David Blackmon, Rebecca Blackmon Reed and Jay Harlan v. XTO Energy, Inc. ( 2008 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-07-00345-CV
DAVID BLACKMON, REBECCA
BLACKMON REED, AND JAY HARLAN,
Appellants
v.
XTO ENERGY, INC.,
Appellee
From the 82nd District Court
Robertson County, Texas
Trial Court No. 05-07-17,292-CV
OPINION
David Blackmon, Rebecca Blackmon Reed, and Jay Harlan (collectively the
“Blackmons”) filed a declaratory judgment action against XTO Energy, Inc. alleging that
an oil and gas lease held by XTO had expired because the well was shut in. The
Blackmons also sought an accounting for allegedly unpaid royalties. The court granted
XTO’s summary-judgment motion premised primarily on the grounds that: (1) the lease
did not terminate because the well remained capable of producing in paying quantities
while it was shut in; and (2) the Blackmons’ predecessors-in-interest had previously
sold their royalty interests and so the Blackmons were not owed any royalty payments.
The court denied the Blackmons’ competing motion for partial summary judgment.
The Blackmons contend in six issues that the court erred by granting XTO’s
summary-judgment motion and denying their own because: (1) the well was not
capable of producing in paying quantities; (2) XTO failed to properly pay the royalties
owed them; (3) XTO failed to establish a limitations title to the mineral interests in
question; (4) their conduct in executing a subsequent division order and accepting
subsequent royalty payments did not revive or ratify the lease; (5) a four-year
limitations statute applies because this is a suit on a debt; and (6) the court abused its
discretion by failing to exclude certain summary-judgment evidence.
We will affirm.
Background
The Blackmons’ predecessors-in-interest, Hollis and Helga Blackmon and
Barbara Thaemar, executed an oil, gas and mineral lease in favor of Wessely Energy
Corporation in January 1983. This lease covered two adjoining tracts of land identified
in the lease as: (1) a 33.5-acre tract in Section 8 of the Maria de la Concepcion Marquez
Grant, A-25 (Tract 1); and (2) a 101.5-acre tract in the same Section 8 (Tract 2).1 Wessely
Energy pooled Tract 1 with other lands in the Biggs #1 Gas Unit in 1984. Production
from the Biggs #1 Well in this unit held the lease beyond its primary term, but
production ceased at this well in April 1997 because the third party (Texas Utilities Fuel
Company) which had been purchasing the gas produced from this well refused to
1
Subsequent surveys have revealed that Tract 2 actually contains 111.5 acres.
Blackmon v. XTO Energy, Inc. Page 2
continue because the the carbon dioxide content was greater than three percent, which
was contrary to the specifications of the purchase contract. No royalty payments were
made to the Blackmons’ predecessors-in-interest while the well was shut in. XTO’s
predecessor-in-interest installed an amine processing unit in September 1998 which
removed the excess carbon dioxide from the gas, and production resumed.
Production in Paying Quantities
The Blackmons contend in their first issue that they conclusively established the
Biggs #1 Well was not capable of producing in paying quantities when it was shut in
because XTO could not sell the gas flowing from the well without installing the amine
processing unit to satisfy the carbon dioxide requirements of the TUFCO contract.2
According to settled law,
the phrase “capable of production in paying quantities” means a well that
will produce in paying quantities if the well is turned “on,” and it begins
flowing, without additional equipment or repair. Conversely, a well
would not be capable of producing in paying quantities if the well switch
were turned “on,” and the well did not flow, because of mechanical
problems or because the well needs rods, tubing, or pumping equipment.
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Thompson, 94 S.W.3d 550, 558 (Tex. 2002) (quoting
Hydrocarbon Mgmt., Inc. v. Tracker Exploration, Inc., 861 S.W.2d 427, 433-34 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 1993, no writ)).
The Blackmons argue that the Biggs #1 Well was not capable of production in
paying quantities “because it needed additional equipment or repairs in order to
2
Because the relevant facts are not in dispute, we dispense with any discussion of the applicable
standard of review.
