Published on:

By

There seem to be more and more frequent commercials advertising services to protect homeowners from “home title fraud”. These commercials are not talking about fraudulent applications for mortgages, although that probably happens frequently. Instead, they are talking about someone who forges a deed to themselves and then tries to borrow money against the property or resell the property to a third party. Despite the frantic tone of the commercials, one has to wonder just how common home title theft is.

The FBI reported that in 2017, 9600 people lost a total of $56 million through wire fraud involving real estate. However, that is an extremely broad category and the FBI has not published statistics so far that delineate how much of this is “home title fraud”. In my experience, in Texas it is not very common. I looked for statistics regarding this kind of fraud nationally but numbers just aren’t available.

There are a number of things to know about this kind of fraud. First, in Texas, keep in mind that this kind of fraud is enabled if an unsuspecting buyer purchases property from someone without going through a title company. The title company closing process includes protections designed to prevent this kind of fraud.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Texas Eleventh Court of Appeals decided yet another “continuous development” case in which the lessee tries to wiggle out of its obligations under the oil and gas lease with a strained interpretation of the lease terms (although in this case, both the lessor and the lessee were oil companies).

In Endeavor Energy Resources, L.P. v. Energen Resources Corporation, the oil and gas lease contained a continuous development clause that said:

If this lease is extended as to non-dedicated acreage beyond the expiration of the primary term hereof, this lease shall terminate as to non-dedicated acreage one hundred fifty (150) days after the expiration of the primary term unless during such one hundred fifty (150) day period Lessee has commenced operations for the drilling of a well in which case this lease shall be extended as to the dedicated and non-dedicated acreage so long as operations for the drilling of a subsequent well are commenced within one hundred fifty (150) days after the completion of the preceding well. This lease shall terminate as to all non-dedicated acreage any time a subsequent well is not commenced within one hundred fifty (150) days from the completion of a preceding well.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Texas Court of Appeals in El Paso, in HJSA No. 3, Ltd. P’ship v. Sundown Energy LP,  issued a decision siding with the landowner on the interpretation of an oil and gas lease regarding the meaning of “continuous development“.

The oil and gas lease contained two paragraphs related to drilling:

7(b). The first such continuous development well shall be spudded-in on or before the sixth anniversary of the Effective Date, with no more than 120 days to elapse between completion or abandonment of operations on one well and commencement of drilling operations on the next ensuing well.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In Piranha Partners et al v. Joe B. Neuhoff et al,  the Texas Supreme Court examined a written assignment of an overriding royalty interest in minerals produced from land subject to an oil and gas lease in Wheeler County, Texas. The Neuhoffs claimed the assignment conveyed an interest only in production from the well specifically identified in the assignment. Piranha Partners claimed that the assignment conveyed an interest in production from any well drilled on the identified land, or alternatively, in all production under the identified lease.

The assignment stated:

[Neuhoff Oil] does hereby assign, sell and convey unto [Piranha] . . . without warranty or covenant of title, express or implied, subject to the limitations, conditions, reservations and exceptions hereinafter set forth . . . all of [Neuhoff Oil’s] right, title and interest in and to the properties described in Exhibit “A” (the “Properties”)

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

As oil prices have declined to unprecedented lows, consumers may feel glad for lower gasoline prices at the pump. However, the piper always has to be paid, and nowhere more so than in Texas.

As I discussed in a previous post, oil companies have been hit by a number of negative factors, some of their own making.  First, our country was experiencing a substantial oversupply of oil going into the current situation. Many oil companies continued to produce, despite the oversupply, because increased production resulted in higher stock prices which in turn resulted in higher bonus for officers of the oil company. To this extent, some oil companies have brought this situation upon themselves. Secondly, the production war between Russia and Saudi Arabia exacerbated the oversupply and helped drive the price of oil down. Third, as the price of oil declined, the value of individual oil company’s reservoirs declined. In the cases where reserves were used as collateral for loans, the bank would then require either repayment of at least a portion of the loan or new collateral for the loan. Oil companies that cannot comply default and/or file bankruptcy. Fourth, the covid 19 virus creates staffing issues for oil companies, both in their offices and in the field. Fifth, shelter in place orders have resulted in drastically reduced demand for oil and gas. Finally, all of these factors make lenders and investors very nervous and so new money for exploration, production and pipelines is becoming more scarce.

Not surprisingly, all of this has resulted in oil company bankruptcies. So far, since January 2020, several oil companies have filed for bankruptcy protection: Bridgemark Corporation, Southland Royalty Company LLC, Dalf Energy LLC, Sheridan Holding Company I LLC (who are actually an investment fund), Echo Energy Partners I LLC, Whiting Petroleum Company, Victerra Energy LLC, Gavilan Resources LLC, Ultra Petroleum and Sklar Exploration Company LLC. Other companies, including Chesapeake Energy Corporation and Denbury Resources, are reportedly preparing bankruptcy filings. There been some predictions that hundreds of oil companies will file bankruptcy by the end of 2021.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Texas rule against perpetuities (the “Rule”) was something all lawyers learned about in law school, but it seemed at the time like a concept we would not run into very often in real life law practice. Unfortunately, it comes up regularly in connection with Texas oil and gas leases and related interests.

In Texas, the Rule states that a property interest must vest within 21 years after the death of some life or lives in being at the time of the conveyance of that property interest. If it does not, then the interest is a perpetuity. Perpetuities are prohibited by Texas Constitution Article 1, section 26 as restraints on free alienation of property. A conveyance that violates the Rule is void.

