Articles
5 Strategies for Venue Selection in Energy Disputes
1. Understand the Stakes In energy contracts, venue selection clauses — language specifying how and where disputes will be heard …
May 18, 2026
May 18, 2026 • 2-minute read
Partner
Commercial & Business Litigation
Chambers USA, 2020–2026
Jim is a trial attorney with more than 35 years of experience counseling clients with wide-ranging business litigation needs. His practice encompasses lawsuits, appeals, and domestic and international arbitrations across multiple industries.
As a former petroleum engineer, Jim has hands-on experience with many issues affecting energy industry clients, and handles related disputes and other matters before numerous state and federal courts, as well as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement and Railroad Commission of Texas. Jim is a member of the firm’s Management Committee.
(CA Dist. – Kern Cnty) – Following a more than 2 month trial, obtained a take-nothing jury verdict for oil and gas operator against $100 million failure-to-develop and fraud claims brought by non-operating working interest owners under a joint operating agreement
(Colo. Dist. – Denver Cnty.) After a three-week trial to the court, secured a $280 million judgment in favor of Antero Treatment while defeating a $118 million counterclaim; the Court found that the defendant fraudulently induced Antero into signing an agreement for the design, construction and operation of a facility for the treatment of produced and flowback water; the Court also found that Antero properly terminated the agreement after the defendant defaulted by failing to construct the facility according to the requirements of the contract
(La. Dist. – Orleans Parish) — Secured $125 million judgment following a jury verdict for Huntsman Corporation in its contract dispute with gas supplier, Praxair, Inc.
(Colo. Dist. – Denver Cnty.) – Secured a jury verdict for $97 million (net) in damages on behalf of Antero Resources; the defendants failed to take delivery of natural gas under long-term sales agreements forcing Antero to sell the gas at a loss; under the contracts, Antero was entitled to cover damages, but the defendants claimed force majeure; in addition, the defendants filed a counter-claim seeking $37 million in damages; following a two week trial, the jury awarded Antero $97 million (net) in damages, rejected the force majeure defense and rejected the defendants counter-claims
(D. Colo.) — Represented an energy company in a dispute regarding whether a Market Disruption Event had occurred under the terms of their long term NAESB contracts for natural gas, impacting price to be paid; the jury unanimously found that the plaintiff breached the contracts and awarded a $60 million (net) verdict in favor of the client
(Colo. Dist. – Denver Cnty. and Arbitration) — Secured an arbitration award on behalf of an energy company, which was affirmed by a state district court in Denver, Colorado; claimants were purchasers of natural gas that sought to retrade NAESB gas purchase agreements with the energy company; after a final hearing, the arbitration panel rejected the claimants’ attempt to substitute an alternate index price into the long term contracts
(Tex. App. − El Paso) ; (Tex. Dist. — El Paso Cty.) — Defended a Houston-based energy firm and obtained a favorable jury verdict in a $400 million (net) damage suit arising from the termination of an oil supply contract with a refinery involving claims of usury, breach of contract, fraud, and various business torts; the matter was upheld by the El Paso Court of Appeals, and petition before the Texas Supreme Court was denied
(W. Va.) — Representing an exploration and production company on proceedings related to an attempt to enjoin hydraulic fracturing and completion operations on wells drilled on the Ohio River in West Virginia
(Colo. Dist. – Denver Cnty.) — Defended Antero Resources Corporation and Antero Resources Piceance Corporation, working alongside Colorado counsel, to obtain a dismissal of all of the plaintiffs’ claims for failure to comply with the court’s “Lone Pine” order in a toxic tort case arising from drilling, completion, and hydraulic fracturing activities in a residential area; this dismissal is the first of its kind relative to the hydraulic fracturing industry
Successfully tried a domestic arbitration under the CPR Rules on behalf of a major oil and gas company involving a dispute among Joint Interest Owners under a model form Joint Operating Agreement and COPAS Accounting Procedure
Defended an exploration and production company in a domestic arbitration proceeding involving $6 million in dispute brought by a non-operating working interest owner alleging breach of contract under a Joint Operating Agreement and COPAS Accounting Procedure; this matter, arbitrated before a panel of three arbitrators, resulted in a decision rendered in favor of our client on 95% of the matters in dispute
Defended an international exploration and production company in an international arbitration pending before the AAA/ICDR in a $6 million dispute brought by a drilling contractor alleging breach of contract, and involving defenses of force majeure and contract frustration
Obtained a favorable arbitral award on all counts in the defense of an AAA/ICDR arbitration arising out of the purchase of more than 20,000 acres of leases in the Utica Shale for $120 million
Defended an international exploration and production company in an international arbitration pending before the AAA/ICDR in a dispute brought by a drilling contractor alleging breach of contract and damages in excess of $3 million
Tried and obtained a favorable jury verdict in Texas state court on behalf of a domestic oil and gas company, defending against claims of breach of contract, underpayment of royalties, and fraud
Represented an independent exploration and production company, along with Colorado counsel, to obtain a order of dismissal for failure to state a claim involving a class action arising from drilling, completion, and hydraulic fracturing activities in a residential area
