ConocoPhillips Company v. Vaquillas Unproven Minerals, LTD.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided May 29, 2015·No. 04-15-00066-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 04-15-00066-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 5/29/2015 9:04:03 AM NO. 04-15-00066-CV KEITH HOTTLE CLERK

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FILED IN FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

05/29/15 9:04:03 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE CONOCOPHILLIPS COMPANY APPELLANT Clerk

V.

VAQUILLAS UNPROVEN MINERALS, LTD. APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 406th District Court, Webb County, Texas

BRIEF OF APPELLEE

GREGG OWENS State Bar No. 15383500 JOHN R. HAYS, JR. P. MICHAEL JUNG State Bar No. 09303300 State Bar No. 11054600 ALICIA R. RINGUET Strasburger & Price, LLP State Bar No. 24074958 4400 Bank of America Plaza Hays & Owens L.L.P. 901 Main Street 807 Brazos Street, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75202 Austin, Texas 78701 (214) 651-4300 (512) 472-3993 (214) 659-4022 (telecopy) (512) 472-3883 (telecopy) michael.jung@strasburger.com gregg.owens@haysowens.com john.hays@haysowens.com

RAUL LEAL ARMANDO X. LOPEZ State Bar No. 24032657 State Bar No. 12562400 Raul Leal Incorporated Armando Lopez, Attorney at Law 5810 San Bernardo, Suite 390 1510 Calle Del Norte, Suite 16 Laredo, Texas 78041 Laredo, Texas 78041 (956) 727-0039 (956) 726-0722 (956) 727-0369 (telecopy) (956) 726-6049 (telecopy) rleal@rl-lawfirm.com mandox@rio.bravo.net

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

IDENTITIES OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Party Counsel ConocoPhillips Company Michael V. Powell Appellant Cynthia K. Timms Elizabeth L. Tiblets Locke Lord LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200 Dallas, Texas 75201-6776

Adolfo Campero Campero & Associates, P.C. 315 Calle Del Norte, Suite 207 Laredo, Texas 78041 Vaquillas Unproven Minerals, Ltd. Gregg Owens Appellee John Hays Hays & Owens L.L.P. 807 Brazos Street, Suite 500 Austin, Texas 78701

P. Michael Jung Strasburger & Price, LLP 4400 Bank Of America Plaza 901 Main Street Dallas, Texas 75202

Raul Leal Raul Leal Incorporated 5810 San Bernardo, Suite 390 Laredo, Texas 78041

Armando X. Lopez Armando Lopez, Attorney at Law 1510 Calle Del Norte, Suite 16 Laredo, Texas 78041

-i-

SP-#6737091-v1-Vaquillas_Brief_of_Appellee.docx

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identities of Parties and Counsel.................................................................................i

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... ii

Index of Authorities ................................................................................................... v

Statement of the Case............................................................................................. viii

Issue Presented ....................................................................................................... viii

Statement of Facts ...................................................................................................... 1

The Leases ....................................................................................................... 1

The Field Rules ................................................................................................ 2

The Well Density Rule .................................................................................... 4

The Partial Releases ......................................................................................... 4

The Litigation .................................................................................................. 5

Summary of the Argument......................................................................................... 5

Introduction to the Argument..................................................................................... 8

Oil and Gas Leases .......................................................................................... 8

Retained-Acreage Clauses ............................................................................... 9

Spacing, Density, and Units Under the Rules ............................................... 10

Argument.................................................................................................................. 11

I. UNDER THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE RETAINED-

ACREAGE CLAUSE, CONOCO IS OBLIGATED TO RELEASE ALL ACREAGE EXCEPT FOR 40 ACRES PER WELL. ....................................................................................... 11

-ii-

SP-#6737091-v1-Vaquillas_Brief_of_Appellee.docx

A. It Is the Spacing or Proration Provided by the Field Rule, Not Necessarily the Text of the Field Rule Itself, that Must Establish Units of Acreage Per Well. .................. 13

B. The Spacing Provided by Field Rule 2 “Establishes”

Units of Acreage per Well. ..................................................... 14

C. The Units Established by Field Rule 2’s Spacing Requirements Are “Different Units” Because They Are Different from 640 Acres. ............................................... 18

II. OTHER RULES OF CONSTRUCTION DO NOT PERMIT OR REQUIRE THE COURT TO DISREGARD THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE RETAINED-ACREAGE CLAUSE. ............................................................................................ 20

A. The Rule Against Surplusage Does Not Change the Result. ....................................................................................... 20

1. That Any Drilling Unit Established as a Result of Field-Rule Spacing Would Likely Be Less Than 640 Acres Does Not Create Surplusage. ........... 21

2. The 640-Acre Pooling Authorization Is Not Rendered Surplusage. .................................................. 23

3. The Requirement That Each Retained Unit Contain “At Least” One Well Is Not Rendered Surplusage. .................................................................... 24

4. That a Particular Field-Rule Spacing Establishes the Drilling Unit for Gas Wells at the Same Acreage as the Drilling Unit for Oil Wells Does Not Create Surplusage. ............................ 25

B. The Rule Regarding Special Limitations on a Grant of Leasehold Rights Has No Application Here..................... 26

III. THE MANIFEST PURPOSE OF THE RETAINED-

ACREAGE CLAUSE IS SERVED BY THE TRIAL COURT’S CONSTRUCTION. ........................................................ 28

-iii-

SP-#6737091-v1-Vaquillas_Brief_of_Appellee.docx

Prayer ....................................................................................................................... 29

Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 30

Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................ 31

Appendix Tab Amended Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (CR 433-35) ................................................................................................. 1 Amended Oil and Gas Mineral Lease [26,622.79-acre tract] (CR 283-301) ............................................................................................... 2 Oil and Gas Mineral Lease [6,740-acre tract] (CR 302-23) ........................... 3 Final Order Amending Field Rules for the Vaquillas Ranch (Lobo Cons.) Field Webb County, Texas (CR 254-55) .................................. 4 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.38 (CR 234-40) ..................................................... 5

-iv-

SP-#6737091-v1-Vaquillas_Brief_of_Appellee.docx

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Thompson, 94 S.W.3d 550 (Tex. 2002) .................................................................... 11, 26

Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. New Ulm Gas, Ltd., 940 S.W.2d 587 (Tex. 1996) .........................................................................16

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ConocoPhillips Company v. Vaquillas Unproven Minerals, LTD., (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

ConocoPhillips Company v. Vaquillas Unproven Minerals, LTD. (ConocoPhillips Company v. Vaquillas Unproven Minerals, LTD.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schaefer
124 S.W.3d 154 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Sheppard
282 S.W.3d 419 (Texas Supreme Court, 2008)
McBride v. Hutson
306 S.W.2d 888 (Texas Supreme Court, 1957)
Rogers v. Ricane Enterprises, Inc.
772 S.W.2d 76 (Texas Supreme Court, 1989)
RAILROAD COM'N OF TEXAS v. WBD Oil & Gas
104 S.W.3d 69 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Thompson
94 S.W.3d 550 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
Humphrey v. Seale
716 S.W.2d 620 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1986)
Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Railroad Commission
529 S.W.2d 763 (Texas Supreme Court, 1975)
Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. New Ulm Gas, Ltd.
940 S.W.2d 587 (Texas Supreme Court, 1996)
Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America v. Pool
124 S.W.3d 188 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. v. Daniel
243 S.W.2d 154 (Texas Supreme Court, 1951)
EOG Resources, Inc. v. Killam Oil Co., Ltd.
239 S.W.3d 293 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Sun Oil Co. (Delaware) v. Madeley
626 S.W.2d 726 (Texas Supreme Court, 1981)
Fox v. Thoreson
398 S.W.2d 88 (Texas Supreme Court, 1966)
Amarillo Oil Co. v. Energy-Agri Products, Inc.
794 S.W.2d 20 (Texas Supreme Court, 1990)
Shown v. Getty Oil Co.
645 S.W.2d 555 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1982)
Heritage Resources, Inc. v. NationsBank
939 S.W.2d 118 (Texas Supreme Court, 1997)
Virgil Mathews v. Sun Oil Co.
425 S.W.2d 330 (Texas Supreme Court, 1968)
First National Bank of Beeville v. Fojtik
775 S.W.2d 632 (Texas Supreme Court, 1989)
Jones v. Killingsworth
403 S.W.2d 325 (Texas Supreme Court, 1965)