to Denbury Green at the end of its transport. This would be insufficient on its own because it would not evidence that Denbury would be transporting the gas to the public.
 15-0225, 2017 WL 65470 (Tex. Jan. 6, 2017).  363 S.W.3d 192, 202 (Tex. 2012).  Rice I at 202. About the Author
Mixed Industry Reactions
Austin Brister, Oil and Gas Attorney at McGinnis Lochridge Austin assists clients in all aspects of mergers, acquisitions and divestitures of energy properties, from the first letter
Reactions from various lawyers and industry and landowner groups have widely varied. Some have claimed that this case makes it far easier to condemn property and represent a windfall for pipeline companies at the expense of private property rights. Other commentators have been of the opinion that this case merely provides clarity to the applicable tests, and that it is still significantly more difficult for a pipeline to condemn property than it was prior to Texas Rice I.
of intent through negotiations, closing and post-closing matters. He has assisted clients in a variety of deals including farmouts, purchase and sale transactions, joint exploration and development agreements, participation agreements, and more routine operational transactions such as joint operating agreements and master services agreements.
Texas Court Holds That Permit Of Injection Well May Be Challenged Outside Railroad Commission and Travis County Via Injunctive Relief By: Chris Halgren and Austin Brister
under a permit issued by the RRC which could cause waste. We will continue to follow this case to see whether there is a petition for review filed in the Texas Supreme Court. It should also be noted that the court of appeals did not consider whether an injunction was proper in this case. Instead, the matter was remanded to the trial court so that the trial court can determine whether Ring Energy is actually entitled to injunctive relief. Facts leading to the dispute Trey Resources was conducting oil and gas operations in Andrews County, Texas. Ring Energy operated five wells within the immediate area. Trey obtained nine permits from the RRC for the operation of injection wells as part of a secondary recovery effort. Ring Energy did not oppose the issuance of the permit at the regulatory stage. Before Trey Resources began operating the injection well, Ring Energy filed suit in Andrews County seeking an injunction against Trey Resource’s operation of the well. Ring Energy claimed that the injection of water into Trey’s well would cause it irreparable damage to Ring’s minerals, constituting “waste.” Trey Resources argued that Andrews County lacked
Brief Overview: What You Need to Know On January 18, 2017, in Ring Energy v. Trey Resources, Inc.,  the El Paso Court of Appeals, in a case of first impression, addressed whether a trial court outside of Travis County (where the Texas Railroad Commission (the “RRC”) is based) has jurisdiction to issue an injunction prohibiting a party with a valid RRC injection well permit from operating its injection well based on a complaining party’s claim that the injection would cause imminent and irreparable “waste,” even though the complaining party (1) had not yet sustained any actual injury, (2) did not oppose the permit prior to issuance, and (3) did not take advantage any other administrative remedy that might have been available. The El Paso Court of Appeals, basing largely on its interpretation of the applicable statutes, held that a trial court outside of Travis County would have such jurisdiction, and held that the complaining company could proceed with its suit for injunctive relief. In addition to injection well permits, the same jurisdictional analysis could potentially apply to parties seeking a pre-injury injunction to enjoin other activities
N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f D i v i s i o n O r d e r A n a l y s t s
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker