the calculation:

0.5 X 0.12500 X 0.166666 X .5 = 0.005206

The result of this calculation is that for every dollar of gas sold from the well, you and your sister in our example would each get 0.005206 of that dollar. This does not seem like much, but a good gas well can produce millions of BTU's of gas, and so the royalty payments can be substantial.

Oil and gas companies can and do make mistakes in calculating a mineral owner's royalties. If you think your royalties are not being calculated correctly, give me a call.

As oil and gas lawyers in Texas are well aware, there is a lot of pipeline construction going on in Texas as well as in other parts of the United States. I had a fascinating conversation not long ago with Victoria Myers, Senior Editor for The Progressive Farmer Magazine. If you have not looked at this publication before, it is really an excellent resource for folks who make a living from farming, as well as those "gentlemen (gentlewomen?) farmers out there. (You know who you are!) Since I am a Nebraska farm girl myself (Thayer County, to be precise), I find it especially interesting.

Victoria is the author of an article in an upcoming issue of Progressive Farmer regarding pipeline easements and rights-of-way. My discussion with her has caused me to update my list of issues involved in these kind of agreements by adding a few from her list. Here is the updated list:

1. Is the easement limited to a specific area, or is it a blanket easement over your entire property?
2. Is the pipeline going to be buried to an appropriate depth, in light of your future use of that property, what the pipeline will carry and the anticipated size of the pipeline?
3. Does the easement obligate the pipeline company to refill to the original contour of the land and maintain that contour as the fill packs down?
4. Is the pipeline company obligated to remove and save the top soil from the easement area separately, to replace the topsoil and reseed with whatever grass was there originally and in general to restore the easement area to its original condition?
5. Will any waterways or drainage tiles be impacted by the pipeline? If so, is the pipeline company obligated to repair these to their original condition and possibly pay damages for temporary loss of use?
6. If your land is used for agricultural purposes, can construction, installation and maintenance be performed when the ground is cold or frozen to reduce soil compaction?
7. Is there a "temporary work area" in addition to the easement itself? Are you receiving an additional payment for use of this area?
8. Pipeline installation can involve a lot of very heavy equipment which will compact the soil. Is the temporary work area situated so that the soil compaction is kept to a minimum? Are you being paid damages if the compaction that does occur prevents future crops in this area?
9. Will you be compensated for crop loss or crop damage caused by the installation and construction phase as well as by the permanent pipeline?
10. Is the pipeline company required to notify you prior to use of herbicides for brush or weed control?
11. If fences will be effected, is the pipeline company obligated to use temporary fencing and to restore the original fence to same or better than the original?
12. If fences must be cut, will a gate be installed that is of a design and quality suitable for the use of that gate?
13. Will you have rights to use the surface in any manner that does not interfere with the pipeline?
14. Will the pipeline company agree to avoid important trees and not to remove or trim trees without your consent?
15. Will the pipeline company agree to mark the pipeline route with durable and permanent markers?
16. Will the pipeline company agree to be responsible for any damages that are caused directly or indirectly by the installation, operation, maintenance or removal of the pipeline?
17. Does the easement terminate if it is unused for a certain length of time?
18. Will there be above-ground equipment along the pipeline route? If there is going to be above-ground equipment, are you going to be separately and appropriately compensated for it?
19. Will you get a separate payment for the easement and for damages?

These are just a sample of the kinds of serious issues involved in negotiating a pipeline easement or right of way agreement. Each of these can be major issues if not properly addressed in the easement. For example:

1. If there is no right on your part to declare an unused easement to be abandoned, that easement will show up on your title forever, even if it has not been used for many years. This can create a major impediment to future uses of your property. You can try to get a release of the easement, but the pipeline company may not exist any longer, and there may be no one to sign a release. You may even need to file a suit and obtain a court order to declare the easement terminated.

2. Above-ground equipment can include valves, gas compressors (that can be very loud and messy) loops or pig entry sites or measurement equipment that may interfere with irrigation equipment.

