Bad Moon Rising--The Continuing Liability of an Assignee After Assignment
Some would suggest that a year ago another bad moon went on the rise in the Supreme Court of Texas, when it addressed the continuing liability of a lessee after assignment of its interest in an oil and gas lease and a related operating agreement in Seagull Energy E&P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc.2 Of course, whether it is a bad or good moon depends upon one's vantage point. Many in the oil and gas industry will find themselves on both sides of the argument.
A broad, expansive application of the Seagull decision could have far-reaching consequences to the oil and gas industry--some justified and some unwanted. The analysis below suggests, how- [31-3] ever, that many parties to leases and related agreements desire a more constrained result than the extension of a most liberal reading of the case. Although more artful drafting of future instruments may minimize the impact of the case, negative consequences may also be avoided by a reasoned approach by other courts in interpreting existing agreements under Seagull.
 Custom and Practice of Lease Assignments
Record setting high prices for oil and gas have spawned a frenzy of recent activity in the oil patch. At the heart of every commercial transaction involving oil and gas properties is the oil, gas, and mineral lease. Whether a deal involves the sale of a single lease for a few hundred dollars or the sale of a package
This content is available from the following sources
Already a Subscriber? Sign In
Over 60 years of scholarship at your fingertips.
Buy the Publication
The book containing this article may be available in hard copy, or the article may be available individually. Please contact the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation at firstname.lastname@example.org or 303-321-8100.