Texas Oil and Gas Attorney Blog

There are a number of misguided environmental “activists” who characterize efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as some kind of a “David vs. Goliath” struggle between forward-thinking environmentalists who love the planet, on one hand, and greedy energy companies who want to plunder the planet, on the other. While this may be a convenient bias for news articles and political debates, it bears little resemblance to reality. As an oil and gas attorney in Texas, I work directly with the oil and gas industry. As a result, it’s clear to me that the false dichotomy between those who care about the environment and those in the energy industry is exactly that: false. The truth is that many energy companies involved in obtaining, refining, and selling oil and gas are also environmentalists who work hard to preserve the planet.

For example, oil and gas companies are much better environmental stewards than they are given credit for. Consider a new report from the American Petroleum Institute analyzing investments in greenhouse gas technologies in North America over the last year. This report notes that there was roughly $225 billion spent in on greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation in 2010. Of that total, U.S. based oil and natural gas companies contributed nearly half: $108 billion. That amount includes about $37 billion in shale gas development technologies and $71 billion in other investments. About $60.5 billion of the industry’s investment went toward oil and gas substitutions-including the shale gas investments. The shale gas advances are included in the data because its use can reduce the use of coal, which can significantly curb methane releases.

Compare these energy industry investments with about $74 billion in total federal government spending (most in projects funded by the “stimulus” package) for GHG mitigation. Private entities (other than energy companies) combined invested roughly $43 billion during that same time period. Most federal spending went toward energy efficient lighting, biofuels, solar power, and wind. The other private investments included efforts in advanced technology vehicles, electricity efficiency, biofuels, and wind power.

Property transfers involving mineral rights can be complex. As a Texas oil and gas attorney, I help my clients navigate these difficult legal issues. Mineral rights and potential royalties from those minerals can have a significant impact on the value of a property. Therefore, whether you are buying or selling property, it is critical that the deed and other documents accurately address the mineral rights.

One especially tricky, but not uncommon, scenario, was the subject of a recent article in Tierra Grande, a publication from Texas A & M’s Real Estate Center. This situation involves a transfer in which the original sales agreement or earnest money contract reserves the mineral rights to the seller, but the reservation of mineral rights is not stated in the actual deed delivered to the buyer at closing.

Sometimes both parties admit the error and correct it in a non-contentious fashion by executing a correction deed. However, when a friendly solution does not materialize, there are several key legal issues of law that determine whether the deed can be reformed to match the sales contract and include the mineral reservation.

I’ll bet that most Texas oil and gas attorneys (and, I’m sure, everyone in the oil and gas business) often hear the myth repeated that someday there will be a peak in oil production, followed by a rapid decline which will cause the collapse of human civilization as we know it. This myth predicts that someday, possibly someday soon, (although that date keeps getting pushed back when it turns out to be wrong) the world will simply run out of oil. Please understand this myth for what it is-unnecessary fear mongering by those with either a political purpose or who are ignorant of the oil production process.

Daniel Yergin , an expert energy researcher and the Pulitzer Prize winning author of “The Prize”, excerpts from his new book, “The Quest: Energy, Security and the Remaking of the Modern World”, in a recent Wall Street Journal interview. He describes the ways in which the purveyors of this “oil peak” myth are systematically wrong. For example, the myth drastically oversimplifies the complex nature of oil production. It is based on the concept that the world has X amount of oil, and when we use X amount, there will be none left. While in an absolute sense that may be true, oil production is not nearly as simple as that. This country has a long history of feverish predictions that we are running out of oil, going back as far as the 1880s. The actual prospect of running out of oil remains as distant today as it did then.

From 2007 to 2009, for every barrel of oil produced in the world, 1.6 barrels of new reserves were found. In addition, energy technology, including green energy, has advanced to the point where we use oil in a much more efficient way than in the past. As a result, each barrel of oil goes further. But the “oil peak” myth still holds our collective national attention for some reason. Mr. Yergin attributes this in large part to a man by the name of Marion King Hubbert, who studied geology in the first half of the 20th century. The “oil peak” is often referred to as “Hubbert’s Peak.” In 1956, Hubbert theorized that oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. When production did decline after 1970 and the oil embargo rocked America soon after, his theory seemed vindicated. He also claimed that the generation of children born in 1965 would see oil reserves wiped out in their lifetimes. But what Mr. Hubbert did not count on was the huge increase in newly discovered oil and gas reserves found and produced in the U.S. By 2010, US oil production was three and a half times higher than Mr. Hubbert predicted it would be.

The EPA has once again overestimated the amount of pollution that comes from an oil and gas source — with potentially grave consequences for the industry. This time, the EPA has overestimated the amount of methane gas that comes from shale gas wells. A new report from the IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates has found that the EPA’s estimates were based on too small a sample of wells, and on a method that did not conform to industry practices.