3. Regarding payments, currently easement payments are taxed as capital gains but damages payments are not taxable. If you get one check and the payment for the easement is combined with the payment for damages, the IRS may well assume that the entire payment is taxable.

4. Construction equipment may prevent irrigation of a field at a critical time. In fact, the construction phase may render the entire field unusable, with the resulting loss of the crop from that field. You need to be sure the compensation paid to you includes the value of the lost crop.

For all these reasons, many landowners consider it simply good insurance to consult an attorney before they sign a pipeline easement. The cost of an attorney is a small fraction of the amount of potential damages caused by pipeline construction. In many cases, an attorney will pay for themselves because they are able to negotiate more complete damage payments from the pipeline company.

As a Texas oil and gas attorney, one of the things I do often, and really enjoy, is assisting people in locating oil and gas royalties due to them from old oil and gas leases signed by their ancestors. In a previous blog here, I discussed how these royalties get lost. Today I'd like to discuss how I go about determining whether you may have oil and gas royalties due to you and your family.

First, I will need to know the Texas county in which you believe your relative or ancestor owned property or minerals. In addition, if you have any written documentation regarding this ownership, I ask you to provide me with copies. Any documentation, such as an old deed, an old oil and gas lease, a will, an old tax statement, a plat, a survey, a copy of the county appraisal district map showing the land, a stub from an old royalty check, or even just an address, can be very helpful. It is certainly possible to research all counties in Texas, but since there are 254 counties in Texas, the expense would be substantial.

Next, I research the status of your relative’s ownership of the real property that may be subject to an oil and gas lease or leases. Even if you already have a legal description of the property, it is essential to make sure that your relative has not, unknown to you, conveyed or transferred the property in question to a third party, or perhaps lost the property due to delinquent taxes. If we proceed without the precise legal description of each parcel of real property, or if the legal description is inaccurate or incomplete, or if your relative has sold or lost the property or the mineral interest, the time and expense involved in further work will be wasted.

Once we have completed the real estate research, I identify any oil and gas wells that have been or are located on your relative’s property. In addition, I determine whether your relative’s lease was part of a pooling or production unit. I obtain copies of the pooling documents so that I can calculate your relative’s ownership percentage and royalty.

If a well or wells have been identified, I then perform a royalty analysis. There are three components to this analysis. First, I determine the historical production from these wells. Secondly, I use historical price data to calculate the approximate income from the production from any wells. Thirdly, I use the ownership percentage formula to determine royalties due to you and your relatives.

The final step is to assemble a package of the research and transmit this with a demand letter to the well operator and/or owner to pay royalties to you and any relative who shares ownership of the minerals with you.

Sometimes we find property owned by your ancestor that has never been put in your name. If that is the case, there are simple legal procedures to cure this situation that I will be happy to discuss with you. These procedures will both clear title to family land (so future generations won't have to face these issues) as well as clear the way to getting oil and gas royalties paid to you instead of escheated to the State of Texas!

As a Texas oil and gas attorney, I negotiate a large number of oil and gas pipeline easements and rights-of-way throughout Texas, as well as easements for other types of utility lines. While the landowner and I may not get everything we want in the negotiated agreement, it is almost always more fair than the agreement the pipeline company originally offered.

I also get a couple calls a month from someone who signed an oil and gas pipeline easement or right-of-way without consulting an attorney before they signed. Usually, they are seeing activity by the pipeline company that disturbs them and they want to know if the agreement they signed "lets them to do that?" The answer most of the time is "Yes". Their next question almost always is: "Can I cancel this agreement or get out of it somehow?" The answer to that question is usually "No".

I am intrigued by why people would sign such a long term, complex, agreement, without legal advice. I have been cataloging the reasons I hear, out of curiosity. Here are some of the reasons I have heard thus far, and my parenthetical response.

1. "The landman was just so nice". (Yes, he was nice. It is his job to be nice. If he wasn't nice, he would have been fired a long time ago. Besides, have you ever been taken advantage of by someone who wasn't nice?)