Blackmon v. XTO Energy, Inc. Page 3
produce marketable gas.” (emphasis added). We disagree. The focus is on whether the
well is capable of producing gas in a marketable quantity, not a marketable quality.
In an opinion on rehearing in Anadarko, the Supreme Court did identify a
marketing component that applies in certain cases when determining whether a well is
capable of producing in paying quantities.
[F]or a well to produce in paying quantities, or to be capable of producing
in paying quantities, there must be facilities located near enough to the
well that it would be economically feasible to establish a connection so
that production could be marketed at a profit.
Id. at 559. The Court also quoted from a prior decision involving a marginal well and
observed that the “paying quantities” part of the definition requires that income from
the sale of the gas must exceed production and marketing costs. Id. (quoting Clifton v.
Koontz, 160 Tex. 82, 325 S.W.2d 684, 691 (1959)).
Here, the Biggs #1 Well was connected to pipeline facilities and was capable of
producing a high volume of raw gas at the wellhead. See id. The reference to
“additional equipment or repair[s]” in the Anadarko definition focuses on equipment or
repairs necessary for raw gas to flow from the wellhead when the switch is turned “on”
rather than on equipment installed downline to refine the raw product to marketable
form. Id. at 558.
Cases addressing whether post-production costs should be included when
calculating royalty payments are also relevant to this issue.
Production costs are the expenses incurred in exploring for mineral
substances and in bringing them to the surface. Absent an express term to
the contrary, these costs are not chargeable to the non-operating royalty
interest. Whatever costs are incurred after production of the gas or
Blackmon v. XTO Energy, Inc. Page 4
minerals are normally proportionately borne by both the operator and the
royalty interest owners. These post-production costs include taxes,
treatment costs to render the gas marketable, compression costs to make it
deliverable into a purchaser's pipeline, and transportation costs.
Cartwright v. Cologne Prod. Co., 182 S.W.3d 438, 444-45 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006,
pet. denied) (citations omitted); see Martin v. Glass, 571 F. Supp. 1406, 1415 (N.D. Tex.
1983) (“Under the law of Texas, gas is ‘produced’ when it is severed from the land at the
wellhead.”), aff’d, 736 F.2d 1524 (5th Cir. 1984); Heritage Resources, Inc. v. NationsBank,
939 S.W.2d 118, 122 (Tex. 1996) (“Post-production marketing costs include transporting
the gas to the market and processing the gas to make it marketable.”).
“Production” means “the act of producing oil, gas, and other
minerals,” not the act of transporting, gathering, treating, processing, or
marketing oil or gas. Historically, “production” ceases once the lessee
extracts oil or gas from the ground at the wellhead. The historical
definition of “production” is consistent with the common understanding
of the term; to “produce” is to make or create a product that did not
previously exist, and not to refine or improve a product already in
existence.
Byron C. Keeling & Karolyn King Gillespie, The First Marketable Product Doctrine: Just
What is the “Product”?, 37 ST. MARY’S L.J. 1, 88-89 (2005) (footnotes omitted); accord Bruce
M. Kramer, Interpreting the Royalty Obligation by Looking at the Express Language: What a
Novel Idea?, 35 TEX. TECH. L. REV. 223, 234 (2004) (“Production has been defined as
‘actually taking oil or gas from the well in a captive state for either storing or marketing
the product for sale.’”) (quoting Riley v. Meriwether, 780 S.W.2d 919, 923 (Tex. App.—El
Paso 1989, writ denied)).
