already streamlined by legal precedents like the Accommodation Doctrine, why include surface ownership details? Excluding them might only serve as an additional safeguard against liability, but it seems more like a side benefit rather than the primary reason. The argument that it is all about risk mitigation might be overstated when the practical interaction between the surface and mineral estate is already minimized by established legal norms. 19 “Surface Damages Act”: Unlike the Texas approach, including surface owner details in Oklahoma title opinions is not just beneficial; it is a necessity, primarily due to the distinct relationship between surface owners and oil and gas well Operators governed by the Oklahoma Surface Damages Act. Since July 1, 1982, under 52 Okla. Stat. §§ 318.2-318.9, Operators have been mandated to engage directly with surface owners in a highly regulated manner before any drilling can commence. The law requires operators to notify surface owners via certified mail of their intent to drill and to enter into good faith negotiations within five days to determine any surface damages. This interaction is not just a formality but a legal obligation, backed by the requirement to post a $25,000 corporate surety bond or bank letter of credit with the Secretary of State to guarantee payment of such damages. 20 Furthermore, if no written settlement on surface damages is achieved, the legislation sets out a detailed legal pathway through district court
documentation of surface ownership to effectively manage legal requirements, avoid litigation, and protect all parties from potential financial penalties. This necessity underscores why Oklahoma title examiners should include surface ownership in their opinions, not just for completeness but for legal and operational prudence. Surface Possession: One last consideration for including surface ownership details in title opinions is that this information can significantly aid clients in their due diligence. Clients are legally charged with notice, whether through inquiry or actual knowledge, of all claims by individuals in actual possession and occupancy of the land. Understanding who the record surface owners are enables Operators to thoroughly investigate the nature and extent of surface occupancy, as well as potential claims related to adverse possession or homestead rights. This knowledge is important for ensuring comprehensive due diligence and for mitigating associated risks. Conclusion: The relationship between surface owners and mineral estate holders varies significantly between Oklahoma and Texas, influencing the relative importance of including surface ownership in title opinions. In Texas, the Accommodation Doctrine establishes a framework where surface use by mineral lessees must accommodate reasonable surface use by the landowner, reducing the frequency of direct negotiation over surface damages. This doctrine minimizes the operational need for detailed surface ownership in title opinions, with Texas practitioners often citing risk mitigation as a reason for exclusion. However, the primary motivator 19 For a detailed discussion of the “Accommodation Doctrine” as articulated by the Texas Supreme Court see , Getty Oil. v. Jones , 470 S.W. 2d 618, 622-623 (Tex. 1971) (This case involved a situation where Getty Oil’s pumpjacks were obstructing the operation of an irrigation system installed by the surface owner. The court found that Getty Oil was required to either lower the pumpjacks or use a different type of pumping system that would not interfere with the surface owner’s irrigation, since these alternatives were reasonable and available under industry practices. This decision balanced the rights of the mineral and surface owners, establishing a precedent where the mineral lessee must accommodate the reasonable surface use if possible.) 20 See generally , 52 Okla. Stat. §§ 318.2-318.9. 21 Id .
proceedings in the county where the land is located, involving appraisals and specific
procedures for damage assessment. The importance of these statutes cannot be overstated; failure to adhere to them can expose operators to significant liabilities, including treble damages. 21 Given this framework, title opinions in Oklahoma should include surface ownership details to ensure compliance with these legal mandates. Unlike in Texas, where the Accommodation Doctrine offers a different framework for interactions between surface owners and well Operators, Oklahoma’s laws require a thorough understanding and
12
N at i onal A ssociation of D i v i s i on O rder A nalys t s
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting