| Close=20
This Window | |
|
PETRO PRO, LTD., L&R ENERGY = CORPORATION,=20 NANCY WILSON BRISCOE, JUDITH BROCK SEITZ, AND CAROLYN ROGERS,=20 APPELLANTS
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
There is much in the Court's opinion with which I agree. I do = not=20 quarrel with the Court's discussion of the nature of our task, or = with its=20 conclusion that the wellbore assignments are unambiguous. I join = in the=20 Court's disposition of Petro's claims of trespass, bad faith = trespass,=20 conversion, and money had and received, and of Petro's request = that=20 production proceeds of the Skeeterbee wells be placed in the = registry of=20 the court. With regard to the declaratory relief, I agree also that the = trial=20 court did not err by rejecting Petro's expansive view of its = rights under=20 the assignments. I further agree with my colleagues that the = Intervenors'=20 declaratory judgment position relying on Railroad Commission well = density=20 rules is not persuasive. My difference with the Court involves its conclusion that the = language=20 used by the parties in the wellbore assignments reflects their = intention=20 that the assignee was conveyed the right to recomplete the King = "F" No. 2=20 well in the Brown Dolomite formation. From the language used in = these=20 assignments, I would not find the parties intended both the = assignor and=20 assignee to have the right to produce gas from the same formation. = The Court properly begins its analysis with the axioms that in = Texas an=20 oil and gas lease is held to convey a determinable fee, vesting = the lessee=20 with title to oil and gas in place, Cherokee Water Co. v.=20 Forderhause, 641 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tex. 1982); W. T. = Waggoner=20 Estate v. Sigler Oil Co., 188 Tex. 509, 19 S.W.2d 27, 28 = (Tex. 1929),=20 and that an assignment of an oil and gas leasehold is similarly = treated,=20 Rogers v. Ricane Enterprises, Inc., 772 S.W.2d 76, 80 = (Tex.=20 1989). As the Court ultimately construes the assignments, however, = Petro=20 was assigned the leasehold right to recomplete the King "F" No. 2 = well for=20 the purpose of producing gas from the Brown Dolomite formation but = the=20 assigned right was not accompanied by any ownership interest in = the gas=20 outside the confines of the wellbore. Rather than concluding the = parties=20 intended to grant Petro the right to recomplete the well to = produce gas it=20 does not own, I would construe the assignments' language in a = manner=20 consistent with our state's ownership-in-place theory. My conclusion is that the trial court was correct to adopt the =
position=20
asserted by Upland. James T. Campbell Justice 1. The court expresses the concern that = adoption of=20 Upland's position requires us to imply language the assignments do = not=20 contain. I do not agree. By the assignments, the assignee received = all the=20 assignor's right, title and interest in and to the leases, = "insofar and=20 only insofar as said leases cover rights in the wellbore of the = King 'F'=20 No. 2 well." It seems to me we do not read language into the = assignments=20 merely by acknowledging the undisputed, and indisputable, fact = that the=20 well referred to in the assignments as the King "F" No. 2 (but not = further=20 identified or described in the assignments) is a well producing = only from=20 the Lips, West (Cleveland) Field. See, e.g., Texas Pac. Coal = & Oil=20 Co. v. Masterson, 160 Tex. 548, 334 S.W.2d 436 (Tex. 1960) = (court's=20 construction of unambiguous deed included references to stipulated = facts).=20 2. Although title to gas in the Cleveland = formation is=20 not at issue, Upland's brief acknowledges that the assignments = conveyed=20 the "Cleveland Zone which was then open to production in the = wellbore . .=20 . ." |