From Archive

The
Ledger

Land & energy, of record.
No. 002Book 1 · Page 2Filed for record September 2, 2026archiveledger.com
6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 17 16 15 14 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 30 29 28 27 26 25 31 32 33 34 35 36 A SURVEY TOWNSHIP · 36 SECTIONS · N.M.P.M. Sections 2, 16, 32 and 36: held in trust by the State of New Mexico

Running the Record

The trade that read the courthouse by hand, the barrels the newest federal data say the country pumps, ships and burns, and the market that will decide what a Permian barrel is for after the car.

On the record

A second entry. Section I follows the landman’s trade back to the county clerk’s book and forward to the run sheet. Section II reads the newest federal supply data for what a Permian barrel does after it leaves the wellhead. Section III asks what the lease says when the barrel’s buyer is a cracker rather than a car.

I · Chain of TitleLooking back

Run the names.

The record came before the trade. A Texas clerk was told to record deeds in 1836; a New Mexico clerk was told in 1887 that the record was notice to all the world. Everything a landman does today descends from the problem of reading those books.

Recorded
Book 1 · Page 2
Section I
09/02/2026
The Ledger · No. 002
Archive Ledger, Inc.

On December 20, 1836, the first Congress of the Republic of Texas organized its county courts and told each clerk to “seasonably record all deeds and other instruments of writing required by law” [1]. Fifty years later the Territory of New Mexico wrote the sentence that still governs its recording system. Laws 1886 to 1887, chapter 10, made the record of an instrument affecting real estate notice to all the world from the time of recording, and told the clerk to enter every instrument in a reception book under the grantor’s name with the date, the hour and the minute, on pain of a hundred-dollar fine [2], [3]. Those two acts created the object every title examiner in Eddy or Lea County still works from: a book kept by a clerk, ordered by time, indexed by name, and open to anyone who walks in.

The name index is the reason the trade exists. A clerk indexes by grantor and grantee because the statute tells him to; nobody told him to index by land. The Texas Revised Statutes of 1885 required instruments to be recorded “word for word and letter for letter” with the exact time of deposit, and alphabetical indexes of the parties, and nothing more [4]. Anyone who wanted to know what had happened to a particular quarter section had to build the missing index himself, name by name, and that private index became the capital of a new business. George Warvelle’s 1883 treatise, the first American book on the subject, put it plainly: “No perfect abstract can be compiled without the assistance of a carefully prepared tract index” [5]. By 1908 William Niblack could state the product’s limits: the abstracter was liable only to the person who employed him [6].

The trade organized nationally in 1907 [9], and a directory of that year lists the Pecos Valley’s share of it: an Eddy County Abstract Company at Carlsbad, three abstracters at Roswell, and fifty-nine in Texas across two pages [10]. There was no Lea County to list; it was cut from Eddy and Chaves counties on March 17, 1917 [11].

the record, the booms and the profession, 1836 to 2025 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 1836 Texas clerks record deeds Republic of Texas court act,Dec. 20, sec. 8 1883 The tract index Warvelle: no perfect abstractwithout one 1887 New Mexico recording act The record is notice to all theworld 1907 Abstract companies listed Eddy County Abstract Co.,Carlsbad; ALTA founded 1916 Brown v. Wilson Oklahoma; the Producers 88form follows 1920 Mineral Leasing Act Federal leases, 12.5 percentroyalty 1923 Santa Rita No. 1 University land; leasesbought for $2,500 1927 Hobbs discovery spudded Midwest Refining, Oct. 12;Bowers well 1929 1955 AAPL founded First meeting, Fort Worth,Apr. 28; 1,000 members 1980 The CPL credential Certified ProfessionalLandman; renamed 1992 1987 Federal lottery ends Reform act of Dec. 22;competitive sales 1997 Texas Title Standards 33 standards approved June27 2014 Membership peaks 21,537 AAPL members 2025 State royalty one fourth Senate Bill 23, leases fromJuly 1 Statutes, the Handbook of Texas, the State Bureau of Mines Circular 4 (1931) and the AAPL annual report; dates as the sources state them.
Fig. 1The record, the booms and the profession on one line, 1836 to 2025. Recording acts and title standards above the line; discoveries, forms and the association below it. Dates from the statutes, the Handbook of Texas, the State Bureau of Mines and the AAPL [1], [2], [12], [13], [14], [15].

The booms of the 1920s turned that record into money, and the Santa Rita play began as pure paper. Rupert Ricker, a Reagan County lawyer, filed applications on 431,360 acres of University of Texas land, could not raise the $43,136 filing fee, and sold his maps and preliminary leases to Frank Pickrell for $2,500 [16]. The well was spudded on January 8, 1921 and came in on May 28, 1923, after 646 days of cable-tool drilling, and by 1925 the Permanent University Fund was growing by more than $2,000 a day [16], [17].

The Hendrick field in Winkler County carries the clearest dated lease flip in the record: ranch leases taken for ten cents an acre, more than 21,000 acres of them resold at thirty-five cents, a discovery on July 16, 1926, and on November 22 of that year a controlling interest sold to a Standard of Indiana subsidiary for $510,000 [18]. Lease paper, not oil, was what most people in those towns were buying and selling.

Southeastern New Mexico joined the record in the same decade, on state paper. The Illinois No. 3 at Artesia, drilled into its pay sand on April 9, 1924, stood on state leases; the State Land Office had issued its first oil and gas lease in 1916 and received its first royalty in 1924 [19], [20]. Hobbs was a one-company wildcat. The Midwest Refining Company spudded the discovery well on October 12, 1927, being then all but the only company interested in the area; within two and a half years more than twenty companies were there [13]. The State Bureau of Mines also recorded the purest example of the lease clock at work: Humble’s No. 1 on the Bowers permit, spudded June 10, 1929 for “apparently no other reason than to satisfy an expiring land agreement,” and completed eight months later as the first well in the area of large production [13].

The lease men worked from a printer’s form. A 1952 law review traces the “unless” lease to the Producers 88 form, which originated in Oklahoma after the state’s Supreme Court decided Brown v. Wilson on January 11, 1916, holding a one-dollar lease with a surrender clause voidable for lack of mutuality [21], [22]. A group of lawyers took a redrafted form to a printer who, as was the custom, “added his serial number to the printed form” [21]. When a legal institute later gathered more than 200 lease forms, more than 180 were Producers 88 forms. The popular version of the story names no company, no printer and no date, and a 2012 reviewer who examined more than thirty-five printed versions found no original [23], [24].

The people doing this work did not yet have a profession, or a name they liked. Early in 1954 a group of landmen led by George Foster Brown began organizing; by February 1955 they had pledges from 601 landmen at 200 companies in 21 states; and the first annual meeting of the American Association of Petroleum Landmen opened in Fort Worth on April 28, 1955 with 1,000 registered members [14], [25]. A charter member remembered the motive: “We were called lease hounds, and we detested that” [25]. The association then did what professions do. Its Form 610 operating agreement appeared in 1956, with editions in 1977, 1982, 1989 and 2015; Landman magazine in 1960; independents were admitted in 1964; the Certified Professional Landman program came in 1980; and the name changed to Professional Landmen in 1992 [14], [26], [27]. Its Code of Ethics opens with four words: “Under all is the land.” [28].