2. "The contract did not look that complicated". (Well, if you are not an oil and gas lawyer, do you really know what those words mean? Do you know when words in the agreement have one meaning in ordinary use and other meaning in the oil and gas field? Even more important: do you know what's missing?)

3. "It costs too much to see a lawyer". (There are many oil and gas attorneys in Texas whose fees are not only reasonable, but whose rates are a fraction of the amount of damage that can be done to your land because of an improper agreement. In addition, the attorneys fees are sometimes offset by the increased pipeline company payment as the result of a negotiated agreement.)

4. "The pipeline company promised me everything I wanted, so I didn't care if it was in the easement". (Unfortunately most [though not all] verbal promises by the pipeline company or it's landman are not enforceable under Texas law).

5. "The landman told me I had to sign right away, or they would withdraw their offer and I wouldn't get the money they were offering". (It takes a long, long time to acquire all the right-of-way for a pipeline. There is rarely a situation where it is truly: "sign now or no deal".)

If you get an offer from a pipeline company or it's landman, simply smile and say: "Thank you. I will seriously consider this. I will send it to my attorney promptly and we will be in touch with you soon". And then call your attorney!!

.

As Texas oil and gas attorneys know, each year, probably hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of dollars in oil and gas royalties from wells produced in Texas are lost to their rightful owners through a process called escheat. Specifically, when oil and gas companies cannot find the correct owner of mineral royalties, they are required to turn this money over to the Texas Comptroller.

How this happens is not difficult to understand. Let's say Mom and Dad bought 100 acres in Texas many years ago. They got a deed to the land and the deed was filed in the deed records of the county where the land is located. They purchased both the surface and the minerals. A while later, they sign an oil and gas lease, and shortly after that, they began getting royalty checks. They don't tell their children about the royalties, or maybe they do and the children forget about them. Many years later, Mom and Dad die, leaving five children. Maybe Mom and Dad died without leaving a will, or maybe they both had wills, but none of the children, for whatever reason, decided to have the wills probated. The five children just assume they each now own a one-fifth share of Mom and Dad's land, or 20 acres each.

Three factors now come into play that result in royalties to Mom and Dad being overlooked by the children. First, most oil and gas companies have certain minimum amounts of royalties that must accrue before they will send a check. If an individual mineral owner has a small share of the royalties on a well, checks may be sent out every few months, or even once a year. Secondly, all wells are shut down from time to time, for repairs or perhaps while a new gas pipeline contract is being negotiated. During this time royalty checks may not be sent out. One of the children or a grandchild may collect Mom and Dad's mail for a time after Mom and Dad die. At some point, they stop doing so, or perhaps the Post Office forwarding order expires and is not renewed. When royalty checks resume, they are returned to the oil or gas company as undeliverable. At that point, Mom and Dad's royalty account is put in suspense, or on hold. After a certain amount of time, the oil or gas company is required by the Texas Property Code to turn all accrued royalties over to the Texas Comptroller.

A third factor that contributes to royalties being overlooked by heirs is that the well that produces royalties for Mom and Dad may not be on the family land. In fact, the well may be a considerable distance away from the family land. The reason is that most oil or gas wells are required by law to be part of a pooling unit. The pooling unit may be as small as eighty acres, in the case of an oil well, or it may be several hundred acres in size, in the case of a gas well. When the well is a distance from the family land, it may not occur to the heirs that the family land is actually part of that well's pooling unit.

(Keep in mind that the oil and gas company must depend on the county deed records to determine property ownership. If Mom and Dad did not have wills, or if they did and they were not probated, or if the wills were probated but the executor of the wills did not prepare a deed transferring the family land to the heirs, or if deeds were prepared but were not actually filed in the county deed records, then nothing shows up in the deed records to show the change of ownership! In addition, keep in mind that it is the heirs' responsibility to keep the oil or gas company informed of changes in ownership. It is not the oil or gas company's job to keep up with the heirs!)

