Texas Mineral Interest Pooling Act (MIPA)

If Company A has leased a single 10 acre tract that is surrounded by Company B & C Units, can Company A force itself into one of the Company B or C units?

Dear Adam,

Technically, they would have to prove that they were being drained.

The MIPA statute is very flawed. For example, if you are successful, you only get a share of production from the date of the order. The MIPA statute has been around since the 60's and only about 110 cases have actually forced their way into the unit.

A very expensive proposition, by the way.

Typically, the response is "This is a rule of capture state. If you feel as if you are being drained, protect yourself."

Thanks for the insight.

Adam

Buddy's remark is candid and matter-of-fact, re: don't bet on it!

Your information needs improvement: is the 10 acre tract in the interior of designated units or is it outside and adjoining, if outside then nothing can be done, if inside and the bottom-hole location of the well is in compliance with Statewide Rule 37 (re: 467' from lease line) then again not much of a case to argue, your recourse is the rule of capture ... then you'll be objected and contested on your application to drill for insufficient acreage in compliance with Statewide Field Rules, re: 40 acres. The MIPA is difficult to impose and rarely used. These cases are heard by a Trial Examiner before the Texas RRC and I don't think there is recourse throught judicial system for appeal. Also, see if my file is attached, re: MIPA

See AAPL's Landman Nov/Dec'10 issue, re: Forced Pooling in Texas: The Mineral Interest Pooling Act for a concise review.

2979-TabHJohnCampMIPA.pdf (911 KB)

Rocky is correct as usual. For those that do not know Mr. A., he is one of the better landmen you will run across. Landowner landman.

Rocky Arrell said:

Buddy's remark is candid and matter-of-fact, re: don't bet on it!

Your information needs improvement: is the 10 acre tract in the interior of designated units or is it outside and adjoining, if outside then nothing can be done, if inside and the bottom-hole location of the well is in compliance with Statewide Rule 37 (re: 467' from lease line) then again not much of a case to argue, your recourse is the rule of capture ... then you'll be objected and contested on your application to drill for insufficient acreage in compliance with Statewide Field Rules, re: 40 acres. The MIPA is difficult to impose and rarely used. These cases are heard by a Trial Examiner before the Texas RRC and I don't think there is recourse throught judicial system for appeal. Also, see if my file is attached, re: MIPA

See AAPL's Landman Nov/Dec'10 issue, re: Forced Pooling in Texas: The Mineral Interest Pooling Act for a concise review.

Thank you both for your input. The tract is outside of the units. Its is an island between 3 units.

Is there, or has there ever been, an exception to the 40 acre rule in regard to pooling an oil well? I know that pooling for gas, the pool can be almost as big as whoever in charge wants it to be.

Dear Mr. Ross,

There is no real "rule" concerning the pooling to which you refer. Voluntary Pooling is set by the pooling transaction, which, for the most part, is in the lease form's pooling provision. We do not have compulsory or forced pooling in Texas, thank God. Texas does not have equitable pooling, which surprises the unsuspecting or uninformed.

You might want to read the following for a more complete, though elementary overview:


Jack Ross said:

Is there, or has there ever been, an exception to the 40 acre rule in regard to pooling an oil well? I know that pooling for gas, the pool can be almost as big as whoever in charge wants it to be.

Sharon:

What was decided by the RRC at the Jan. 30th meeting, as to small mineral owners being forced pooled, and having to pay for drilling cost?

Thanks

Dear Mr. Haywood,

Sharon did not post that letter. It was multiple cross posted by "Seth" and you should check with him, to find out if he followed his post to the natural conclusion.