A recent decision from the Eastland Court of Appeals provides important guidance for operators and surface owners regarding enforcement of pipeline burial provisions in oil and gas leases. The court reaffirmed that even where a lease obligates a lessee to bury pipelines, Texas law does not permit a surface owner to engage in self-help remedies when judicial relief is available.
In the September 2025 case of Byrne Oil Co. v. Walraven, the court addressed whether a surface owner could unilaterally arrange for burial of a lessee’s pipelines after alleged delays and then recover the associated costs. While the court agreed that the lessee failed to timely comply with the lease, it ultimately held that the surface owner was not entitled to reimbursement for most of the burial expenses.
Factual Background
Byrne Oil Company was the successor lessee under a Producer’s 88 oil and gas lease that required the lessee to bury pipelines below plow depth upon request. In 2016, Joe Walraven acquired both the surface estate and the royalty interest in the subject tract. Shortly thereafter, Walraven sent a written request demanding burial of more than ten thousand feet of above-ground pipelines.
The dispute escalated into litigation in 2019, when Byrne filed suit seeking declaratory relief. Walraven counterclaimed for breach of the lease and sought injunctive relief. During the pendency of the case, Byrne offered to relocate the flow lines rather than bury them, but Walraven declined that proposal.
At trial, Byrne argued that Walraven’s initial request failed to comply with the lease because it did not provide the required sixty-day notice. Byrne also asserted that pipeline burial had not been properly requested under the lease terms. Walraven disputed those assertions and testified that he made multiple written and verbal requests over several years. He further warned that he intended to begin plowing the land if the pipelines were not buried.
In August 2020, Byrne hired a contractor to bury almost 11,000 feet of flow lines, paying $7,385.66 for the work. In April 2021, despite Byrne’s written objections and while litigation remained ongoing, Walraven hired his own contractor to bury the remaining flow lines, being approximately 1,300 feet of flow lines and paying $60,240.29 for the work; he later sought reimbursement for those costs.
Trial Court Ruling
Following a bench trial, the trial court found that Byrne failed to timely bury the pipelines as required under the lease. The court awarded Walraven partial compensatory damages equal to a portion of his burial costs, concluding that his expenses were excessive when compared to Byrne’s earlier work. The court also awarded attorney’s fees.
Byrne appealed, arguing that neither the lease nor Texas law authorized Walraven to disturb Byrne’s equipment without court approval and that the attorney’s fee award was improper.
Appellate Court Analysis
The Eastland Court of Appeals began its analysis by examining the lease language. Although the lease imposed a duty to bury pipelines upon request, it did not specify a remedy for breach. The court rejected Byrne’s argument that the lease’s sixty-day notice provision limited Walraven to judicial remedies, explaining that such provisions protect against forfeiture and allow an opportunity to cure but do not create an exclusive remedy structure absent clear language.
The court characterized Byrne’s failure to bury the pipelines as a nuisance rather than a trespass. Because the mineral estate is dominant, the presence of production equipment did not deprive Walraven of exclusive possession of the surface. Instead, the above-ground pipelines allegedly interfered with his use and enjoyment of the property.
While nuisance claims may support damages or injunctive relief, Texas law limits the availability of self-help abatement when there is time and opportunity to obtain an adequate judicial remedy. The court emphasized that self-help is reserved for situations requiring immediate action and cannot be invoked where ordinary legal processes are available.
Because litigation had been pending for more than two years before Walraven hired his contractor, and because he had already sought injunctive relief, the court held that self-help was not permissible under the circumstances.
The court further noted that oil and gas operations present additional policy concerns. The lessee, as owner and operator of production equipment, is better positioned to relocate or modify that equipment. Allowing unilateral interference by a surface owner risks disruption of production and potential environmental harm.
Key Takeaway
The court reversed the majority of the compensatory damages and remanded the attorney’s fee award for reconsideration, while affirming a small award related to enforcement costs.
The decision reinforces a key principle for operators and surface owners alike: where adequate judicial remedies exist, disputes over lease obligations must be resolved through the courts rather than through unilateral action, even where delay has caused understandable frustration. Operators should nevertheless review notice provisions closely and address surface requests in a timely manner to mitigate litigation risk.
Kuiper Law Firm, PLLC specializes in oil and gas law; if you have any questions about the information in this article, do not hesitate to contact us.