Here, the amine processing unit was installed to render the gas of marketable
quality. See Heritage Resources, 939 S.W.2d at 122; Cartwright, 182 S.W.3d at 444-45;
Blackmon v. XTO Energy, Inc. Page 5
Keeling & Gillespie, supra, at 88-89. This is a post-production function. Id. And as
petroleum geologist Anthony Fears explained in his summary-judgment affidavit, the
amine processing unit “was added downstream of the wellhead.”3 Thus, it was not the
type of “additional equipment” necessary to enable gas to flow from the wellhead in a
producing quantity. See Martin, 571 F. Supp. at 1415; Keeling & Gillespie, supra, at 88;
Kramer, supra, at 234; cf. Anadarko Petroleum, 94 S.W.3d at 558.
The summary-judgment evidence conclusively establishes that raw gas was
capable of flowing from the wellhead of the Biggs #1 Well in a marketable quantity
regardless of whether the amine processing unit was installed downstream. Therefore,
the well was capable of producing in paying quantities when it was shut in.
We overrule the Blackmons’ first issue.
Failure to Pay Shut-In Royalties
The Blackmons contend in their second issue that the 1983 lease terminated
ninety days after the Biggs #1 Well was shut in because XTO’s predecessor-in-interest
failed to pay shut-in royalties to all parties who were entitled to such payments under
the lease.
The habendum clause4 provides in pertinent part:
If, at the expiration of the primary term or at any time or times thereafter,
there is any well on said land or on lands with which said land or any
portion thereof has been pooled, capable of producing oil or gas, and all
3
The Blackmons do not challenge the admissibility of this statement in their sixth issue, though
they do challenge other statements in Fears’s affidavit.
4
“The habendum clause defines the duration of a gas lease.” Nancy J. Forbis, Note, The Shut-In
Royalty Clause: Balancing the Interests of Lessors and Lessees, 67 TEXAS L. REV. 1129, 1142 n.84 (1989); see
OWEN L. ANDERSON ET AL., HEMINGWAY OIL AND GAS LAW AND TAXATION § 6.4, at 247 (4th ed. 2004).
Blackmon v. XTO Energy, Inc. Page 6
such wells are shut-in, this lease shall, nevertheless, continue in force as
though operations were being conducted on said land for so long as said
wells are shut-in, and thereafter this lease may be continued in force as if
no shut-in had occurred. . . . If, at any time or times after the expiration
of the primary term, all such wells are shut-in for a period of ninety
consecutive days, and during such time there are no operations on said
land, then at or before the expiration of said ninety day period, lessee shall
pay or tender, by check or draft of lessee, as royalty, a sum equal to one
dollar ($1.00) for each acre of land then covered hereby. Lessee shall make
like payments or tenders at or before the end of each anniversary of the
expiration of said ninety day period if upon such anniversary this lease is
being continued in force solely by reason of the provisions of this
paragraph.
The Blackmons contend that these shut-in royalty provisions create a special
limitation for which the lease is automatically terminated upon noncompliance. XTO
argues that these provisions create a covenant which can be enforced only by a suit for
monetary damages.
There are three primary qualifications generally imposed on the various
ownership interests created by an oil and gas lease: (1) general and special limitations;
(2) conditions subsequent; and (3) covenants. A.W. Walker, Jr., The Nature of the
Property Interests Created by an Oil and Gas Lease in Texas, 8 TEXAS L. REV. 483, 483-84
(1930); see Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Roberts, 28 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi 2000, pet. granted, judgm’t vacated w.r.m.).
The breach of a condition does not, of itself, divest the estate of the
lessee, but to do this the lessor must, by express act, take advantage of the
same by re-entry, or that which in law would be equivalent thereto.
A conditional limitation marks the period or event which is to
determine the estate without entry or claim, and no affirmative act is
necessary to vest the right in the grantor or him who has the next
expectant interest.
Blackmon v. XTO Energy, Inc. Page 7
In case of doubt as to the true construction of a clause in a lease, it
should be held to be a covenant, and not a condition or limitation, as the
law does not favor forfeitures.
