07-0055 In re Gulf Exploration LLC, et al. from Midland County and the 11th District Court of Appeals, Eastland For relators: James M. Chaney, Oklahoma City For real party in interest: Brad Miller, Midland The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the principal issues are whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review a trial court order compelling arbitration and, if so, whether the appeals court erred by vacating the order on grounds that claims were outside the scope of the arbitration clause. In this case working interest partners in an oil- and gas-development agreement moved to arbitrate their claim that the operating partner, Great Western, used an acquired lease adjacent to the development tract to drill offset wells that drew from the reservoir subject to their development agreement and that, under the operating agreement, the operating partners should have been given a right to participate. The agreement included an arbitration provision covering claims over areas of "mutual interest." The trial court granted the arbitration motion, but the court of appeals in a mandamus action ordered the trial court to rescind the arbitration order because the claim was beyond the scope of the arbitration provision.

07-0520 Ed Vanegas, et al. v. American Energy Services, et al. from Midland County and the 11th District Court of Appeals, Eastland For petitioners: Allen R. Stroder, Odessa For respondents: Harper Estes, Midland The Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether promise is illusory to share future merger proceeds for at-will worker's staying with company. The issue is whether an alleged oral promise to share proceeds from a merger, conditioned on employees remaining with a young company, was illusory because the employees worked at-will and were subject to firing at any time. Vanegas and other employees sued AES for breaching a contract under which they claim AES promised them 5 percent of proceeds from selling the company if they would continue working for it until it was sold or merged. The trial court granted AES's summary-judgment motion. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the contract, being illusory, could not be support the promised bonus because the company could fire the workers at any time. The first argument begins at 9 a.m. in the courtroom in Austin. Each side will have 20 minutes for argument. This advisory serves only as an abbreviated guide to oral argument. Summaries are prepared by the Court's staff attorney for public information and reflect his judgment alone on facts and legal issues and in no way represent the Court's opinion about case merits. Texas Supreme Court advisory Contact: Osler McCarthy, Staff Attorney for Public Information (512) 463.1441 or email: osler.mccarthy@courts.state.tx.us

The issue is whether Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 95 applies to a negligent-hiring claim against a well operator for a contract employee's death at the drill site.

In this contract-breach case a principal issue is whether the appeals court erred by requiring a jury question on readiness, willingness and ability to perform when the parties stipulated before trial that relief would be specific performance if an enforceable contract were found.

The issues in this dispute over a secondary lease term with a continuous-drilling provision are (1) whether the appeals court properly construed the retained-acreage clause to limit carryover days extending the lease's 150-day drilling requirement from one term only to the next and, if so, (2) whether the language is so "clear, precise and unequivocal" to enforce it as a special limitation on the grant. Under the continuous-drilling clause, mineral interests on undeveloped acreage would revert to the landowner in this case unless the lease operator undertook continuous development operations. Under the lease the operator "shall have the right to accumulate unused days in any 150-day term during the continuous development program in order to extend the next allowed 150-day term between the completion of one well and the drilling of a subsequent well."

This oil-and-gas lease dispute involves what respondents Apollo Exploration, Cogent Exploration, and Sellmoco's rights are under purchase and sale agreements entered into with petitioner Apache Corporation.