AAPL members at fiscal year end, 1993 to 2024 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2024 1993: 8,045 2000: 6,877 2014: 21,537 2024: 11,157 the low the shale peak AAPL Annual Report 2024 to 2025, membership chart. Certifications held in fiscal 2024: 2,231 CPL, 1,072 RPL, 396 RL.
Fig. 2AAPL membership, 1993 to 2024, from the association’s audited chart: 8,045 in 1993, a low of 6,877 in 2000, a shale-era peak of 21,537 in 2014, and 11,157 in 2024. Certifications held in fiscal 2024: 2,231 CPL, 1,072 RPL, 396 RL [15].

Membership tells the trade’s own history in one line: 8,045 in 1993, a low of 6,877 in 2000, 21,537 at the top of the shale boom in 2014, and 11,157 by 2024 [15]. No state licenses the occupation as such. Texas exempts the sale, lease or transfer of a mineral interest from its real estate licensing act, and Senate Bill 1172, signed May 24, 2025, widened the exemption to geothermal, solar and wind [29], [30]. New Mexico exempts persons who deal exclusively in mineral leases or mineral rights where the surface is not involved [31]. Ohio alone registers oil and gas land professionals, since 2019, on condition that they belong to a body with a code of ethics [32].

The examination itself, when it was done by hand, is best described in a 1994 Baylor Law Review article. There were two methods. In a sit-down examination the attorney read an abstract compiled by an abstract company; in a stand-up examination the landman went to the courthouse. The stand-up procedure ran in a fixed order: fix a starting point; learn the county’s index structure; search the grantee indexes backward to build the chain and the grantor indexes forward to find everything each owner did while in title; search the probate, court, financing and tax records; pull and read every doubtful instrument; and list them all chronologically with the type of instrument, the parties and the recording data [33]. That list is the run sheet. The attorney then read every instrument in it, because “the examining attorney bears sole responsibility for interpreting these instruments” [33].

RUN THE NAMES Grantor forward, grantee back 1899 White v. McGregor, Texas Search each grantor from the day he took title tothe day he conveyed it out, and the grantee indexbackward to build the chain. The clerk indexes byname because statute says so; nobody indexesby land. LIST THE INSTRUMENTS The run sheet 4.50 Texas Title Examination Standard, 2013 Every instrument found is listed in order with itstype, parties and recording data. The standarddefines the run sheet as a list of instruments inchain of title, made from tract records or theclerk's indexes. READ EVERY ONE The examining attorney 1997 33 Texas standards approved June 27 The attorney reads each instrument and bearssole responsibility for interpreting it. The productis an opinion: take-off, drilling, division order orfinancing. New Mexico adopted no standards.
Fig. 3The hand examination in three parts, as the profession’s own literature and standards describe it: run the names in the clerk’s indexes, list every instrument on a run sheet, and leave the reading to the examining attorney [33], [34], [35].

Texas wrote the practice down late. The first thirty-three Texas Title Examination Standards were approved at the State Bar’s annual meeting on June 27, 1997, with Oklahoma’s standards of 1946 as a source [34], [36]. Standard 4.50, adopted in 2013, defines the tool: unless furnished an abstract, the examiner will usually prepare “a run sheet (list of instruments in chain of title)” from tract records or the clerk’s indexes, searching each grantor from the date he acquired the land forward to the date he conveyed it out, a rule the Texas Supreme Court stated in 1899 [34]. New Mexico adopted no such standards, and a 2020 comparison of the two states says so [37].

The examination served four moments, in a 2000 primer’s account: the take-off report a landman prepares before a lease is bought, the drilling title opinion, the division order title opinion that governs who is paid, and the financing opinion a lender requires [35]. In the Permian the landlord was often not a private person at all. On federal land the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920 governed, and until December 22, 1987 a lease outside a known geologic structure went to the first qualified applicant, without bidding, at a royalty of twelve and a half percent [38], [39]. That rule produced the federal lease hound and, later, a public lottery: the Bureau of Land Management’s own 1981 pamphlet reported that “roughly 4 million people filed for about 7,000 tracts” in 1979, at ten dollars a card [40]. The 1987 reform act replaced the drawing with competitive sales, now held at least quarterly at a royalty of not less than 12.5 percent and a minimum bid of ten dollars an acre [39]. On May 20, 2026 the quarterly sale for New Mexico and Texas returned $4,007,944,870 on 33,530 acres, which is $119,533 an acre, computed by The Ledger [41].

On state land the root of title is the State’s own lease. The Enabling Act of June 20, 1910 gave the future state sections two, sixteen, thirty-two and thirty-six of every township in trust, to be sold or leased only to the highest bidder at public auction after ten weeks’ notice [42]. The State Land Office sells leases on the third Tuesday of every month. Its July 21, 2026 sale moved eleven tracts for $23,742,808 on 2,577.96 acres, with a high bid of $4,801,500 for the southeast quarter of Section 2, Township 23 South, Range 35 East, which is $30,009.38 an acre, computed by The Ledger [43], [44]. Senate Bill 23 of 2025 raised the royalty on premium tracts to one fourth for leases issued on or after July 1, 2025 [45].

Nothing in that chain has been repealed. The clerk still records by time and indexes by name; the tract index is still someone’s private property; the lease is still a printer’s descendant; the State and the United States are still the landlords on most of the productive acreage; and the question the founders of 1955 wanted answered before they would drill is the one the first page of any Eddy or Lea County chain still poses. Who was given what, and what was kept? The answer has always been in the book. The labor of reading it, one name at a time, is what changed the cost of the answer. The record never changed.

II · Of RecordThe present

Two thirds domestic

The newest hard month in the federal record is May 2026, released July 31. It shows the United States pumping 13,714 thousand barrels a day, New Mexico posting its largest month ever, and crude exports at a record. Here is where the barrel goes, and what a gallon in Carlsbad is made of.

Recorded
Book 1 · Page 2
Section II
09/02/2026
The Ledger · No. 002
Archive Ledger, Inc.

Three releases make up the season’s record. The Energy Information Administration’s Petroleum Supply Monthly for May 2026 was released on July 31, 2026; its Weekly Petroleum Status Report for the week ending August 21 was released on August 26, 2026; and its Short-Term Energy Outlook was released on August 11, 2026, with the modeling closed on August 6 [46], [47], [48]. The monthly is the hard number. In May the country produced 13,714 thousand barrels of crude a day, and New Mexico produced 2,394 of them, 74,229 thousand barrels for the month, the largest monthly volume in a state series that begins in 1981 [49], [50]. Texas produced 5,802. Together the two states supplied 59.8 percent of the nation’s crude, computed by The Ledger from the state table, a figure that is not the Permian, because it also counts the Eagle Ford, the Texas Gulf Coast and the San Juan Basin [49].

The Permian itself is a little under half the country. The Outlook’s regional table puts Permian production at 6.81 million barrels a day in the second quarter of 2026 against a national 13.82, which is 49.3 percent, computed by The Ledger; the share was 48.6 percent for 2025 and is forecast at 49.7 percent for 2027, when the region is expected to produce 7.03 million barrels a day [51]. The table’s own footnote matters for anyone quoting it: the regional figures are geographic, not geologic. On the geologic basis, Permian tight-oil formations produced 6.16 million barrels a day in the same quarter, and the difference is conventional production inside the same counties [52]. The weekly estimate for the week ending August 21 was 13,843 thousand barrels a day, and the Outlook expects 13.8 million for the year and 14.2 million in 2027 [48], [53].

