Unit Petroleum Co. v. David Pond Well Serv., Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 07–12–00359–CV.,07–12–00359–CV. |
| Citation | Unit Petroleum Co. v. David Pond Well Serv., Inc., 439 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. App. 2014) |
| Parties | UNIT PETROLEUM COMPANY, Appellant v. DAVID POND WELL SERVICE, INC., d/b/a, D.W.P. Production, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Richard F. Brown, Matthew H. Hand, Robert C. Vartabedian, Brown & Fortunato, P.C., Amarillo, for Appellant.
Mitchell G. Ehrlich, Jessica McCallie, Ehrlich & McCallie, PLLC, Perryton, John Smithee, Joe W. Hayes, Templeton, Smithee, Hayes, Heinrich & Russell, L.L.P., Amarillo, for Appellee.
Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant, Unit Petroleum Company, appeals a judgment in favor of Appellee, David Pond Well Service d/b/a D.W.P. Production, in its action for a declaratory judgment related to the construction of two mineral leases: (1) an Oil, Gas and Mineral Lease between Unit, as Lessee, and Everett and Lora Tarbox, as Lessors, and (2) a subsequently executed Wellbore Oil & Gas Lease between Pond, as Lessee, and the Tarboxes, as Lessors.1 Furthermore, Unit seeks to “quiet title” to its leasehold interest, particularly as it pertains to the right of a mineral interest owner to designate a proration unit for purposes of obtaining a permit to produce under appropriate governmental regulations. Unit contends the trial court erred (1) by failing to give effect to the plain language of its unambiguous lease, (2) in finding Pond ratified an earlier designation of an eighty acre proration unit2 and (3) in ruling Unit is estopped from challenging Pond's claim to an appurtenant contractual right under its lease to designate a proration unit for the wellbore which would encompass portions of Unit's leasehold estate. We reverse the judgment of the trial court, render judgment declaring the rights of the parties as to those issues before this Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.3
Prior to 2003, the Tarboxes owned the south one-half of Section 539, Block 43, H. & T.C. RR. Co. Survey, Lipscomb County, Texas, containing 320 acres, more or less, encumbered by a then-existing oil, gas and mineral lease (designated for regulatory purposes by the Texas Railroad Commission as Lease No. 05840). By 2003, that prior lease had been assigned to BP America Production Company. In 1985, BP's predecessor, Vance Oil & Gas, Inc., drilled a well on the property and designated it the Tarbox # 1. By the end of 2003, the Tarbox # 1 had ceased to produce in paying quantities. BP acknowledged the well as a non-producing well and abandoned it, thereby allowing that lease to terminate.
Thereafter, on July 19, 2005, the Tarboxes, as lessors, executed a new Oil, Gas and Mineral Lease, in favor of Armer & Quillan, L.L.C., as lessee, covering the same property, in return for a bonus of $150 per acre—or approximately $48,000. Approximately five months later, Armer & Quillan assigned that lease to Unit Petroleum Company; therefore, for purposes of this opinion we refer to that lease as the “Unit Lease.” The Unit Lease provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
At the time the Unit Lease was executed, no oil, gas or other minerals were actually being produced from the Tarbox # 1.
