American Oil and Gas Reporter - July 2017 - 114

"It is not anyone who is assigned to
you. It is finding the right person who
you think can teach you something, who
you can collaborate with on ideas and
projects, who respects you," Mitchell
listed. "It also is a way you can give
back when you see talent on your team
or in your organization. The way that
young people learn is by sometimes just
being in the room. They don't have to
have a role, but they get to see what
leadership and success look like, and see
the hard questions that are asked as someone moves through an organization."
Booth noted that because she had
worked in various roles for small independent companies, she held a different
view of mentorship.
"Young people come to you and ask
questions, and you find yourself mentoring
them before you really know you are
doing it. It is a great opportunity. Quite
frankly, I get more from them than they
do from me. It is great to show the
younger people the tools and the technology that they have in front of them,"
she said.

Differences
Booth noted that the percentage of female employees working for oil and gas
companies had increased since she began
her career. She recalled that when applying
for her first job, companies sought to
slot her in reservoir engineering, despite
her stated preference for working in production.
"We still have some problems working
with guys," Booth observed. "Women
are sharp, intelligent, they pay attention
to detail, they are very methodical, and I
think they have added a great dimension.
They work very well in partnership with
guys on the team, and I am excited to see
more young professional women coming
into our industry."
It often is hard for companies to hire
women and integrate newly hired women
into their organizations, Mitchell suggested. She recalled having to speak to
new hires about the working conditions
they would face.
"I would have to tell them how they
are supposed to act on the rig (although)
I know they know how to act on a rig.
That was the most horrible conversation
to have, but the company insisted,"
Mitchell recalled. "I can see those women
looking at me, like 'Why you telling me
this?' They know what to do, and they
know how to be professional. They have
had to make it through four years of
school with a bunch of guys. They know
how to act and be professional."
Although women working in the industry are far more commonplace than

they once were, companies must be aware
of the message they send with acts like
that, Mitchell continued.
"That is something women have to
think about that at the end of the day.
We just want to be professionals," she
said. "We really don't think of ourselves

as women on the team; we think of ourselves as part of the team. I cannot say
how many times I have walked into a
room and I was the only woman. I already
know I look different. Women just want
to fit in, and they want to be treated the
same."
r

Texas Supreme Court Decision
Clariﬁes Surface Estate Rights
By William G. Bredthauer
Michael K. Reer

AUSTIN, TX.-In its 2017 term, the
Texas Supreme Court already has issued
several opinions with the potential to impact the state's oil and natural gas operators
significantly. Of these opinions, Lightning
Oil Co. v. Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC
is likely the most significant, since the
case concerns the relationship between
the mineral and surface estates as it relates
to the development of oil and gas drilling
operations that target minerals under adjoining leases.
On May 19, 2017, the Texas Supreme
Court released its highly-anticipated opinion in Lightning Oil, a case that centers
on whose permission is necessary to
allow a nonlessee operator to drill through
the subsurface to reach minerals under
an adjacent tract of land.
The court determined that, based on
the facts presented, permission from the
surface estate owner alone was sufficient
to allow the nonlessee operator to drill
through the subsurface to reach minerals
on an adjoining tract.

Surface Estate Rights
By way of background, the Lightning
mineral lease was conveyed by a lessor
of a severed mineral estate. Anadarko
holds a mineral lease under the Chaparral
Wildlife Management Area, which abuts
Lightning's lease. Anadarko's lease requires that "drilling locations will be established off (Chaparral) when prudent
and feasible." Accordingly, Anadarko requested Lightning's permission to construct a pad site over the Lightning estate
with wellbores that would start vertically,
and then kick-off horizontally through
portions of Lightning's mineral-bearing
formations into the Chaparral mineral
estate. After Lightning denied Anadarko
permission to build the pad site and conduct drilling operations, Anadarko sought
and received permission from the surface
estate owner to construct the pad site.
Anadarko expressly disclaimed any in-

114 THE AMERICAN OIL & GAS REPORTER

tention to perforate in or produce minerals
from Lightning's leasehold.
In response, Lightning brought trespass
and tortious interference causes of action
against Anadarko, seeking an injunction
to prevent Anadarko from its proposed
drilling activities. Specifically, Lightning
alleged that Anadarko's proposed drilling
activities could interfere with Lightning's
future development operations and that
by drilling through mineral-laden formations, Anadarko would encroach on Lightning's exclusive right to possess, use and
appropriate the oil and gas Lightning
"owns in place." The Texas Supreme
Court rejected both arguments.
The court rejected Lightning's contention that Anadarko's proposed drilling
activities could give rise to an injunction
based on the mere possibility of an impact
to Lightning's future development operations. According to the high court, the
general rule is that "an unauthorized interference with the place where the minerals are located constitutes a trespass as
to the mineral estate only if the interference
infringes on the mineral lessee's ability
to exercise its rights." The court found
that the record only demonstrated Lightning's speculation that Anadarko's proposed drilling activities could interfere
with the surface and subsurface spaces
necessary for Lightning to exercise its
right to develop minerals in the future.
However, the Supreme Court found, mere
speculation is not enough, because obtaining injunctive relief requires a petitioner to prove that absent such relief, it
will suffer imminent, irreparable harm.
The Texas Supreme Court likewise
rejected Lightning's contention that
Anadarko's proposed drilling activities
would interfere with the minerals themselves by drilling through and extracting
a quantum of minerals as part of the
drilling process. The court announced a
balancing test to determine whether "the
small amount of minerals lost through
(Anadarko's drilling) will support a trespass action." Specifically, in determining
the interests of the mineral estate lessee

American Oil and Gas Reporter - July 2017

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Oil and Gas Reporter - July 2017