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 thousand barrels a day, May 2026 13,714 Production 13,714 crude, field production 5,953 Imports 5,953 crude; Canada 3,884 5,728 Exports 5,728 crude; a record month 16,787 Refinery inputs 16,787 crude run in May 20,071 Product supplied 20,071 all products, the demand proxy Petroleum Supply Monthly, May 2026 data, released July 31, 2026. Product supplied counts every product, so it exceeds crude inputs.
Fig. 4The United States crude oil balance for May 2026, thousand barrels a day, from the Petroleum Supply Monthly released July 31: production 13,714, imports 5,953, exports 5,728, refinery inputs 16,787, and product supplied 20,071 across all products. The supply side adds to 22,514 and the disposition side to 22,515 once transfers, the stock draw and the adjustment are counted, computed by The Ledger [54].

Imports are Canadian and heavy. The country imported 5,953 thousand barrels of crude a day in May, down from 6,257 in April, and Canada sent 3,884 of them, 65.2 percent, computed by The Ledger [55]. The next largest suppliers were Venezuela at 471, Mexico at 276, Guyana at 239 and Ecuador at 183. The Persian Gulf, disrupted at the Strait of Hormuz since the end of February, sent 186: Saudi Arabia 103, Iraq 71 and Kuwait 12, or 3.1 percent of the total, after Saudi shipments had run near 490 a day in February and March [55], [56]. The agency’s own explanation for the Canadian barrels is a matter of machinery: “relatively complex U.S. petroleum refineries tend to prefer heavy crude oils” [57]. Nearly half of all imported crude lands in the Midwest, whose refineries took 2,816 thousand barrels a day in May, 47.3 percent of the national total, computed by The Ledger [58].

Exports are the other half of the ledger, and the reason a Permian barrel has a world price. Crude exports were 5,728 thousand barrels a day in May, the highest monthly figure on record; the agency had already called April’s 5,593 a record, 21 percent above the previous high of December 2023, and May exceeded April by 135 [59], [60]. Total exports of crude and products were 13,540 thousand barrels a day, which leaves 7,812 of products, computed by The Ledger: propane 2,023, distillate 1,655, normal butane 893, finished gasoline 806, ethane 717 [61]. The crude went to the Netherlands (1,174), Japan (1,084) and South Korea (829); none went to China in March, April or May [59]. In the week ending August 21 the country was a net exporter of 3,785 thousand barrels a day of petroleum, entirely on products, since crude alone was still a net import of 2,366 [62]. The legal basis is one sentence of the United States Code, enacted December 18, 2015: no federal official “shall impose or enforce any restriction on the export of crude oil” [63].

40% 42% 44% 46% 48% 50% Permian region crude as a share of the U.S. total, million barrels a day beneath each bar 48.3% 1Q25 6.42 of 13.28 48.3% 2Q25 6.53 of 13.51 48.8% 3Q25 6.72 of 13.78 48.9% 4Q25 6.74 of 13.77 48.6% 1Q26 6.60 of 13.58 49.3% 2Q26 6.81 of 13.82 49.4% 3Q26 6.82 of 13.81 forecast 49.2% 4Q26 6.88 of 13.97 forecast Short-Term Energy Outlook, Aug. 11, 2026, Table 4a (geographic regions, not geologic formations). Third and fourth quarters of 2026 are forecast. Computed by The Ledger.
Fig. 5The Permian region’s share of United States crude production by quarter, first quarter 2025 through fourth quarter 2026, from the Outlook’s regional table; the third and fourth quarters of 2026 are the agency’s forecast. Computed by The Ledger as Permian region production over the national total [51].

Refineries are running near their limit. In the week ending August 21 they ran 17.4 million barrels of crude a day at 97.4 percent of operable capacity; the Gulf Coast ran 9,520 thousand barrels a day at 97.0 percent, and the Rocky Mountain district ran at 101.4 percent, which the agency explains as gross inputs divided by the latest reported monthly capacity [65], [66]. The domestic share of the crude inside them is the number a reader in Carlsbad wants. It can be computed three ways from the record. In May, refinery inputs of 16,787 thousand barrels a day against imports of 5,953 give a foreign share of at most 35.5 percent and a domestic share of at least 64.5 percent, computed by The Ledger [54]. In the August week, inputs of 17,393 against imports of 6,158 give 64.6 percent [62], [65]. On the receipts basis for calendar 2025, refineries received 3,923,647 thousand barrels of domestic crude out of 6,116,682, or 64.1 percent [67]. Three methods, three periods, one answer: about two thirds.

The district matters more than the nation. The agency files New Mexico in the Gulf Coast district, not the Rockies, and Gulf Coast refineries received 77.1 percent of their crude from domestic sources in 2025, the highest of the five districts; the Midwest, which takes the Canadian barrels, was at 54.1 and the East Coast at 20.0 [67], [68]. New Mexico has one refinery, HF Sinclair’s Navajo plant at Artesia, in Eddy County, rated at 110,000 barrels a calendar day, against a state production of 2,394 thousand barrels a day: one barrel in twenty-two stays home to be refined, computed by The Ledger [49], [68], [69]. The agency publishes no crude slate for the plant and has discontinued the state-level gasoline sales series that would have said where the rest of the gallon came from [70]. What can be said from the record is this: a Carlsbad gallon refined at Artesia is predominantly Permian crude, the defensible published number for its district is three quarters domestic, and for the nation two thirds. Crude was 51.9 percent of a $4.479 gallon of regular in May; domestic crude on the Gulf Coast slate is therefore about forty percent of the pump price, and everything else in the gallon, refining, distribution and taxes, is spent in the United States, computed by The Ledger [71].

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 crude imports by origin, thousand barrels a day, May 2026 (total 5,953) 3,884 Canada 3,884 65.2% of imports 471 Venezuela 471 276 Mexico 276 239 Guyana 239 183 Ecuador 183 181 Colombia 181 103 Saudi Arabia 103 Persian Gulf: 186 in all 71 Iraq 71 Petroleum Supply Monthly, May 2026 data, released July 31, 2026: U.S. imports by country of origin, crude oil. Nineteen origins reported.
Fig. 6Where imported crude came from in May 2026, thousand barrels a day: Canada 3,884 of a 5,953 total, then Venezuela, Mexico, Guyana, Ecuador, Colombia, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Nineteen origins in all; the Persian Gulf’s three sent 186 together [55].

The cause of the season’s prices is named in the Outlook. Crude and liquids through the Strait of Hormuz averaged 4.9 million barrels a day in the second quarter against 21.6 in the last quarter of 2025; Brent reached $105 on July 23; production shut-ins averaged 5.5 million barrels a day in July; and the agency assumes the constraints persist through August [48]. West Texas Intermediate was $87.21 a barrel on August 21, 2026, $23.13 above a year earlier; regular gasoline was $4.085 a gallon on August 24, $3.638 on the Gulf Coast and $4.359 in the Rockies [64], [72]. The Outlook’s annual averages, $80.88 for WTI and $3.78 for gasoline in 2026, are annual averages and read lower than the August observations for that reason [73]. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve held 289.7 million barrels on August 21 against 404.2 a year earlier [64].