In Tommy Yowell v. Granite Operating Company et al, the Texas Supreme Court had occasion to review a claim that an overriding royalty interest (ORRI) violated the Rule. As many of you know, an ORRI is a share of either oil and gas production or revenue from that production that is carved out of a lessee’s interest under an oil and gas lease. In most cases, when the oil and gas lease to which the ORRI is attached terminates, the ORRI terminates as well. In this case, the ORRI contained a provision that purported to cover any extension or renewal of the existing lease as well as any new leases. When the operator of a new lease stopped paying royalties to Yowells, they sued.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Texas 14th Court of Appeals recently interpreted a pipeline easement and that interpretation may have application for many other pipeline easements in existence in Texas. The case is Texas Land & Cattle II, Ltd. v ExxonMobil Pipeline Company.

Texas Land & Cattle (TLC) owned real property in Harris County, Texas. ExxonMobil owned a pipeline easement across this property. ExxonMobil was the successor in interest to Humble Oil Company who originally obtained the easement. The easement granted the right to operate a pipeline for the “transportation of oil or gas”. The easement did not define oil or gas.

ExxonMobil had transported gasoline and diesel through this pipeline since 1995. TLC sued ExxonMobil on the grounds that transporting gasoline and diesel was not allowed by the easement. TLC believed the terms “oil and gas” included only crude oil or crude oil petroleum, but not any refined products. ExxonMobil claimed that the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms “oil and gas” as used in an easement have always included refined products like gasoline and diesel. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment filed by TLC and granted the relief sought by ExxonMobil.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

The Texas School Land Board announced new policies in response to the covid pandemic. These policies apply to Texas Permanent School Fund (PSF) lands that are subject to the Texas Relinquishment Act, Texas Natural Resources Code 52.171 through 52.190. According to the General Land Office (GLO) website: “The policies delegates the Land Commissioner the authority to grant up to a six-month extension on all drilling commitments, when it’s deemed to be in the state’s best interest, made by lessees of permanent school fund property during 2020, and a 90-day tolling on calculations for enforcing lease terminations for halting of production or failure to produce in paying quantities. Additional actions include adopting a policy addressing a waiver of penalties and interest on late royalty payments submitted from April 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020 in light of the current oil and gas crisis facing the nation.”

Owners of school lands who observe operators on their property who are not drilling or who have producing wells on their property that have ceased production, need to be aware that the cessation of drilling or production may not be a default under the lease, at least until the grace period imposed by the GLO has expired. Keep in mind that, given the other pressures the oil industry is suffering from at the moment, it would not be surprising to see these waivers extended.

 

Published on:

By

The oil and gas industry has always been cyclical. Always has been and no doubt always will be. $20 per barrel oil is not new. Just during my career, there have been three substantial downturns in oil prices prior to the one we are experiencing today. These happened in approximately 1970, the mid-1980s, in the late 1990s. Each downturn was followed by a tremendous uptick in prices.

Keep in mind that the current issues facing the oil industry are not from a single cause. In a sense, the industry is facing a multiple whammy. First, our country was experiencing a substantial oversupply of oil going into the current situation. Many oil companies continued to produce, despite the oversupply, because increased production resulted in higher stock prices which in turn resulted in higher bonus for officers of the oil company. To this extent, some oil companies have brought this situation upon themselves. Secondly, the production war between Russia and Saudi Arabia exacerbated the oversupply and helped drive the price of oil down. Third, as the price of oil declined, the value of individual oil company’s reservoirs declined. In the cases where reserves were used as collateral for loans, the bank would then require either repayment of at least a portion of the loan or new collateral for the loan. Oil companies that cannot comply default and/or file bankruptcy. Fourth, the covid 19 virus creates staffing issues for oil companies, both in their offices and in the field. Fifth, shelter in place orders have resulted in drastically reduced demand for oil and gas. Finally, all of these factors make lenders and investors very nervous and so new money for exploration, production and pipelines is becoming more scarce.

There has been a lot of discussion in the industry about the appropriate response to these factors. Some have suggested the imposition of tariffs on imported oil. Others have suggested direct federal assistance to oil companies. Unfortunately, there is no consensus in the industry on what solution might help, or even as to whether any solution is called for. The smaller independent companies appear to prefer some kind of federal assistance. On the other hand, it appears that many of the large oil companies, who are better equipped to weather the storm, would prefer to let the downturn play out and then gobble up the smaller independent oil companies who can no longer stay in business. There are others who fear that government assistance now means government overregulation in the future. Anyone who remembers the draconian and impossibly complex oil allocation and pricing regulations of the Carter Administration knows just how uneconomic and illogical government regulation can be.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

I’d like to pass on an open letter to President Trump from Kirk Edwards, an Odessa based independent oil & gas producer. This was published March 24, 2020 in OA Online.

It  certainly contains some food for thought.  I do not, and have never, represented an oil company. However, it is important to look at these issues in an unbiased way, free of an ideological lens.  Therefore, please remember: oil company profits pay salaries for hundreds of thousands of workers, not just the top officers,  as well as royalties to millions of royalty owners and dividends to millions of shareholders, the majority of whom are just individuals.

“The recent actions by Saudi Arabia to flood the world oil markets at extremely low prices is bringing the American oil and gas industry to a screeching halt. Ironically, some 1,000,000, that’s right, one million barrels per day of oil is being imported into the United States right now from Saudi Arabia. The largest refinery in Texas, and 5th largest in the world, located in Port Arthur, Texas is now owned by Saudi Arabia. Shell sold control of the refinery to the Saudi’s in 2017. Today, 650,000 plus barrels of the 1,000,000 barrels per day imported from Saudi Arabia goes into their 100% Saudi owned Motiva refinery in Port Arthur Texas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motiva_Enterprises None of the gasoline produced from this refinery is made from American oil – it is 100% Saudi derived. Saudi Arabia sells this gasoline mainly through its Shell and some through its “76” branded Motiva supplied service stations in South Texas and all across the Gulf and East coasts.

Continue reading →