On July 25, 2005, six days after executing the Unit Lease, the Tarboxes, as lessors, executed a Wellbore Oil and Gas Lease in favor of David Pond Well Service, Inc., as lessee, hereinafter the “Wellbore Lease,” in return for a twenty-five percent royalty fee. The Wellbore Lease provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
The Wellbore Lease was recorded in the real estate records of Lipscomb County on August 2, 2005, and the Unit Lease was recorded September 14th. Pond stipulated during trial and on appeal that the interest acquired by virtue of the Wellbore Lease is a leasehold estate limited to “a fee simple determinable estate in the Cleveland zone from a depth of 7,930 feet to 7,990 feet in the 5 and 1/2 [inch] diameter or 17 and 1/4 [inch] circumference of the wellbore of the Tarbox # 1 well located 467 feet from the South line and 467 feet from the West line of Section 539, Block 43, H. & T.C. RR. Co. Survey, Lipscomb County, Texas.”4
Contained within the record is a sixty-five page exhibit which the parties stipulate contains certified copies of documents filed with the Texas Railroad Commission relating to the Tarbox # 1 well. That exhibit contains documents showing the Tarbox # 1 was drilled in 1984 on a pooled unit consisting of the north and south halves of Section 539. Although drilled to a total depth of 9,500 feet, testing deeper formations, the well was completed in the Cleveland formation. For the Cleveland formation completion, the operator designated a drilling unit consisting of the south half of Section 539. In August 1984, the well was classified as an oil well and placed in the Lipscomb, S.E. (Cleveland) field. In October 1984, the Railroad Commission approved a form P–4 changing the well's operator to Vance Oil & Gas, Inc. The exhibit further contains an undated plat, prepared on Vance Oil & Gas, Inc. letterhead and certified as correct by John A. Vance, the company's president. The plat depicts the location of the “V.O. & G. Tarbox # 1” within an outline of the west half of the southwest quarter of Section 539, bearing the notation The plat bears handwritten notations including the lease number 05840 and “Lipscomb, SE (Cleveland).” The Railroad Commission records further contain a form P–4, filed in August 2005, signed by BP and Pond, making application to change the operator of the Tarbox # 1 well from BP to Pond.5 By that application, Pond sought a change of operator under lease name “Tarbox” and lease number “05840.” Absent from those same records are any documents establishing the Railroad Commission was provided a copy of the Wellbore Lease, the Unit Lease, or any other document showing Pond's leasehold interest as being...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Orca Assets, G.P., L.L.C. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
... ... Eduardo Luis Morales, David Jed Williams, San Antonio, Thomas R. Phillips, ... check property records at the courthouse, as well as hiring two shifts of local residents to ... Walden v. Affiliated Computer Servs., Inc., 97 S.W.3d 303, 324 (Tex. App.Houston [14th ... Heath, 23 Tex. 614, 61920 (1859) ; Unit Petroleum Co. v. David Pond Well Serv., Inc., ... ...
-
Endeavor Energy Res., L.P. v. Discovery Operating, Inc.
... ... and Endeavor Petroleum, L.L.C., Petitioners, v. DISCOVERY OPERATING, ... Jr., Brockett & McNeel LLP, Midland, TX, David M. Gunn, Erin H. Huber, Beck Redden LLP, Houston, ... (approximately 160 acres), which we will call well #1 and well #2. Although the lease covered the ... For well #1, the plat designated a proration unit of 81.21 acres consisting of the northern half of ... v. David Pond Well Serv., Inc. , 439 S.W.3d 389, 396 (Tex ... ...
-
Trans-Western Petroleum, Inc. v. U.S. Gypsum Co.
... ... DAMAGES FOR A BREACH OF CONTRACT 9 It is well established under Utah law that, generally speaking, leases ... it all of the law relating to landlord and tenant.); Unit Petroleum Co. v. David Pond Well Serv., Inc. , 439 S.W.3d ... ...
-
Hamman v. Lyle (In re Hous. Bluebonnet, L.L.C.)
...avoiding an "unreasonable, inequitable, and oppressive" construction of the agreement. Unit Petroleum Co. v. David Pond Well Serv., Inc., 439 S.W.3d 389, 395-96 (Tex. App.- Amarillo 2014, pet. denied) (citing Frost Nat'l Bank v. L & F Distribs., Ltd., 165 S.W.3d 310, 312 (Tex. 2005)). The 1......
-
CHAPTER 4 BASIC MINERAL AND LEASEHOLD CONVEYANCING ISSUES
...Id.[137] Id.[138] Id.[139] Id.[140] Id. at 747.[141] Id. [142] Id. at 752.[143] Unit Petroleum Co. v. David Pond Well Service, Inc., 439 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. App. 2014).[144] Id. at 392.[145] Id. at 393.[146] Id. [147] Id. at 394.[148] Id. at 395.[149] Id. at 402....
-
LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS IN 2014 AFFECTING THE OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
...[167] SA-12-CV-542-DAE, 2014 WL 1652599 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2014). [168] 438 S.W.3d 723 (Tex. App. - San Antonio 2014, pet. filed). [169] 439 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. App. - Amarillo 2014, pet. filed). [170] 427 S.W.3d 472 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2014, pet. filed). [171] 759 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2014......