Solar developers in the PJM region, particularly in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio, often encounter land with a complex history of mineral development. This history can significantly impact solar projects, from site...more
Is it mine? Is what’s in it mine too? The fight over produced water has become a contentious issue in the oil patch. Primarily, because it is a new and unforeseen source of revenue for operators and landowners....more
Although historically viewed as a waste, produced water that comes to the surface as part of the oil and gas production stream now potentially has value. Produced water can be recycled and reused as part of hydraulic...more
Solar farm developers who do not enter into surface use agreements with Pennsylvania oil, gas and mineral owners (and their lessees) could create legal jeopardy for their solar farm projects. All surface developments in...more
Let’s assume you own a 93-acre farm in Tioga County. In 1986 your grandfather sold the oil and gas rights to his neighbor, John Mize. In the early 1990’s, Mr. Mize signed an oil and gas lease with XYZ Drilling. Several years...more
On March 24, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court reviewed the Ohio Dormant Mineral Act and further clarified the steps a surface owners must take to identify and locate mineral holders before serving notice of abandonment. ...more
On March 16, 2021, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued another important opinion in the ongoing tug of war between surface landowners and severed mineral owners over the ownership of valuable mineral rights in Ohio. In Erickson...more
On December 17, 2020, just days after its decision in West v. Bode (previously summarized by Bricker attorneys), the Ohio Supreme Court issued another major decision for surface and mineral owners in Ohio. In Gerrity v....more
In Wheeler et al v. San Miguel Electric Cooperative, we learn – again – the difficulty in asserting a position in litigation that is contrary to the actual words in the agreement you are fighting over....more
In Evans Resources, L.P., et al. v. Diamondback E&P, LLC, two agreements left the terms “constructed” and “utilized” undefined. If the terms had been defined would the outcome have been different? Maybe. Should parties define...more
Generally, if your will leaves your beloved “all … right, title and interest in and to”, said beloved would receive the entirety of your interest, whether a surface estate, mineral estate, or both. But in ConocoPhillips, et...more
Since the beginning of recorded mineral law, the owner of the mineral interests has enjoyed an elevated status in its relationship with the surface owner, resulting in the universally accepted notion that the mineral estate...more
The recent Lightning Oil Company v. Anadarko E&P Onshore, LLC F/K/A Andarko E&P Company, LP, decision of the Texas Supreme Court, which clarified the rights and obligations of owners of the surface property and the mineral...more
Action Item: The Texas Supreme Court annunciated two critical points in Lightning Oil Co. v. Anadarko E&P Onshore: (1) unauthorized interference may be a trespass only when it impacts the mineral lessee’s ability to exercise...more
We know that in Texas the mineral owner has the right to explore for and produce the minerals. What does that leave for the surface owner? In Lightning Oil Company v. Anadarko E&P Onshore, LLC the Texas Supreme Court tells us...more
The Supreme Court of Ohio recently brought clarity to issues plaguing the holders of both mineral and surface rights for years by addressing two questions: When does the owner of dormant mineral rights abandon those rights?...more
The development of the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania has led to a number of disputes about historical judgments that purportedly divested reserved oil and gas rights from their owners. During the 20th century, surface...more
In Lightning Oil Company v. Anadarko E&P Offshore, LLC, the surface and 1/6 of the minerals of the Chaparral Wildlife Management Area is owned by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 5/6th of the minerals is owned by the...more
In reasons released on May 30, 2014, the B.C. Supreme Court set aside the B.C. Surface Rights Board’s compensation award to a landowner in northern B.C. and remitted the case back to the Board for reconsideration: Progress...more
How is a producer to deal with a demanding and formidable lessor’s insistence on stringent surface protection? How about demands from environmental groups and government entities?...more