For Eddy and Lea counties the money moved from the wellhead to the lease. The State Land Office’s fiscal 2026 statement, updated August 5, 2026, shows oil and gas royalty at $1,910,113,810, down $510,319,418 from fiscal 2025, while oil and gas bonuses, paid at the instant a lease issues, rose from $40,816,418 to $542,764,425 [74]. The grand total was $2,633,791,490.64, up 1.7 percent, computed by The Ledger: leasing money replaced production money almost dollar for dollar. The office notes that royalty distributions are accounted for three months after product sales occur, so the royalty line lags the price by a quarter [74]. The federal side ran the same way. The three 2026 sales that included New Mexico parcels took in $4,473,777,851 on 130 parcels and 74,263 acres, computed by The Ledger, and the Bureau of Land Management states that the rate on new federal onshore leases is now 12.5 percent, lowered from 16.67 by the 2025 tax law [41], [75], [76]. The state’s August consensus estimate assumes New Mexico oil at $75.50 a barrel and 875 million barrels in fiscal 2027, and puts the state’s exposure in one line: a one-dollar change in the annual average price moves total state revenues by about $56.45 million [77].

A beginning, not an end. The June monthly, released August 31, 2026, answered two of the three questions May left open: crude exports fell back to 4.7 million barrels a day, and New Mexico’s June came in at 71.0 million barrels, 2.37 million a day, below May’s record; Persian Gulf crude arrived at 113,000 barrels a day, the lowest month in the series [46]. The September 9, 2026 Outlook will revise the forecast [48]. What the record shows next is what the strait carried in September, and whether May was the peak. The record will say.

III · Future InterestsWhat is being built

The barrel after the car

The market that prices a Permian barrel was assembled in a handful of dated moves, and in 2026 it absorbed the largest supply disruption in its history. The outlooks that follow it disagree by ninety million barrels a day about 2050. The lease does not.

Recorded
Book 1 · Page 2
Section III
09/02/2026
The Ledger · No. 002
Archive Ledger, Inc.

On March 11, 2026 the International Energy Agency announced the sixth collective action in its history: thirty-two member countries would release 400 million barrels from their stocks, the largest such release ever made, in response to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz that had followed the military action of February 28 [78]. By March 19 the confirmed contributions came to 426 million barrels, 172.2 million of them from the United States [79]. The agency’s April report called what was happening “the largest disruption in history” [80]. Twenty million barrels a day of crude and products had moved through the strait in 2025, about a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil trade; by early April loadings were about 3.8 million a day, a fall of 81 percent, computed by The Ledger [78], [80]. That is the event this section reads: a supply shock, measured in barrels, dollars and days.

The price did what a supply shock does. Brent futures began the year at $61 a barrel, passed $100 on March 12 and ended the quarter at $118, the largest inflation-adjusted quarterly rise in data back to 1988 [81]. The weekly spot average peaked at $124.61 in the week ending April 10, fell to $69.70 in the week ending July 3 after a reopening agreement, and rose again to $96.12 by July 24 after hostilities resumed on July 7 and 8; on August 25 Brent closed at $88.24 and West Texas Intermediate at $83.90 [82], [83], [84]. War-risk cover on a tanker entering the Gulf reached 2 to 6 percent of hull value in July [85].

Europe Brent spot, weekly average, dollars a barrel, 2026 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Feb. 28: the strait closes Jan 2: $62.18 Feb 27: $71.36 Apr 10: $124.61 Jul 3: $69.70 Aug 21: $94.20 Energy Information Administration, Europe Brent Spot Price FOB, weekly, series RBRTE, through the week ending Aug. 21, 2026. Twelve weeks shown.
Fig. 7Weekly Europe Brent spot price, dollars a barrel, 2026 to date: $62.18 in the first week of January, $71.36 in the last week before the closure, $124.61 in the week ending April 10, $69.70 in the week ending July 3, $94.20 in the week ending August 21. Energy Information Administration weekly series [82].

The shock was absorbed by stocks, by ships and by the United States. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve fell from 415.4 million barrels on February 27 to 289.7 million on August 21, a draw of 125.7 million, computed by The Ledger [86]. American petroleum exports set a record of 13.6 million barrels a day in April, with crude at 5.6 million, propane above two million for the first time and distillate at its highest since 2017, and the agency attributed the record to the disruption [87]. By late August the strait was partially open, not reopened: about five to seven million barrels a day were moving through it, a quarter to a third of the 2025 rate, computed by The Ledger [78], [88]. The three agencies that forecast demand read the year three ways in the same week of August: the IEA at 1.6 million barrels a day below 2025, the Energy Information Administration at 1.25 million below, and OPEC at 0.58 million above [89], [90], [91]. Any sentence that reads 2026 as structural decline is unsupported by all three.

The market that absorbed it was built in a few dated moves. Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela created the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries at Baghdad on September 10 to 14, 1960 [92], [93]. On October 17, 1973 six Gulf members raised the posted price seventy percent, from $3.01 to $5.12 a barrel, and two days later the embargo on the United States began; by the time it ended in March 1974 the price had gone from $2.90 to $11.65 [94], [95]. The second shock followed the loss of Iranian output in 1979, and the average price American producers received climbed from $9.00 in 1978 to $31.77 in 1981, then collapsed to $12.51 in 1986 [96], [97]. The paper barrel arrived in between: the New York Mercantile Exchange listed crude oil futures on March 30, 1983, and Brent futures opened in London in June 1988 [98], [99].

how the market was built, 1960 to 2026 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 1960 OPEC founded Baghdad, Sept. 10 to 14;five members 1973 Embargo Posted price up 70% onOct. 17; $2.90 to $11.65 1979 Second shock Iranian output lost; U.S.price $9.00 to $31.77 1983 Crude futures NYMEX lists the contract,Mar. 30 1986 Collapse U.S. first purchase price$12.51 1988 Brent futures London, June 2015 Export ban repealed Dec. 18; Permian crudereaches Ingleside 2016 OPEC+ Algiers, Vienna, and theDeclaration of Cooperation 2020 Negative $37.63 WTI settles below zero,Apr. 20 2026 Hormuz closes Feb. 28; 400 million barrelsreleased OPEC, the Department of State Office of the Historian, the Energy Information Administration, CME Group, ICE, 42 U.S.C. 6212a and the IEA.
Fig. 8How the market was built, 1960 to 2026: the producers’ organization, two shocks and a collapse, the futures contracts, the American export regime and its repeal, OPEC+, the negative day, and the closure of the strait. Dates from OPEC, the Department of State, the Energy Information Administration, CME Group and the statutes [78], [92], [94], [97], [98], [100], [101], [102].

