Jessica Robertson, Volume 50 Articles Editor
JUSTICE JOHNSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
The issue in this case is who must give permission to an oil and gas operator to drill on a mineral estate it does not own when attempting to reach minerals under an adjacent tract of land. The Supreme Court of Texas held that it is not necessary for the lessee of the adjacent land to consent to a nonparticipating operator’s drilling where there is a contract between the operator and the owner of the surface estate of the adjacent property.
In Lightning Oil v. Anadarko, Anadarko was party to a lease that restricted use of the surface estate and required it to drill from off-site locations when feasible. As a result, Anadarko entered into an agreement with the adjacent property owner to horizontally drill from the surface into the leased minerals. Lightning Oil, the lessee of the adjacent property, was not a party to the agreement and sought to enjoin Anadarko from drilling, claiming it’s consent as lessee of the adjacent property was necessary before drilling. Lightning Oil prayed for relief under both trespass of the mineral estate and tortious interference with contract regarding the mineral lease, turning on whether a mineral estate lessee’s rights include the right to preclude a surface owner or adjacent lessee from boring through surface formations where the lessee’s minerals are located.
Under a trespass claim, owners of realty have the right to exclude all others from use of the property; yet, this right does not necessarily include a right to exclude every invasion or interference. Trespass may occur not only from unauthorized interference with physical property, but also unauthorized interference with one of the rights of property. The Court, however, refused to find trespass where there is only a theoretical interference of a lessee’s right to develop. To hold that there has been a trespass of a lessee’s rights under an oil and gas lease, the interference must interfere with the lessee’s actual ability to exercise its rights—an interference that Lightning Oil failed to prove.
Under a tortious interference with contract claim, a party is justified in interfering when it is exercising its own contractual rights. The Court concluded that Anadarko had obtained consent to drill on the adjacent property and was justified in exercising its rights under that agreement. Consequently, there was no tortious interference with Lightning Oil’s mineral lease.
Lightning Oil Co. v. Anadarko E&P Onshore, LLC, No. 15-0910 (Tex. May 19, 2017).