One day, a grandchild or great grandchild may decide to investigate whether royalties are due, and if so, from what company. They will want to be sure that any royalties are paid to the current heirs. The good news is that a Texas oil and gas attorney with experience in this type of investigation can do this for you. Usually, all that is needed is one document relating to the land, such as a deed, an old tax statement, a plat, a survey, a copy of the county appraisal district map showing the land, a stub from an old royalty check, or even just an address. With just this small bit of information, an experienced oil and gas attorney can determine whether this land is part of a pooling unit, whether the well in the unit is producing, and whether royalties are due. Your attorney can then get the records corrected both with the county and the oil or gas company so that royalties are sent to the current heirs.

My office charges a modest fixed fee for this kind of investigation. The payoff for a small investment might just be substantial, not only in terms of monetary return, but also in terms of having title to the family land cleared up for future generations! Please call me if you think there may be missing royalties in your family.

As a Texas oil and gas attorney, I have occasion to review and negotiate many oil and gas leases in Texas for clients all over the United States (hopefully before the lease has been signed). However, having an attorney review a pipeline easement is every bit as important. Here are just a few of the critical questions that a pipeline easement should address:

1. Is the easement limited to a specific area, or is it a blanket easement over your entire property?
2. Is the pipeline going to be buried to an appropriate depth, in light of your future use of that property, what the pipeline will carry and the anticipated size of the pipeline?
3. Does the easement obligate the pipeline company to refill to the original contour of the land and maintain that contour as the fill packs down?
4. Is the pipeline company obligated to remove and save the top soil from the easement area separately, to replace the topsoil and reseed with whatever grass was there originally and in general to restore the easement area to its original condition?
5. Will you have rights to use the surface in any manner that does not interfere with the pipeline?
6. Will the pipeline company agree to avoid important trees and not to remove or trim trees without your consent?
7. Will the pipeline company agree to mark the pipeline route with durable and permanent markers?
8. Will the pipeline company agree to be responsible for any damages that are caused directly or indirectly by the installation, operation, maintenance or removal of the pipeline?
9. Does the easement terminate if it is unused for a certain length of time?
10. Will there be above-ground equipment along the pipeline route? If there is going to be above-ground equipment, are you going to be separately and appropriately compensated for it?
11. Will you get a separate payment for the easement and for damages?

These can be major issues if not properly addressed in the easement. For example, if there is no right on your part to declare an unused easement to be abandoned, that easement will show up on your title forever, even if it has not been used for many years. This can create a major impediment to future uses of your property. You can try to get a release of the easement, but the pipeline company may not exist any longer, and there may be no one to sign a release. You may even need to file a suit and obtain a court order to declare the easement terminated.

In connection with above-ground equipment, this can include valves, gas compressors (that can be very loud and messy) loops or pig entry sites or measurement equipment (that may interfere with irrigation equipment).

Regarding payments, currently easement payments are taxed as capital gains but damages payments are not taxable. If you get one check and the payment for the easement is combined with the payment for damages, the IRS may well assume that the entire payment is taxable.

If you are the kind of person who takes out their own appendix, then by all means, negotiated your own pipeline easement. However, the small amount you pay an attorney to review and negotiate that easement now is very likely going to save you a lot of expense and distress in the future!

As an oil and gas attorney representing clients throughout Texas, I have had many occasions to draft an assignment of one party's interest in a well or a joint operating agreement to another, such as when a well is sold and the first operator's rights under the operating agreement are assigned to the new operator, or when the original owner of a non-operating working interest sells their interest to a new entity. Most assignments contain language that provides that the assignor is no longer liable for claims and expenses in connection with the wells after the date of the assignment, and also provide that the assignee indemnify the assignor for these expenses.

There is an old saying in the oil patch that once you have been involved with an oil or gas well, you are always potentially liable. A Texas Supreme Court case in 2006, as well as a federal court case in 2008, illustrate this point. In the first case, Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc., the Texas Supreme Court held that Eland, as an intermediate assignee of an oil and gas lease, remained liable for costs and expenses arising pursuant to a joint operating agreement, even though the costs occurred after Eland had sold and assigned all of its interest in the leases to an unrelated third party. The Court based its decision on two facts: 1) the joint operating agreement was silent on the question of the liability of a working interest owner after it sold its interest; and 2) the assignment did not contain a release of liability that was agreed to by both Seagull, as operator, as well as the new owner.