W.T. Waggoner Estate v. Sigler Oil Co., 118 Tex. 509, 19 S.W.2d 27, 31 (1929) (quoting
Johnson v. Gurley, 52 Tex. 222, 227 (1879)) (citations omitted); see Rogers v. Ricane Enters.,
Inc., 772 S.W.2d 76, 79 (Tex. 1989); Coastal Oil & Gas Corp., 28 S.W.3d at 763; Hitzelberger
v. Samedan Oil Corp., 948 S.W.2d 497, 506 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, pet. denied).
As the Court held in Johnson,
A covenant is an agreement duly made between the parties to do or
not to do a particular act.
For breach of [a] mere covenant the lessor has no right of reentry,
unless, as is not the case here, there is an express clause in the agreement
to this effect, but has the right to sue for damages only.
A condition is a qualification annexed to an estate by the grantor,
whereby it may [be] created, enlarged, or defeated upon an uncertain
event.
The lessor may, without an express clause to that effect, take
advantage of a breach of condition by reentry or ejectment.
Johnson, 52 Tex. at 226-27 (citations omitted); see Rogers, 772 S.W.2d at 79; Coastal Oil &
Gas Corp., 28 S.W.3d at 763; Hitzelberger, 948 S.W.2d at 506.
The Blackmons cite Freeman v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 141 Tex. 274, 171 S.W.2d
339 (1943), and similar cases to support their contention that the shut-in royalty
provisions created a special limitation. In Freeman, the lease at issue provided in
pertinent part, “while said [shut-in] royalty is so paid, said well shall be held to be a
producing well.” Id. at 340. The Supreme Court held that this was a condition of the
lease and, because the lessees failed to make a timely shut-in royalty payment, “[t]he
Blackmon v. XTO Energy, Inc. Page 8
lease lapsed as a matter of law when they so failed.” Id. at 342. However, the shut-in
provisions of the Blackmons’ lease are different.
Referring to royalty payments in general, it has been said that “[f]ew leases are
found in which the nonpayment of royalty is a condition subsequent and rarer still is
the lease in which it operates as a special limitation.” Linton E. Barbee, The Lessor’s
Remedies for Nonpayment of Royalty, 45 TEXAS L. REV. 132, 159 (1966). “Non-payment of
royalty will not typically terminate a lease, ‘in the absence of a specific clause to that
effect.’” Coastal Oil & Gas Corp., 28 S.W.3d at 763 (quoting Morriss v. First Nat’l Bank of
Mission, 249 S.W.2d 269, 279 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1952, writ ref’d n.r.e)). “A
lessor or an owner of a royalty interest cannot claim forfeiture or termination of an oil
and gas lease for nonpayment of royalties in the absence of a specific provision of the
lease to that effect.” Barbee, supra, at 162 (quoting 3A W.L. SUMMERS, THE LAW OF OIL
AND GAS § 614, at 512 (1958)).
But discussing shut-in royalties in particular, Barbee noted:
In “unless” leases,5 failure to pay shut-in royalties, if they are provided
for, after the expiration of the primary term operates indirectly as a special
limitation if the well which has been capped is the only well on the tract.
The shut-in royalty is a substitute for production; a cessation of shut-in
royalty payments is a cessation of “production” under the habendum
clause, and the lease terminates.
Barbee, supra, at 158 n.207 (citing Freeman, supra) (footnote added). Nevertheless, not
every shut-in clause is conditioned on the payment of shut-in royalties.
5
An “unless” lease is typically one with a provision that, if drilling is not commenced within a
specified term, the lease will terminate “unless” delay rentals are paid. See Humble Oil & Refining Co. v.
Harrison, 146 Tex. 216, 205 S.W.2d 355, 360 (1947); ANDERSON ET AL., supra, § 6.2, at 217; A.W. Walker, Jr.,
The Nature of the Property Interests Created by an Oil and Gas Lease in Texas, 8 TEXAS L. REV. 483, 520-21
(1930).
Blackmon v. XTO Energy, Inc. Page 9
According to the Williams and Meyers treatise:
[M]any [shut-in] clauses provide that a lease shall be preserved even
though there is no production or operations on the premises if a well
capable of producing is shut-in; such clauses impose a duty to pay shut-in
royalty. The normal remedy of the lessor where obligatory shut-in royalty
is not paid is an action to recover the royalty rather than an action to
cancel the lease.
