Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN &al. Baso0m Olles, Page 2 BHIB, and 00ntinU4 in force t&at pert of the btd Of the Clear Fork embrooed in the lease, or at 14BSt a reeoonable an~unt of acreage io. the vi- oinity of the produof~ gas well aonditloniad, however, upon the pay-&ant of all rentala QII t&a MTee64 tha 14~38 Of $2.00 per acre PetaiR4d iA from the inosption of the original leare down to the present tirae.” The lease In queetion reaultsd from dLcooveryor oil under-an oil and gas proopeoting pernit lommd by virtue of the authority of Chapter 83, Aota of E917. f3eution 15 of aold Aot provibes~ *#hen one desirem 43 lease or patent anf one or ame whole tr.sota in the wrmlt may be aben- doned by relinquishment filed in the @e-&al. k&d OrSioe am herein prorided and theraupm ObOain a lease or potent upon the romtiing area$ pm- vided auoh remiaing area8 in in a solid bow, ,&ii owner may relinquiuh n permit or leeee at any tbm by having the deed Of WA.nqulSbX%e& lokmwleOgeA, reowded by the pro r aounty oI.erk and illed In the &UXeTal Land Off r 04 booaopaniad by one dollar tiling fee.* There fe no erg~resr authorle8tlon in rkapter 83 fsr the relinquialuasnt of a paxt only of the t4L severed by a mineral lease. Ae ahown by the above quoted portion or the statute, thir o&y rrliquirhmente authorleed by Chapter 63 ares (1) "One OF rpore whole traota in the ym’d.t’, v&i& relinquishmmt ie authorized to be made at the t&m r~leaae $0 iscpu&, and (2) the relinquishment of "a permit or leeae* at Blnce the Legiel,atum BBW fit by expre8a ~rgrovieio0to authorize an abandonment OP relinquishment of a portifom Of the .6rea oovered by the permit at the tias a lease wea ieaued but failed tu provide for a partial ~elinquishaeat aubbs@gaWt k, the icsuanoe of lease, it appears evident that it wt88 the Leti* lature'a intention to rsfuss to authorize the 3!e;UBQtLiamnt Ban. BarcarP Giles, Page 3 of a QCIX%iOA only of the mea crovered by a lease after the permit had been merged into 8 J.saee. Thio view haa been hssetoiore axpreersd br this Depart&exit in Opinion Ho. 29k7, dated Lkaroh 3, 1934, eddreesed to Hon. J. H. Walker, Connaieaioner of the General Land Otfioe, 295 ol the RepOrta and 0 inions of the Attosnep Oenaral, f 932-1934. ’ Although the op !A Ion above rererred to dealt with the ennit Aet of 1913 e oonipariaon of that Aot with Chaptar 83 Afsolo aem that the i913 Act oontained eubstentiallg thr mm provlislons with respeot to rellnqui&ment of ponuitr and leaaee as ie oontained fn the 1917 A&i. WI quote a8 ioUowr iron the 1934 o#nionr %eving 414otsd to reoeive one has* for tke entire eoreage, they could not thereafter nU.nquWk a portion or the leased area under thr tena# Of Beotion 25 of the aot. Ii they thereatber desired to relinquish the lease they were mpuired to r+ linqulah the entir4 erea, or ~0 part oi it." We are ia nocord with the oonoluelon annotmesd in the above quoted opinion, and we aooordixigly advise rou that, S,nour opinion, you 84~4not autkori8ed to eooept e rdln- qulmheent of a portion ow of the area covered by &am PO. 2825. ToUTa very truly moRxxY GMERAL OF l%xAs J v L/UU’V J PIRST ASSIST#wL/- ATTO- .GE.NE