The American barrel was fenced in and then set loose. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 directed a rule prohibiting crude exports, which the Commerce Department ran as a license regime with listed exceptions; exports under it still reached 396,000 barrels a day in June 2014, nearly all to Canada [100]. Congress repealed the restriction on December 18, 2015, and within a year Permian crude was moving by pipeline to a new export terminal at Ingleside on Corpus Christi Bay, bypassing Cushing [63], [103]. The producers reorganized in the same season: the Algiers Accord of September 28, 2016, the Vienna Agreement of November 30 and the Declaration of Cooperation of December 10 created the group the agencies track as OPEC+ [101]. On April 20, 2020 the expiring West Texas Intermediate contract settled at negative $37.63 a barrel with the tanks at Cushing 76 percent full, the one day the paper barrel was worth less than nothing [102]. And in 2026 the United Arab Emirates left OPEC, effective May 1, taking 3.4 million barrels a day of 2025 production with it [104].

Where does the barrel go after the car? The outlooks answer with dates, and the dates keep moving while the level does not. In October 2020 the International Energy Agency wrote that “the era of growth in global oil demand comes to an end within ten years” [107]. Its June 2023 medium-term report had demand at 105.7 million barrels a day in 2028; its June 2024 report had 105.4 in 2030; its June 2025 report, the latest, has a plateau around 105.5 by 2030, with combustible demand peaking as early as 2027, refined products peaking that year at 86.3 million barrels a day, and polymers and fibers needing 18.4 million barrels a day by 2030, more than one barrel in six [108], [109], [110]. Its own April 2026 review records 2025 demand still growing, by 0.65 million barrels a day [111]. The World Energy Outlook of November 2025 brackets 2050 between 102 million barrels a day under stated policies, with demand levelling off around 2030, and 113 under current policies, carried by petrochemical feedstocks, aviation and trucks [112].

0 25 50 75 100 125 world liquids demand in 2050, million barrels a day; every bar is its issuer's projection 34 bp Below 2 Degrees projection 65 ExxonMobil Below 2 Degrees projection, about 83 bp Current Trajectory projection 102 IEA Stated Policies projection 105 ExxonMobil base outlook projection, about 113 IEA Current Policies projection 124 OPEC World Oil Outlook projection, about 2025 level, about 104 (EIA) IEA World Energy Outlook 2025; ExxonMobil Global Outlook, Aug. 2025; bp Energy Outlook 2025; OPEC World Oil Outlook 2026 as reported June 18, 2026; EIA STEO Table 3a for 2025.
Fig. 9World oil demand in 2050 as seven published outlooks project it, million barrels a day, every bar a projection with its issuer’s scenario: bp Below 2 Degrees 34, ExxonMobil Below 2 Degrees case about 65, bp Current Trajectory 83, IEA Stated Policies 102, ExxonMobil base about 105, IEA Current Policies 113, OPEC about 124. The 2025 level was about 104 by the Energy Information Administration’s count [90], [112], [113], [114], [115].

The industry’s own outlooks bracket the agency’s. ExxonMobil’s, published August 28, 2025, has about 105 million barrels a day in 2050 [113]. bp’s has oil returning to about today’s level by 2035 and 83 million barrels a day in 2050 on its current trajectory, with feedstock rising from about 15 percent of the barrel in 2023 to close to 30 percent, and 34 million barrels a day in a below-two-degrees case where feedstock is about 45 percent [114]. OPEC’s World Oil Outlook of June 18, 2026 has about 124 million barrels a day in 2050 and “no peak demand on the horizon” [115]. The Energy Information Administration’s last international outlook, from 2023, keeps transportation at 54 percent or more of liquid fuels in 2050 in every case it runs [116]. No base case among them has oil ceasing to be mainly a transport fuel by 2050, and every one of them has the burned barrel peaking first and the feedstock barrel lasting longest. The Permian sits at 6.7 percent of the world’s liquids supply in 2026, computed by The Ledger from the agency’s tables, and it is the country’s ethane [51], [90], [105].

Which brings the question to the lease. A Permian barrel sold to a cracker at Corpus Christi and a Permian barrel sold to a refinery hold the mineral leasehold identically, because the lease conditions on production of the substance and never on its buyer. The New Mexico Supreme Court read the habendum in 1922 as a term for as long thereafter as oil or gas is produced [117]. Texas read “produced” to mean produced in paying quantities in 1942, and in 1959 defined paying quantities as “a return in excess of operating costs, and marketing cost,” judged by a prudent operator whose factors include the price obtainable, never the purchaser’s industry [118], [119]. A well with no market or no pipeline is held by a shut-in royalty, a condition precedent with hard dates: a $50 tender made seventy-two days after the term expired was too late in Texas in 1960, and a New Mexico lease dated September 1, 1950 died on January 1, 1957 when production ceased and neither drilling nor the shut-in payment followed [120], [121]. The implied covenant to market asks for diligence and the best current price reasonably available, and in Texas “the reasonably prudent operator concept is an essential part of every implied covenant” [122], [123]. A lower feedstock netback would be tested there, as price, not as a change in the estate.

Where the end use can bite is valuation. Texas nets post-production costs against a royalty payable at the well, and in 1996 held that a lease’s post-production clauses merely restate existing law [125]. New Mexico’s Court of Appeals let compression, dehydration and gathering be deducted in 2000 because the gas was marketable at the wellhead, and in 2018 the Tenth Circuit found that the marketable-condition rule “finds no support within New Mexico case law” after the state’s Supreme Court had twice reserved the question [126], [127]. The regulators police the well, not the buyer. New Mexico’s rules define oil and gas by their physical state and a shut-in well by physical closure, and after one year of inactivity require the operator to plug or obtain temporary abandonment [128], [129]. Texas defines an inactive well as one with no permitted activity for more than twelve months, and sets its reactivation thresholds in barrels, not in buyers [130], [131]. A non-fuel end use has already run on ordinary lease machinery for fifty years: the Bravo Dome leases of 1971 to 1974 over about 1.17 million acres in Harding, Union and Quay counties produced carbon dioxide piped to West Texas oil fields, and the Tenth Circuit treated them as oil and gas leases in 1990 [132].

So the title question the market brings with it is a quiet one. When the last gallon of gasoline has been sold, the instrument in the Eddy County clerk’s book will still read as long thereafter as oil or gas is produced, the shut-in royalty will still be due on the anniversary, and the examiner opening the chain will still find the same lease, the same assignments and the same releases, none of which say what the barrel was for. The buyer changes. The record does not.

The record is clear.

Archive builds title from the record: an automated title examination platform for the Permian Basin, beginning with Eddy and Lea counties, New Mexico. The Ledger is published at archiveledger.com.

Colophon

Typeset in DM Serif Display, Inter and JetBrains Mono. Figures drawn by Archive. Membership and certification counts from the American Association of Professional Landmen’s audited annual report. Supply, import, export, refinery and price data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration; state revenue from the New Mexico State Land Office and Legislative Finance Committee; lease-sale figures from the Bureau of Land Management. Outlook figures are the projections of their issuers and are labeled as such.

The Ledger is an editorial publication of Archive Ledger, Inc. It is not legal advice, and it is not a title opinion. Every claim of fact is tied to a numbered source; corrections are welcome at archiveledger.com.

The Ledger and Archive are trademarks of Archive Ledger, Inc. No part of this issue may be reproduced or redistributed without written permission; brief quotation with attribution is welcome. Corrections and permissions: support@archiveledger.com.

The Ledger · No. 002 · September 2, 2026 · © 2026 Archive Ledger, Inc.. All rights reserved.