3 HOWARD R. WILLIAMS ET AL., WILLIAMS & MEYERS OIL AND GAS LAW § 632.8, at 437
(2007).
The Anderson treatise has most directly addressed this issue.
The structure of the words of the shut-in royalty clause may also
have an important effect upon the rights of a lessee who makes an
improper shut-in payment. As Freeman illustrates, the usual effect of a
lessee’s failure to pay shut-in royalties properly is lease termination
because most shut-in royalty clauses make failure to pay properly a
special limitation or a condition to the term of the lease. On the other
hand, if the language creates a mere promise to pay, then the lease should
not terminate if payment is not made, but the lessor should be able to
recover the payments. To put it another way, if the language makes
proper payment the constructive production,6 then if the payment is not
made correctly the lease terminates because failure to have either actual or
constructive production triggers the special limitation or condition to the
term of the lease. But if the constructive production defined by the clause
is the existence of a well on the premises capable of production in paying
quantities, then the lease should not terminate at the end of the primary
term even if the shut-in royalties are never paid.
OWEN L. ANDERSON ET AL., HEMINGWAY OIL AND GAS LAW AND TAXATION § 6.5, at 278
(4th ed. 2004) (footnote omitted) (footnote added).
6
“Constructive production” is an action defined by the lease which operates as a substitute for
actual production and keeps the lease in effect after the expiration of the primary term. It typically
involves the payment of shut-in royalties when that payment is a special limitation on the lessee’s interest
or the existence on the premises of a well capable of producing in paying quantities. See, e.g., Gulf Oil
Corp. v. Reid, 161 Tex. 51, 337 S.W.2d 267, 272 (1960); Hydrocarbon Mgmt., Inc. v. Tracker Exploration, Inc.,
861 S.W.2d 427, 432 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1993, no writ); ANDERSON ET AL., supra, § 6.5, at 273-74; see also
Linton E. Barbee, The Lessor’s Remedies for Nonpayment of Royalty, 45 TEXAS L. REV. 132, 158 n.207 (1966)
(shut-in royalties are “a substitute for production”).
Blackmon v. XTO Energy, Inc. Page 10
Here, the constructive production defined by the habendum clause is the
existence of a well on the premises capable of production in paying quantities. See id.
The provision for payment of shut-in royalties is a covenant by the lessee which may be
enforced by a suit for money damages. Id.; see Rogers, 772 S.W.2d at 79; Johnson, 52 Tex.
at 226-27; Coastal Oil & Gas Corp., 28 S.W.3d at 763; Hitzelberger, 948 S.W.2d at 506.
Accordingly, the lease did not terminate because of any failure on the part of XTO’s
predecessor-in-interest to make shut-in royalty payments. See ANDERSON ET AL., supra, §
6.5, at 278.
We overrule the Blackmons’ second issue.
Conclusion
The 1983 lease did not terminate when the Biggs #1 Well was shut in because the
well was capable of producing in paying quantities. The provision for payment of shut-
in royalties is a covenant by the lessee which may be enforced by a suit for money
damages. In view of these holdings, we need not address the remainder of the issues
presented. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
FELIPE REYNA
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
(Chief Justice Gray concurring with note)*
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed December 10, 2008
[CV06]
Blackmon v. XTO Energy, Inc. Page 11
* (Chief Justice Gray concurs. A separate opinion will not issue. He notes,
however, that this lease has some unique provisions. We must start our analysis of this
lease with reference to and by analysis of those provisions. Upon such an analysis,
there is little need for references to general oil and gas treatises or earlier case law. The
parties to the lease left no doubt about production in paying quantities or that the
payment of shut-in royalties was a covenant as opposed to a substitute for production.)
Blackmon v. XTO Energy, Inc. Page 12