Texas Oil and Gas Attorney Blog

The Railroad Commission of Texas (the RRC) is planning to amend their permit rule for oil and gas pipelines. The section to be amended, section 3.70, involves the pipeline permit procedure. The RRC invited comments on the changes until August 25, 2014. The issue has become a hot topic, especially since Texas already has substantial case law on what constitutes a common carrier.

Current Texas Law

Texas law requires that to be considered a common carrier a pipeline must serve a “public purpose” in carrying products for third parties for compensation, as discussed in the Denbury Green opinion by the Supreme Court of Texas. (You can access my previous blog post about this case here). In the Denbury Green case, the Supreme Court said that when a landowner challenges a pipeline’s claim of common carrier status, the burden is on the pipeline company to prove it meets the definition of a common carrier.

The Texas Railroad Commission approved a substantial amendment to its oil and gas pipeline permit rule on December 2, 2014, and the amendment has major significance for Texas landowners and Texas mineral owners. The rule is Texas Railroad Commission Rule 3.70, and the amended rule goes into effect on March 1, 2015.

The Railroad Commission received a substantial amount of written comment from individuals, oil companies and trade organizations. Comment and testimony was also received at the public hearing on the proposed amendment held in Austin, Texas on September 22, 2014. The amended Rule 3.70 and the discussion of public comments by the Commission’s General Counsel can be accessed here.

The amended Rule 3.70 provides that each operator of a pipeline or gathering system (other than production lines or flow lines that are general confined to the leased premises) must obtain a permit from the Commission and renew the permit annually. The permit application must now include the following:

The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently published their decision in  Holt Texas, Limited and Transamerican Underground, Limited v. Stephen J. Zayler, a case which concerned a bankrupt oil and gas company. Holt Texas, Ltd. (“Holt”) and Transamerica Underground Limited (“TAUG”) who were subcontractors of the now bankrupt T.S.C. Seiber (“Seiber”) appealed the District Court’s judgment which in turn affirmed a Bankruptcy Court order. The District Court held that funds of an interpleader action filed by Encana Corporation (“EnCana”) were not property of Encana but property of the bankrupt company Seiber. On appeal, Holt and TAUG challenged the District and Bankruptcy Courts’ conclusions that first, the Texas Construction Trust Funds Act (“CTFA”) did not apply to these funds, and secondly, that Appellants did not have valid, perfected mineral liens on these funds under Chapter 56 of the Texas Property Code. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the District Court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Background: In 2008 Encana engaged Seiber to build a natural gas pipeline in Robertson County, Texas. Holt and TAUG were the subcontractors; Holt provided heavy machinery and TAUG installed over two thousand feet of pipe. The agreement between Encana’s and Seiber specified that if a subcontractor was not paid by Seiber, Encana would be able to withhold all remaining sums and make no further payment to Seiber. In August 2009 TAUG notified Encana that it had not been paid recently, and would seek payment of the $96,3000 that TAUG claimed it was owed. In September 2009 Encana filed an interpleader in federal district court, paid $345,000.00 into that court’s registry and sought a declaration shielding it from any further liability for the unpaid amounts owed by Seiber. In October 2009 Seiber filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, which was quickly converted to a Chapter 7 petition. TAUG then filed an Affidavit Claiming Mineral Lien against Encana’s property in November 2009. Holt filed its Affidavit Claiming Mineral Lien in March 2010. Encana was discharged from the interpleader in April 2012 and a discharge order was entered. The remaining parties filed competing motions for summary judgment: Holt and TAUG argued that two sets of Texas statutes (the Construction Trust Funds Act and the Texas mechanics lien statutes) that are intended to protect subcontractors require that the interpleader funds be awarded to them. The Bankruptcy Court held that neither law applied and that the interpleader funds were part of the bankruptcy estate of Seiber. Holt and TAUG appealed to the District Court, which affirmed the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court. Holt and TAUG then appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

Arguments: The Fifth Circuit discussed whether the interpled funds were property of the bankruptcy estate of Seiber or not. The opinion discussed that this question turns on who had legal possession of the funds after deposit into the registry of the court but before any action was taken by the court as to those funds. Chapter 56 of the Texas Property Code provides mineral subcontractors with a statutory lien “to secure payment for labor or services related to the mineral activities.” Tex. Prop. Code. §56.002. Chapter 162 of the Texas Property Code states that “Construction payments are trust funds under this chapter of the payments are made to a contractor or subcontractor … under a construction contract for the improvement of specific real property in this state.” Tex. Prop. Code §162.001(a). Section 162 protects subcontractors without requiring notice or other action by the subcontractor, such as sending a notice or filing an affidavit.

Recently the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals issued an interesting decision in the case of Warren et al. v. Chesapeake. This very important case for Texas mineral owners is based on a lawsuit against Chesapeake Exploration for what the Plaintiffs claimed was the wrongful deduction of post-production costs from the Plaintiffs’ gas royalty payments.

The Facts

The Warren case involves three oil and gas leases in Texas. Charles and Robert Warren entered into leases with FSOC Gas Co. Ltd. Those leases were then assigned to Chesapeake, who used an affiliate, Chesapeake Operating, to drill and operate the wells. Chesapeake deducted post-production costs from the royalty payments to the Warrens as well as from royalties to Abdul and Joan Javeed who joined the case as plaintiffs later. Chesapeake claimed that the leases authorized the deductions. The Plaintiffs asserted that Chesapeake breached the leases because the deductions did not comply with the lease provisions on calculating royalties. The complaint also included class action allegations on behalf of other royalty owners with similar leases with Chesapeake Exploration.

As readers of this blog know, we have been following the case of Marcia Fuller French, et al. v. Occidental Permian Ltd., which is an important Texas case involving gas royalties. You can read our previous blog post here. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Texas on February 5, 2014 and the The Texas Supreme Court has issued its decision.

As you may recall, Martha Fuller French and the other Plaintiffs were royalty owners and lessors on two oil and gas leases in Scurry County and Kent County, Texas. One lease is referred to in the decision as the “Fuller Lease”, which was executed in 1948, and the other lease is referred to as the “Cogdell Lease”, which was leased 1949.

In 2001, Occidental Permian began injecting wells on these leases with carbon dioxide to boost oil production. As a result, the natural gas produced from these leases contained about 85% carbon dioxide. Occidental then treated the gas to remove the carbon dioxide and sold the remaining gas, sending the carbon dioxide back to be reused at the well. Occidental paid Ms. French and the others royalties on the gas after it was treated and then deducted treatment costs from the royalties.