References

  1. Republic of Texas, “An Act organizing the inferior courts,” Laws of the Republic of Texas, First Congress, Second Session, approved Dec. 20, 1836, sec. 8. [Online]. Available: https://archive.org/details/texas-republic-1st-congress-2nd-session-1836-laws
  2. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 14-9-2, “Constructive notice of contents” (Laws 1886-1887, ch. 10, § 2). [Online]. Available: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2021/chapter-14/article-9/section-14-9-2/
  3. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 14-9-4, “Recording by county clerk; reception book.” [Online]. Available: https://codes.findlaw.com/nm/chapter-14-records-rules-legal-notices-oaths/nm-st-sect-14-9-4/
  4. Revised Statutes of the State of Texas (Austin, 1885), arts. 4297, 4298, 4300, 4796 to 4799. [Online]. Available: https://archive.org/details/revisedstatuteso00texa
  5. G. W. Warvelle, A Practical Treatise on Abstracts and Examinations of Title to Real Property (Chicago: Callaghan, 1883), pp. 64, 131. [Online]. Available: https://archive.org/details/cu31924018815856
  6. W. C. Niblack, The Law of Abstracters of Title (Chicago: Callaghan, 1908). [Online]. Available: https://archive.org/details/abstractersoftit00nibl
  7. Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 193.003, “Index to Real Property Records.” [Online]. Available: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/local-government-code/loc-gov-t-sect-193-003/
  8. Tex. Ins. Code § 2501.004, “Abstract Plant.” [Online]. Available: https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._ins._code_section_2501.004
  9. American Land Title Association, “About ALTA: History.” [Online]. Available: https://www.alta.org/about/history.cfm
  10. Directory of Reliable Real Estate Agents, Abstracters and Attorneys (Montgomery Publishing, 1907-1908), New Mexico and Texas pages. [Online]. Available: https://archive.org/details/directoryofrelia190708mont
  11. Lea County, New Mexico, “About Lea County.” [Online]. Available: https://www.leacounty.gov/249/About
  12. Texas State Historical Association, “Ranger, Desdemona, and Breckenridge Oilfields,” Handbook of Texas, Aug. 4, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/ranger-desdemona-and-breckenridge-oilfields
  13. D. E. Winchester, The Hobbs Field, Lea County, New Mexico, Circular No. 4, New Mexico School of Mines, State Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Jan. 1931. [Online]. Available: https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/monographs/circulars/downloads/4/Cicular04.pdf
  14. American Association of Professional Landmen, “History.” [Online]. Available: https://www.landman.org/discover-the-land-profession/about-us/history.html
  15. American Association of Professional Landmen, Annual Report 2024-2025, Sept. 4, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.landman.org/asset/0A1CA3E4%2D5A84%2D4484%2DA434FF41AF413DDF/
  16. Texas State Historical Association, “Santa Rita Oil Well,” Handbook of Texas, June 23, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/santa-rita-oil-well
  17. Texas State Historical Association, “Permanent University Fund,” Handbook of Texas, June 9, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/permanent-university-fund
  18. Texas State Historical Association, “Hendrick Oilfield,” Handbook of Texas, Feb. 1, 1995. [Online]. Available: https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/hendrick-oilfield
  19. “The Illinois #3,” historical marker, Artesia, New Mexico, erected 2004. [Online]. Available: https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=235360
  20. New Mexico State Land Office, FY21 Annual Report, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nmstatelands.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/New-Mexico-State-Land-Office-FY21-Annual-Report.pdf
  21. S. M. Robinson, “A Review of Oil and Gas Lease Forms,” North Dakota Law Review, vol. 28, 1952. [Online]. Available: https://commons.und.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3423&context=ndlr
  22. Brown v. Wilson, 1916 OK 49, 58 Okla. 392, 160 P. 94 (Jan. 11, 1916). [Online]. Available: https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/1916/19962.html
  23. USLegal, “Forms of Oil and Gas Leases,” Feb. 18, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://oilandgas.uslegal.com/2010/02/18/forms-of-oil-and-gas-leases/
  24. J. S. Baen, “The Standard Producers 88 Oil and Gas Lease Form,” draft paper, American Real Estate Society, Apr. 2012. [Online]. Available: https://baenandcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/Articles/standard88oil.pdf
  25. University of Oklahoma, Price College of Business, Petroleum Land Management Program History, 6th ed. [Online]. Available: https://ou.edu/content/dam/price/Management/energy_mgmt/files/ou-plm-program-history.pdf
  26. American Association of Professional Landmen, “Model Forms.” [Online]. Available: https://www.landman.org/resources/model-forms.html
  27. American Association of Professional Landmen, “Who is AAPL in the 21st Century?” May 7, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.landman.org/resource/who-is-aapl-in-the-21st-century.html
  28. American Association of Professional Landmen, “Code of Ethics.” [Online]. Available: https://www.landman.org/discover-the-land-profession/about-us/code-of-ethic.html
  29. Tex. Occ. Code § 1101.005, “Applicability of Chapter.” [Online]. Available: https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._occ._code_section_1101.005
  30. Texas Legislature, S.B. 1172, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025), enrolled text and history. [Online]. Available: https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&Bill=SB1172
  31. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 61-29-2, “Real estate brokers; exemptions.” [Online]. Available: https://codes.findlaw.com/nm/chapter-61-professional-and-occupational-licenses/nm-st-sect-61-29-2/
  32. Ohio Rev. Code § 4735.023, “Oil and gas land professionals” (eff. Mar. 20, 2019). [Online]. Available: https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-4735.023
  33. J. Shade, “Petroleum Land Titles: Title Examination and Title Opinions,” Baylor Law Review, vol. 46, 1994. [Online]. Available: https://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/pdf/20091217125956_large.pdf
  34. State Bar of Texas, Title Standards Joint Editorial Board, Texas Title Examination Standards, Title 2 Appendix, Vernon’s Texas Property Code, Mar. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/content/dam/ewp-m/documents/legal/en/pdf/other/texas-title-exam-standards.pdf
  35. J. R. Lee, “A Primer on Conducting Oil and Gas Operations in Texas,” Alberta Law Review, vol. 38, 2000. [Online]. Available: https://albertalawreview.com/index.php/ALR/article/download/516/509
  36. Oklahoma Bar Association, 2024 Supplemental Title Examination Standards Handbook, history section, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.okbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/2024-Supplemental-Handbook-Final57.pdf
  37. J. Hewett, “A Comparative Analysis of Texas and New Mexico Oil and Gas Title,” Texas A&M Journal of Property Law, vol. 6, no. 3, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/journal-of-property-law/vol6/iss3/21/
  38. Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, ch. 85, 41 Stat. 437 (Feb. 25, 1920). [Online]. Available: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-41/pdf/STATUTE-41-Pg437.pdf
  39. 30 U.S.C. § 226, “Lease of oil and gas lands,” with historical notes on Pub. L. 100-203 (Dec. 22, 1987). [Online]. Available: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title30-section226&num=0&edition=prelim
  40. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, The Federal Simultaneous Oil and Gas Leasing System, 1981. [Online]. Available: https://archive.org/details/federalsimultane00unse
  41. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, “Department of the Interior oil and gas lease sale in New Mexico and Texas generates over $4 billion,” May 20, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.blm.gov/press-release/department-interior-oil-and-gas-lease-sale-new-mexico-and-texas-generates-over-4
  42. Enabling Act for New Mexico and Arizona, ch. 310, 36 Stat. 557 (June 20, 1910), secs. 6, 7, 10. [Online]. Available: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-36/pdf/STATUTE-36-Pg557.pdf
  43. New Mexico State Land Office, “Lease Sale Notices and Results.” [Online]. Available: https://www.nmstatelands.org/divisions/oil-gas-and-minerals/lease-sale-notices-and-results/
  44. New Mexico State Land Office, July 21, 2026 Oil and Gas Lease Sale Results. [Online]. Available: https://www.nmstatelands.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/July-2026-Full-Results.pdf
