The Opielas own the minerals in a 637-acre Karnes County tract under a lease that says nothing in it authorizes the lessee "in any manner whatever" to pool the land for oil. Magnolia, the current operator, drilled the Audioslave A 102H horizontal well across three tracts, including the Opielas', and obtained a Railroad Commission permit as a Production Sharing Agreement well, which requires signatures from owners of only 65% of the interest in each tract; the Opielas did not sign or consent.¹

The Opielas challenged the permit; the Commission issued it over their complaint and the court of appeals upheld it. They petitioned November 22, 2023, and after merits briefing the parties filed a joint motion for reversal and remand under a settlement. On January 31, 2025 the Court granted it under Rule of Appellate Procedure 56.3: without considering the merits it granted the petition, vacated the court of appeals' judgment, and remanded to the trial court for proceedings in accordance with the settlement; Justice Young did not participate (January 31, 2025 orders; Docket).

Petition for review from the Third Court of Appeals; granted and judgment vacated and remanded on a joint motion for reversal and remand under settlement, Rule of Appellate Procedure 56.3 (January 31, 2025 orders).

The petition asked whether the Commission may permit multi-tract horizontal wells where owners have not consented to pooling and only 65% have signed a production sharing agreement, whether its rules for such wells are invalid for not following APA rulemaking, and whether it wrongly ignored the lease's anti-pooling clause.¹ The Court did not reach them.

Opielas (Petitioners): the Commission lacks authority to permit such wells without pooling or Mineral Interest Pooling Act procedures, its 65% rule was adopted without APA rulemaking, and it ignored the lease's anti-pooling clause.¹

The order rests on the parties' settlement; the Court did not consider the petition's reasons for review (January 31, 2025 orders).

None noted