Defended a group of royalty and working interest owners in Texas state court in a title lawsuit brought by dozens of individuals claiming to be the rightful mineral owners to a producing tract of land estimated to be valued at over $500 million; summary judgment was rendered in favor of our client on all issues.This matter was upheld on appeal
Currently defending and counseling multiple clients on litigation related to hydraulic fracturing in shale formations and tight sands
Defended multiple exploration and production companies in Texas state courts in various lawsuits brought by landowners and royalty interest owners asserting termination of leasehold interests by virtue of alleged cessation of production in paying quantities. Summary judgments were rendered in these matters in favor of our clients; two of these matters were appealed, one to the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals and the other to the San Antonio Court of Appeals, and successfully argued and affirmed without further appeal
Defended and/or settled multiple oil and gas exploration and production companies in Texas state court in various lawsuits brought by non-operating working interest owners alleging breach of contract under the COPAS accounting provisions of certain Joint Operating Agreements
Defended an oil and gas exploration and production company in a dry hole trespass lawsuit brought by a royalty owner in Texas federal court; summary judgment was granted at the district court level and was upheld on appeal to the Fifth Circuit. No further appeal was taken
Defended a large independent oil and gas producer in a False Claims Act lawsuit pending in the Eastern District of Texas relating to natural gas and natural gas liquid royalties
Defended domestic energy companies in a False Claims Act lawsuit pending in the Eastern District of Texas relating to the use of “posted prices” in valuing crude oil transactions; this case settled on terms very favorable to our clients
Defended multiple clients in Texas federal court in multidistrict litigation comprising a series of cases brought by a purported national class of royalty interest owners alleging antitrust violations, fraud, conspiracy, and breach of contract
Defended a large independent oil and gas producer in multiple related lawsuits, both individual and class, alleging underpayment of royalties on natural gas and natural gas liquids
Tried and obtained a favorable jury verdict in an accounting malpractice claim in Harris County, Texas
Perenco Nigeria Limited v. Ashland Inc., 242 F.3d 299
National Steel Corp. v. Scurlock Permian Corp., 95 F.3d 48
Benchmark Electronics v. J.M. Huber Corp., 343 F.3d 719
El Paso Refining, Inc. v. Scurlock Permian Corp., 77 S.W.3d 374
In re SWEPI LP, 103 S.W.3d 578
W.T. Carter & Bro. V. Oryx Energy Co., 5 S.W.3d 704
Scurlock Permian Corp. v. Brazos County, 869 S.W.2d 478
In re Hal G. Kuntz, 124 S.W.3d 179
SWEPI LP v. Camden Resources, Inc., 139 S.W.3d 332
In re Shell E&P, Inc. and SWEPI, LP, 179 S.W.3d 125
Midland Central Appraisal District v. Plains Mktg., L.P., ___ S.W.3d ___
Education
Admissions
Articles
5 Strategies for Venue Selection in Energy Disputes
1. Understand the Stakes In energy contracts, venue selection clauses — language specifying how and where disputes will be heard …
May 18, 2026
May 18, 2026 • 2-minute read
CLE Events
Venue Selection for Energy Disputes
On Tuesday, March 17, Jim Thompson, Nick Shum, Stephanie Noble, and Matt Hoffman will lead a CLE program focused on venue selection considerations in energy sector contracts.
March 17, 2026
March 17, 2026 • 1-minute read
Client Alerts
Take Nothing: Delivering a Courtroom Masterclass
Two months in court, 1,700 miles from home, $100 million at stake. In this edition of V&E+, Vinson & Elkins partners Jim Thompson, Nick Shum, and Stephanie Noble share their story of a marathon trial — and how they emerged victorious.
February 21, 2024 • V&E+ Ventures
February 21, 2024 • 6-minute read
Awards & Rankings
The Legal 500 US 2026 recommended Vinson & Elkins as a leading law firm in 47 practice categories. In total, …
June 10, 2026
June 10, 2026 • 3-minute read
Awards & Rankings
Vinson & Elkins announced today that it achieved 20 Band 1 rankings in Chambers USA 2026: Nationwide: Energy Transition; Energy: …
June 4, 2026
June 4, 2026 • 3-minute read
Awards & Rankings
Lawdragon Names 34 Vinson & Elkins Lawyers to Its 2026 500 Leading Litigators in America Guide
Lawdragon has recognized 34 Vinson & Elkins attorneys in its 2026 500 Leading Litigators in America guide.
September 12, 2025
September 12, 2025 • 1-minute read
Awards & Rankings
The Best Lawyers in America (BL Rankings, LLC) has named 125 Vinson & Elkins lawyers in its “Best Lawyers” category in the 2026 edition. Additionally, 76 Vinson & Elkins attorneys have been named in the “Ones to Watch” category, which recognizes lawyers with 5–10 years’ experience. Some individuals are listed in more than one practice area, giving the firm a total of 305 rankings.
August 21, 2025
August 21, 2025 • 3-minute read
Awards & Rankings
The Legal 500 US 2025 recommended Vinson & Elkins as a leading law firm in 43 practice categories. In total, 133 attorneys are recognized, many in more than one category. Vinson & Elkins attorneys earned multiple special designations, such as “Leading Trial Lawyer,’ “Hall of Fame,” “Leading Partner,” “Next Generation Partner,” and “Leading Associate.”
June 11, 2025
June 11, 2025 • 3-minute read
our People
Please note that any communication with Vinson & Elkins via e-mail through this website does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship with V&E. Please do not send any confidential information. A conflicts-of-interest procedure must be completed by V&E prior to establishment of an attorney-client relationship. When you execute an engagement letter from V&E you will be our client, and you may then exchange information freely with a V&E attorney.
By clicking “Accept,” you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if it is highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.