Dawson Springman Dawson Springman 2026-08-17T17:20:37Z https://www.dawsonspringman.com/feed/atom/ WordPress /wp-content/uploads/sites/1304405/2022/01/cropped-favicon-32x32.jpg On Behalf of Dawson Springman <![CDATA[When accidents and delays hit the field, who pays under your MSA?]]> https://www.dawsonspringman.com/?p=255860 2026-08-17T17:20:37Z 2026-08-17T15:50:27Z The importance of specificity For oilfield work, drafting a generic agreement may miss nuances that are specific to that industry. Using clear, specific wording can avoid scope creep and make performance duties enforceable. In Texas, laws like the Texas Anti-Indemnity Act can also impact the validity of certain clauses.

Approaches to indemnity

Indemnity usually helps decide who must pay for losses if an injury happens or if equipment is damaged during oilfield work. Developing a strong oilfield indemnity defense is critical for contractors and operators alike, as it ensures that the agreed-upon risk allocation remains intact when a crisis occurs. Many contracts use a knock-for-knock approach where each party covers its own employees and property, no matter who caused the incident. Problems often come up when the contract makes exceptions for gross negligence or willful misconduct. These carveouts can make indemnity depend on fault. That can shift liability and lead to long, costly lawsuits.

Preventing coverage gaps in your MSA

A drop-down issue can happen after the primary insurance is used up following a major loss. It can reveal gaps between the MSA’s indemnity terms and what the policy actually covers. Careful negotiation is essential to help ensure the additional insured and waiver of subrogation terms match the contract and the insurance program.

Handling delays and contract disputes

Delays caused by equipment downtime, weather or supply chain issues can quickly disrupt operations and revenue. MSAs often use liquidated damages to address these delays. However, it is crucial to distinguish between minor setbacks and a contract violation. A material breach of contract may justify the termination of the agreement.

Protecting your interests in Midland

A well-negotiated MSA is your first line of defense against the inherent risks of the oilfield. It is best not to wait for a blowout or a breach to review your contracts. A Midland oilfield MSA lawyer at [nap_names id="FIRM-NAME-1"] can help ensure your liability is capped while safeguarding your business.]]> On Behalf of Dawson Springman <![CDATA[Lithium mining in the Permian: who owns the brine?]]> https://www.dawsonspringman.com/?p=255839 2026-06-08T04:28:25Z 2026-06-08T13:23:24Z to the oil and gas lessee as an incident of the lease, a complex question remains: Who legally owns the dissolved non-hydrocarbon metallic elements, like lithium, contained within that brine?

The overlapping claims for mineral solutes

Under longstanding Texas property law, ownership of a subsurface resource depends heavily on its classification. Because lithium extraction from produced water is an emerging industry, a regulatory vacuum exists regarding the executive rights to these valuable solutes:
  • The surface owner's claim: Historically, Texas common law dictates that groundwater belongs to the surface estate. Surface owners rely on Robinson v. Robbins Petroleum Corp. to argue that because the water matrix belongs to them, they maintain a claim to the substances dissolved within it.
  • The mineral estate's claim: Conversely, the mineral estate holds the rights to oil, gas, and other valuable minerals. Mineral lessees argue under Moser v. United States Steel Corp. (1984) that because lithium is a valuable metallic element within the ordinary meaning of a mineral, it belongs inherently to the mineral estate.
While the Cactus Water ruling confirmed that operators own the produced water stream as oilfield waste, the explicit title to the non-hydrocarbon minerals suspended inside that water was expressly left unresolved by the court.

Mitigating title risks in Western Texas

For energy corporations in the Permian Basin, this statutory ambiguity creates immense title exposure. Moving forward with an expensive DLE facility without clearly defining solute ownership can result in catastrophic conversion lawsuits. To mitigate these structural risks, parties entering into new energy agreements must explicitly address brine and solute ownership at the negotiating table. Drafting customized "dual-utilization" agreements that clearly allocate extraction rights and royalty structures among surface owners, mineral owners, and active operators is the only way to insulate a multi-million-dollar operation from future litigation.]]>