  45. New Mexico Legislature, S.B. 23 (2025), Laws 2025, ch. 137, amending N.M. Stat. Ann. § 19-10-4.3. [Online]. Available: https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/25%20Regular/final/SB0023.pdf
  46. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Supply Monthly, with data for May 2026, released July 31, 2026, and the June 2026 edition released August 31, 2026 (Navigator series MCRFPNM1, MCREXUS1, MCRIMUSPG1; monthly figures revise September 30, 2026). [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/supply/monthly/
  47. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Weekly Petroleum Status Report, week ending Aug. 21, 2026, released Aug. 26, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/supply/weekly/
  48. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, Aug. 11, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/pdf/steo_full.pdf
  49. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Crude Oil Production by U.S., PAD District and State,” monthly, thousand barrels per day, released July 31, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_m.htm
  50. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “New Mexico Field Production of Crude Oil,” monthly, series MCRFPNM1. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPNM1&f=M
  51. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, Table 4a, “U.S. Petroleum and Other Liquids Supply, Consumption, and Inventories,” Aug. 11, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/tables/pdf/4atab.pdf
  52. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, Table 10b, “U.S. Tight Oil Production,” Aug. 11, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/tables/pdf/10btab.pdf
  53. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Weekly U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil,” series WCRFPUS2, week ending Aug. 21, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCRFPUS2&f=W
  54. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “U.S. Supply, Disposition, and Ending Stocks of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products,” May 2026, released July 31, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_sum_snd_d_nus_mbblpd_m_cur.htm
  55. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “U.S. Imports by Country of Origin, Crude Oil,” monthly, thousand barrels per day, released July 31, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_epc0_im0_mbblpd_m.htm
  56. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “U.S. Imports from Saudi Arabia of Crude Oil,” monthly, released July 31, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a1_nsa_epc0_im0_mbblpd_m.htm
  57. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “U.S.-Canada energy trade value in 2025,” Today in Energy, July 29, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67904
  58. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Midwest (PADD 2) Imports of Crude Oil,” monthly, released July 31, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_imp_dc_R20-Z00_mbblpd_m.htm
  59. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “U.S. Exports by Destination, Crude Oil,” monthly, thousand barrels per day, released July 31, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_expc_a_EPC0_EEX_mbblpd_m.htm
  60. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “U.S. exports of crude oil and petroleum products reached record in April,” Today in Energy, July 8, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67825
  61. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Exports of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products, by product,” monthly, released July 31, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_m.htm
  62. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Weekly Petroleum Status Report, Table 7, “U.S. Imports and Exports,” week ending Aug. 21, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/supply/weekly/pdf/table7.pdf
  63. 42 U.S.C. § 6212a, “Oil exports, safety valve, and maritime security” (Pub. L. 114-113, div. O, title I, § 101, Dec. 18, 2015). [Online]. Available: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/6212a
  64. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Weekly Petroleum Status Report, Highlights, week ending Aug. 21, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/supply/weekly/pdf/highlights.pdf
  65. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Weekly U.S. Refiner Inputs and Utilization,” week ending Aug. 21, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_wiup_dcu_nus_w.htm
  66. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Weekly Gulf Coast (PADD 3) and Rocky Mountain (PADD 4) Refiner Inputs and Utilization,” week ending Aug. 21, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_wiup_dcu_r30_w.htm
  67. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Refinery Capacity Report 2026, Table 9, “Refinery Receipts of Crude Oil by Method of Transportation,” calendar 2025, released June 26, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/refinerycapacity/table9.pdf
  68. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Refinery Capacity Report 2026, Table 1, “Number and Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by PAD District and State,” as of Jan. 1, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/refinerycapacity/table1.pdf
  69. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Refinery Capacity Report 2026, Table 3, “Capacity of Operable Petroleum Refineries by State,” as of Jan. 1, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/refinerycapacity/table3.pdf
  70. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Petroleum Marketing Monthly, with data for May 2026, released Aug. 3, 2026 (prime supplier sales volumes discontinued). [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/marketing/monthly/
  71. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “What we pay for in a gallon of regular gasoline,” May 2026, updated Aug. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/gaspump_hist.php
  72. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update,” Aug. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/
  73. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, Table 2, “Energy Prices,” Aug. 11, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/tables/pdf/2tab.pdf
  74. New Mexico State Land Office, “Revenues by Source, Fiscal Year 2026 compared with Fiscal Year 2025,” updated Aug. 5, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.nmstatelands.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Updated-June-26-Rev-pgs.pdf
  75. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, “BLM oil and gas lease sale in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas generates over $139 million,” Aug. 20, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-oil-and-gas-lease-sale-new-mexico-oklahoma-and-texas-generates-over-139-million
  76. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, “BLM oil and gas lease sale in New Mexico and Oklahoma generates nearly $327 million,” Jan. 6, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-oil-and-gas-lease-sale-new-mexico-and-oklahoma-generates-nearly-327-million
  77. New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee, General Fund Consensus Revenue Estimate, Aug. 26, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.nmlegis.gov/Handouts/ALFC%20082526%20Item%206%20Preliminary%20FY26%20General%20Fund%20Revenues%20FY27-FY30%20Revenue%20Outlook%20and%20General%20Fund%20Financial%20Summary.pdf
  78. International Energy Agency, “IEA Member countries to carry out largest ever oil stock release amid market disruptions from Middle East conflict,” Mar. 11, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/news/iea-member-countries-to-carry-out-largest-ever-oil-stock-release-amid-market-disruptions-from-middle-east-conflict
  79. International Energy Agency, “IEA confirms Member country contributions to collective action to release oil stocks,” Mar. 19, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/news/iea-confirms-member-country-contributions-to-collective-action-to-release-oil-stocks-in-response-to-middle-east-disruptions
  80. International Energy Agency, Oil Market Report, Apr. 14, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/oil-market-report-april-2026
  81. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Crude oil and petroleum product prices increased sharply in the first quarter of 2026,” Today in Energy, Apr. 7, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67424
  82. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Europe Brent Spot Price FOB,” weekly, series RBRTE, through the week ending Aug. 21, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=RBRTE&f=W
  83. International Energy Agency, Oil Market Report, Aug. 12, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/oil-market-report-august-2026