Because methane is highly flammable, those who drill new shale gas wells make every effort to minimize the emissions. This includes several methods for capturing and relieving gas, such as installing a blowout preventer at the surface.The report found that rather than base its methane emissions estimates on gas that escaped to the surface, the EPA based them on what was captured. The report noted that if methane emissions were really as high as the EPA supposed, there would be extremely hazardous conditions at the well site. It would be be “unwise” for the EPA to use its methane estimates for the basis of new policy. Furthermore, EPA proposals for more regulation of hydraulically fractured gas wells are already part of industry standards.

How did this come about? The EPA based its 2010 revised estimates on too small a sample — specifically, two workshop presentations based on just four projects in Wyoming, New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma. The presentations described the amounts of methane captured during “green completions” of natural gas wells. Green completions are meant to capture as much methane as possible before it reaches the surface while the well is completed. Therefore, it seems absurd to use it as a basis for estimating methane gas emissions. Yet for some reason, the EPA assumed that the wells that captured this amount methane were an exception, and that every other well must release the methane into the atmosphere because their states do not specifically regulate gas emission. In fact, IHS CERA director Surya Rajan stated that it is “common industry practice… to capture gas for sale as soon as it is technically feasible.”

As is no doubt true of most Texas oil and gas attorneys, I’m always interested in reading about new developments in the oil and gas industry, although they often seem to attract more than their share of political wrangling. Of course, energy independence is a hot-button issue these days (see our recent post on the topic). Unfortunately, political posturing often gets in the way of common sense solutions to this pressing problem.

I was reminded of how politics is the enemy of practicality when I read an interview with Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources in the Wall Street Journal recently. Continental Resources is the 14th largest oil company in the United States. Mr. Hamm is the man who discovered the Bakken oil fields in Montana and North Dakota, which he claims holds 24 billion barrels of oil, and that has already helped make America the world’s third largest oil producer. Mr. Hamm believes that energy independence is within our grasp.

New technological advances are helping the industry grow by leaps and bounds. Horizontal drilling allows economical access to oil reserves that would not have been possible in the past. It has done for oil production what fracing has done for natural gas. Mr. Hamm believes that America’s oil production and reserves will triple in the next five years, which will have a broad impact on the economy. There are 10 million royalty owners today who are earning money from the oil located beneath their land. These royalty owners are not the millionaire Wall Street investors that Obama is so fond of bashing, these are just folks, like you and me, using those royalties to pay help pay bills and to save for retirement.

As a Texas oil and gas attorney, I have followed with great interest the tumultuous relationship that seems to perpetually exist between Texas and its landowners on one hand, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the other. Unfortunately, some misguided policymakers are under the mistaken notion that the EPA is working to protect the environment, and that the efforts of Texas and other states to fight those federal regulations are misguided. That oversimplification could not be further from the truth.

As Texas Comptroller Susan Combs explained in a recent editorial published in the Star Telegram, Texans are committed to the well-being of their air, land, and water. If legitimate steps need to be taken to protect the long-term well-being of our resources, Texans have and will continue to be the first to step up and take action. Unfortunately, many of the EPA’s latest regulations and requirements passed in the name of environmental protection actually protect next to nothing, and have no scientific basis whatsoever, yet come with very significant detrimental consequences for Texas residents.As Combs notes, “private landowners are the best stewards of their own property.” She goes on to say that the EPA continues to ignore the knowledge and reasonableness of our private property owners when making arbitrary decisions that have effects on their land and lives. Even more troubling, at times the Agency seems to specifically target Texas in ways that defy common sense and scientific reality. For example, Combs discussed the EPA’s new “cross-states” air pollution rule. The new regulation will disproportionately affects Texans. The measure targets nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide. Texas plants produce roughly eleven percent of the sulfur dioxide targeted by the regulation, yet, inexplicably, Texas is being ordered to absorb a quarter of the reductions-more than double its actual share.

Anyone who understands the energy industry in our state understands the significant impacts the regulation will have. The state’s largest power generator, Luminant, explained that the rule will eliminate 500 Texas jobs as two generating units are being idled and three ignite mine operations halted. In addition, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas reported that the rule may increase electricity rates for consumers, because the state’s generation capacity will be reduced in the peak load months of summer.

When a Texas mineral owner asks me to review or negotiate an oil and gas lease offer they have received, one of the first things I do is to determine who the proposed operator, or lessee, will be. Many people do not realize how important it is to know just who you are leasing to. If you do not investigate the proposed lessee before you sign, you may be throwing away the royalties you could have received had you leased to a competent oil and gas company.

First, I determine whether the potential lessee is a licensed oil and gas operator. I strongly urge my clients not to sign a lease with a middleman. Instead, I insist that the actual oil company who will be operating the lease be disclosed so we can do a background check on them. There can be many potential problems if you sign a lease with a middleman. These include, (but are certainly not limited to), the following problems:1) The company who contacted you may be a broker or a “lease hound”, that is, a person or company who tries to sign up leases cheaply and then sell them to a real oil company for a huge markup. I prefer to see my client be paid that markup, rather than the middleman.

2) They may be an agent for a “boiler-room” operation, who make their money by selling interests in a lease or “drilling program” as an investment. They make their money on the sale of these interests, and could care less about drilling a good well, or treating your minerals or the surface of the property competently. In some cases, they don’t care if a well is drilled or not, because they have already made their money.