The Executive Right to Lease after KCM Financial LLC v. Bradshaw and a Louisiana Solution to a Texas Problem.

Abstract Forthcoming

Comparing Subsurface Trespass Jurisprudence—Geophysical Surveying and Hydraulic Fracturing

This article examines the basics of two types of subsurface activity— geophysical prospecting (and the myriad of different surveys that comprise same) and hydraulic fracturing (or “fracing” sometimes herein)—describing the purpose of both, comparing the physical science background, field activities necessary, and data gathered in both, and analysis of the motivations of the parties conducting the activities. The article also contains an examination of selected germane subsurface trespass jurisprudence from New Mexico, Texas, and beyond. The article ends with thoughts and about what ought to be the state of subsurface trespass jurisprudence related to geophysical surveying and fracing and whether any uniformity exists between the two that could be applied to other activities. Ultimately, this article concludes that regulated fracing, which is currently less controllable than similar subsurface activities such as seismic reflection surveys, should not be liable for common law trespass claims in order to strengthen domestic energy security, prevent waste, and promote responsible self-development by mineral owners

The Executive Right to Lease Mineral Real Property in Texas before and after Lesley v. Veterans Land Board.

Abstract Forthcoming

A Flock of Trouble: Liability Under Oil and Gas Joint Operating Agreements After Seagull v. Eland

The Court\u27s decision in Seagull effectively makes all predecessors in title to an interest liable for breaches caused by a successive leaseholder unless they have presciently acquired express approval of their assignments. The interests in JOAs can be, and usually are, assigned numerous times. In fact, a leasehold interest in a JOA such as that being discussed here can be assigned dozens of times over the decades that a JOA may be effective. This decision, extending liability to all predecessors in interest, dramatically changes the liability landscape of a JOA, effectively making all predecessors in interest liable for the malfeasance of one successor in interest that may be several times removed from the initial or subsequent assignee