20 November 2014
Practice Groups:
Oil & Gas
Energy
Environmental, Land
and Natural
Resources
Avoiding “Gotcha” Moments:
Excusing Non-Production to Address Mechanical
Issues Under the Temporary Cessation of
Production Doctrine
U.S. Oil and Gas Alert
By George A. Bibikos, Amanda R. Cashman, and Cleve J. Glenn
In Landover Production Company, LLC v. Endeavor Energy Resources, L.P., et al., the
Texas Court of Appeals re-affirmed the application of the implied, “temporary cessation of
production doctrine” to prevent an oil and gas lease from expiring during its secondary term
when a lessee encounters mechanical issues that require a temporary break in continuous
production.
Under the law of Texas and many other oil and gas producing jurisdictions, the general rule
is that an oil and gas lease expires in its secondary term if a producing well stops
producing. 1
Leases sometimes account for this situation by expressly providing that a lease will not
expire in its secondary term when an operator/lessee finds it necessary to take a well
temporarily out of production. For example, some leases may address the stoppage of
production during the secondary term by, for example, specifying the circumstances that
justify a break in production and specifying a period of time in which production must resume
before the lease expires.
When leases are silent on this point, many oil and gas producing jurisdictions, including
Texas, have recognized an implied, “temporary cessation of production” doctrine.2 Absent
lease language to the contrary, a temporary cessation of production does not automatically
terminate a lease. Courts evaluate several factors to determine whether the doctrine should
apply to save the lease, including (1) the length of cessation of production; (2) the cause of
the cessation; (3) the lessee’s efforts to restore production.
The rationale for the doctrine is that, during its life cycle, a well is bound to stop producing at
some point for some reason – e.g., for reworking, stimulation, or repairing (to name a few).
Courts in many oil and gas producing jurisdictions presume that the parties contemplated
this situation when they entered the lease, so the courts read the temporary cessation of
production doctrine into the lease as a practical way to avoid the harsh result of automatic
termination for lack of production during the secondary term.
In Landover Production, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the application of this doctrine
in a case involving a period of non-production in the secondary lease term due to equipment
malfunction.
1 Watson v. Rochmill, 137 Tex. 565, 155 S.W.2d 783, 784 (Tex. 1941).
2 Cole v. Phila. Co., 26 A.2d 920 (Pa. 1942); Wagner v. Smith, 456 N.E.2d 523, 525-528 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982); Bryan v.
Big Two Mile Gas Co., 213 W. Va. 110, 118, 577 S.E.2d 258, 266 (2001).
Avoiding “Gotcha” Moments: Excusing Non-Production to Address
Mechanical Issues Under the Temporary Cessation of Production
Doctrine
By way of background, Endeavor owned the working interest in an oil and gas lease covering
80 acres. Endeavor operated a well on the property during the secondary term of the lease.
Landover held a “top lease” on the same 80 acres, which would take effect if Endeavor’s
“base lease” expired.3 The Endeavor lease included the following language (referred to as
the “savings clause”):
If at the expiration of the primary term oil and gas is not being produced on said land
but Lessee is then engaging in drilling or re-working operations thereon, the lease
shall remain in force so long as operations are prosecuted with no cessation of more
than thirty (30) consecutive days….
The Endeavor lease was in its secondary term when, in May of 2001, Endeavor discovered a
hole in its “heater-treater” (a device that separates water from oil). As a result of that
mechanical issue, the heater-treater leaked, such that Endeavor could not separate the
water from the oil and the oil was rendered unmarketable. Endeavor made several attempts
to repair the leak, requiring it to suspend well production while repairs were pursued. After
several unsuccessful repair efforts, delayed by rainy weather, Endeavor successfully
repaired the well equipment and resumed production in August of 2001.
Landover sued Endeavor, claiming that the Endeavor lease terminated due to the cessation
of production. At trial, the jury found that the period of non-production was excused under the
temporary cessation of production doctrine. Landover appealed the trial court’s entry of
judgment for Endeavor, arguing that the jury’s finding was not supported by evidence.
On appeal, the appellate court concluded that Endeavor’s lease did not expire.
As a threshold matter, the court interpreted the Endeavor lease’s savings clause as
applicable only to the primary term of the lease and found no other provision of the lease
protecting the lessee’s interest during the secondary term.
The court, however, applied the temporary cessation of production doctrine under Texas law,
requiring that the lessee demonstrate:
(i) that the “cessation of production after the primary term [was] temporary and [that
it was] due to sudden stoppage of the well, some mechanical breakdown of the
equipment used in connection therewith, ‘or the like,’” and
(ii) that the lessee acted with diligence and remedied the cause and resumed
production in a reasonable time.
The court found “ample evidence” that Endeavor had proven to the trial court that the
“cessation of production after the primary term was temporary and that the temporary
cessation of production was the result of a sudden stoppage of the well” due to the
mechanical failure of the heater-treater. The court rejected Landover’s argument that
Endeavor had some burden to use reasonable production alternatives in order to keep the
lease alive. Given that Landover’s appeal did not challenge Endeavor’s diligence in
addressing the mechanical issue and resuming production, the court did not pass on the
legal or factual sufficiency of the case on these grounds. 4
3
A “top lease” is a lease granted for property on which a lease already exists, whereby the “top lease” would become
effective upon the termination or expiration of the existing “base” lease.
4
The court further noted that even if it had held that there was an error of law regarding application of the temporary
cessation of production doctrine, Endeavor still held title over the leasehold estate by adverse possession.
2
Avoiding “Gotcha” Moments: Excusing Non-Production to Address
Mechanical Issues Under the Temporary Cessation of Production
Doctrine
The court’s application of the temporary cessation of production doctrine in Landover reaffirms the additional protection and certainty that lessees should enjoy under a lease
without an express savings clause when operating wells that stop producing during the
secondary term. As the court held, a lessee should not suffer the harsh result of having its
lease expire when a legitimate mechanical issue causes a break in production and the
lessee works diligently to re-establish production, even in the absence of an express
provision in a lease that governs that situation.
Although the outcome in Landover favored the lessee, the decision serves as a reminder that
operators should review their leases to identify and understand their obligations when
production ceases in the secondary term and, in the absence of lease language, take steps
to assure they are complying with the factors courts consider when deciding to apply the
implied doctrine. In most cases, operators that experience mechanical issues with their wells
or other related equipment should take appropriate and diligent action when production must
be suspended during the secondary term in order to avoid lease expiration claims.
Authors:
George A. Bibikos
george.bibikos@klgates.com
+1.717.231.4577
Amanda R. Cashman
amanda.cashman@klgates.com
+1.412.355.6331
Cleve J. Glenn
cleve.glenn@klgates.com
+1.713.815.7327
Anchorage Austin Beijing Berlin Boston Brisbane Brussels Charleston Charlotte Chicago Dallas Doha Dubai Fort Worth Frankfurt
Harrisburg Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Melbourne Miami Milan Moscow Newark New York Orange County Palo Alto Paris
Perth Pittsburgh Portland Raleigh Research Triangle Park San Francisco São Paulo Seattle Seoul Shanghai Singapore Spokane
Sydney Taipei Tokyo Warsaw Washington, D.C. Wilmington
K&L Gates comprises more than 2,000 lawyers globally who practice in fully integrated offices located on five
continents. The firm represents leading multinational corporations, growth and middle-market companies, capital
markets participants and entrepreneurs in every major industry group as well as public sector entities, educational
institutions, philanthropic organizations and individuals. For more information about K&L Gates or its locations,
practices and registrations, visit www.klgates.com.
This publication is for informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. The information herein should not be used or relied upon in
regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer.
© 2014 K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.
3