Not surprisingly, after this opinion was issued, oil and gas practitioners made certain that their forms met the criteria described in the Seagull case. Unfortunately, even terminology that met the Seagull criteria failed to protect a working interest owner in GOM Shelf, LLC v. Sun Operating Limited Partnership 2008 WL 901482 (S.D. Tex. 2008). In GOM, despite language in the joint operating agreement like that required by the Seagull decision, the Court held that: 1) the obligation to plug and abandon the wells accrued prior to the date of the assignment; and 2) the plugging and abandonment liability was not expressly released by the release language in the joint operating agreement. As a result, the former interest owner was held liable for plugging costs.

I guess there are really two lessons here. The first is to be careful who you sell your interest to. If the new interest owner is a thinly capitalized sham company trying to make a quick buck, who folds without meeting their obligations under the operating agreement and the Texas Railroad Commission rules, you may get the bill when the Railroad Commission is looking for someone to pay for well plugging and clean up. Secondly, it is probably good insurance to have an oil and gas attorney draft the necessary documents when you are selling or acquiring an interest in oil and gas properties. While in oil and gas law, as in life, there are no guarantees, you will at least have the full benefit of all protections offered by the law at that time. I can guarantee one thing: the cost of proper documentation is light years less than the cost of remediation of an abandoned well site.

As an oil and gas attorney representing clients from all over Texas and from all over the world who have land in Texas, I have been getting quite a number of calls from people who signed a document before consulting an attorney and have lived to regret it, I'm sorry to say. It is apparent that there are a number of scams going on out there. One woman I talked to said that she was presented with a document that she was verbally told was merely permission to do seismic testing on her land. The document turned out to be an oil and gas lease. The terms were not very favorable to her and were substantially less than what the oil company was offering other lessors. Another woman called me recently to say that her elderly mother had signed a document that had been verbally represented to be an oil and gas lease. The document turned out to be a mineral deed, which means the woman had sold her minerals in their entirety forever!

Please folks, do not sign anything until you have a lawyer look at it. There are many honest oil companies and land men and women out there. However, even the honest oil companies are not going to offer you their best lease deal at first. In addition, oil and gas is an area that has its own language and concepts, and unless you have an oil and gas background, you are not going to be familiar with these. Finally, be aware that an oil and gas lease, in most cases, continues for as long as there is paying production, so that lease may be in place for your lifetime or longer.

Where a lease or deed has been obtained fraudulently, you may be able to sue to get the lease or deed canceled, but that is usually going to be a long, expensive and uncertain process. Please do yourself a favor: 1) do not sell your minerals, only lease them; 2) have an oil and gas attorney look at any document before you sign it, whether it is a seismic testing agreement, a pipeline easement or an oil and gas lease; and 3) please tell your elderly relatives to call you immediately if they are approached to sign anything, and not to meet with anyone about signing documents unless you are present.

As a Texas oil and gas attorney representing clients from all over the country with oil and gas leases in Texas, I am continually amazed at how many people sign an oil and gas lease without reading it!

My flight instructor used to have a rule he would use when I was doing something bad while I had the plane and he wanted me to stop it immediately because I was getting ready to kill both of us. He called it "Rule 13" and it meant "Whatever you are doing, stop it!" To all of you folks out there who sign a lease without reading it, or who read a lease and don't understand it or who don't understand the legal ramifications of what you are signing, I would say: "Rule 13...Don't do that!". In most cases, I can negotiate with the oil company to make changes that will make the lease much more fair and much more favorable to you. In almost every lease I have negotiated, the oil company has accepted most, if not all, of these changes. For most leases, I charge a very modest set fee. Many of my clients find that the increase in their bonus or royalty check more than pays for my legal service. An oil and gas lease is a serious legal contract that is going to control your land, in many cases, for many years to come. So please seek legal advice before you sign that lease!