  84. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Spot Prices for Crude Oil and Petroleum Products,” daily, through Aug. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_d.htm
  85. “Hormuz war-risk cover climbs as shipowners pull back,” Bloomberg via gCaptain, July 9, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://gcaptain.com/hormuz-war-risk-cover-climbs-as-shipowners-pull-back/
  86. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Weekly U.S. Ending Stocks of Crude Oil in SPR,” series WCSSTUS1, through the week ending Aug. 21, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCSSTUS1&f=W
  87. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “U.S. exports of crude oil and petroleum products reached record in April,” Today in Energy, July 8, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67825
  88. “Commodity vessel transits through Strait of Hormuz hit three-month low, data shows,” Reuters via gCaptain, Aug. 25, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://gcaptain.com/commodity-vessel-transits-through-strait-of-hormuz-hit-three-month-low-data-shows/
  89. International Energy Agency, Oil Market Report, Aug. 12, 2026 (2026 demand forecast). [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/oil-market-report-august-2026
  90. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, Table 3a, “World Petroleum and Other Liquid Fuels Production, Consumption, and Inventories,” Aug. 11, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/tables/pdf/3atab.pdf
  91. “OPEC again downgrades 2026 global oil demand growth forecast,” TASS, Aug. 12, 2026 (reporting the OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report of Aug. 12, 2026). [Online]. Available: https://tass.com/economy/2171903
  92. Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, “Brief History.” [Online]. Available: https://www.opec.org/brief-history.html
  93. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Glossary, “Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).” [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.php?id=O
  94. U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969-1976, vol. XXV, doc. 200, editorial note. [Online]. Available: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v25/d200
  95. U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian, “Oil Embargo, 1973-1974,” Milestones. [Online]. Available: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/oil-embargo
  96. Federal Reserve History, “Oil Shock of 1978-79.” [Online]. Available: https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/oil-shock-of-1978-79
  97. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “U.S. Crude Oil First Purchase Price,” annual, dollars per barrel. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=F000000__3&f=A
  98. CME Group, “Historical First Trade Dates.” [Online]. Available: https://www.cmegroup.com/media-room/historical-first-trade-dates.html
  99. Intercontinental Exchange, “Evolution of Brent, its markets and why its ecosystem is relied upon by commercial participants.” [Online]. Available: https://www.ice.com/evolution-of-brent-its-markets-and-why-its-ecosystem-is-relied-upon-by-commercial-participants
  100. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Changing Crude Oil Markets, GAO-14-807, Sept. 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-14-807.pdf
  101. Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, “OPEC commemorates the Algiers Accord,” press release, Sept. 28, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.opec.org/pr-detail/20-28-sep-2024.html
  102. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “North American crude oil prices are closely, but not perfectly, connected,” Today in Energy, May 27, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43875
  103. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, Feb. 2017 (Ingleside terminal and the Cactus pipeline). [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/archives/feb17.pdf
  104. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “UAE’s exit from OPEC+ reduced the group’s share of crude oil production and capacity,” Today in Energy, June 23, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67804
  105. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “U.S. ethane production, consumption, and exports set new records in 2024,” Today in Energy, Mar. 20, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64785
  106. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Natural gas plant liquids exports reached record highs in 2025,” Today in Energy, Mar. 30, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67387
  107. International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2020, Oct. 13, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2020
  108. International Energy Agency, Oil 2023: Analysis and forecast to 2028, executive summary, June 14, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/oil-2023/executive-summary
  109. International Energy Agency, Oil 2024: Analysis and forecast to 2030, executive summary, June 12, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/oil-2024/executive-summary
  110. International Energy Agency, Oil 2025: Analysis and forecast to 2030, June 17, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/oil-2025
  111. International Energy Agency, Global Energy Review 2026, “Oil,” Apr. 20, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2026/oil
  112. International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2025, executive summary, Nov. 12, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2025/executive-summary
  113. ExxonMobil, Global Outlook: Our view to 2050, Aug. 28, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/publications/global-outlook/all-energy-types-are-needed
  114. bp, Energy Outlook 2025 edition, oil section. [Online]. Available: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/energy-outlook/oil.html
  115. “OPEC sticks to robust oil demand outlook, sees no peak on horizon,” Reuters, June 18, 2026 (reporting the OPEC World Oil Outlook 2026). [Online]. Available: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/opec-sticks-robust-oil-demand-outlook-sees-no-peak-2050-2026-06-18/
  116. U.S. Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2023, narrative, Oct. 11, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/narrative/index.php
  117. Terry v. Humphreys, 27 N.M. 564 (N.M. Jan. 24, 1922). [Online]. Available: https://static.case.law/nm/27/cases/0564-01.json
  118. Garcia v. King, 164 S.W.2d 509 (Tex. July 15, 1942). [Online]. Available: https://static.case.law/sw2d/164/cases/0509-01.json
  119. Clifton v. Koontz, 325 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. June 24, 1959). [Online]. Available: https://static.case.law/sw2d/325/cases/0684-01.json
  120. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Reid, 337 S.W.2d 267 (Tex. Mar. 23, 1960). [Online]. Available: https://static.case.law/sw2d/337/cases/0267-01.json
  121. Greer v. Salmon, 82 N.M. 245, 479 P.2d 294 (N.M. Dec. 31, 1970). [Online]. Available: https://static.case.law/nm/82/cases/0245-01.json
  122. Cabot Corp. v. Brown, 754 S.W.2d 104 (Tex. Dec. 9, 1987). [Online]. Available: https://static.case.law/sw2d/754/cases/0104-01.json
  123. Amoco Production Co. v. Alexander, 622 S.W.2d 563 (Tex. Sept. 28, 1981). [Online]. Available: https://static.case.law/sw2d/622/cases/0563-01.json
  124. New Mexico State Land Office, “FAQs, Oil and Gas” (shut-in royalty on state trust land). [Online]. Available: https://www.nmstatelands.org/divisions/oil-gas-and-minerals/oil-and-gas/faqs-oil-and-gas/
  125. Heritage Resources, Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. Apr. 25, 1996). [Online]. Available: https://static.case.law/sw2d/939/cases/0118-01.json
  126. Creson v. Amoco Production Co., 2000-NMCA-081, 129 N.M. 529 (N.M. Ct. App. June 21, 2000). [Online]. Available: https://static.case.law/nm/129/cases/0529-01.json
  127. Anderson Living Trust v. Energen Resources Corp., 886 F.3d 826 (10th Cir. Mar. 2, 2018). [Online]. Available: https://static.case.law/f3d/886/cases/0826-01.json
  128. 19.15.2 NMAC, “General Provisions for Oil and Gas Operations,” definitions. [Online]. Available: https://www.srca.nm.gov/parts/title19/19.015.0002.html
  129. 19.15.25 NMAC, “Plugging and Abandonment of Wells.” [Online]. Available: https://www.srca.nm.gov/parts/title19/19.015.0025.html
  130. Tex. Nat. Res. Code § 89.002, definitions (inactive well). [Online]. Available: https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/natural-resources-code/nat-res-sect-89-002/
  131. 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.15, “Surface Equipment Removal Requirements and Inactive Wells” (Statewide Rule 15). [Online]. Available: https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/texas/16-Tex-Admin-Code-SS-3-15
  132. Amoco Production Co. v. Heimann, 904 F.2d 1405 (10th Cir. May 24, 1990). [Online]. Available: https://static.case.law/f2d/904/cases/1405-01.json