§ 127.002.Findings; Certain Agreements Against Public Policy

The findings section, and it explains both what the chapter forbids and what it deliberately leaves alone.

The legislature finds that an inequity is fostered on certain contractors by the indemnity provisions in certain agreements pertaining to wells and mines.

"Inequity" names the bargaining problem the chapter addresses. A service contractor seeking work from an operator has little power to negotiate the indemnity clause, and the clause it accepts may transfer to it the consequences of the operator’s own negligence.

Certain agreements that provide for indemnification of a negligent indemnitee are against the public policy of this state.

That is the sentence the voiding section rests on, and it identifies the target precisely: not indemnity generally, but indemnity for the indemnitee’s own negligence.

Subsection (c) then protects joint operating agreements, in four findings. Provisions for sharing costs or losses from joint activities — including losses attributable to the negligent acts or omissions of any party conducting the joint activity — are commonly understood, accepted, and desired by the parties, encourage mineral development, are not against the public policy of this state, and are enforceable unless expressly excluded by written agreement.

The distinction rests on the relationship, not the words used. Working interest owners sharing a venture negotiate as equals and expect to share losses including negligent ones; a contractor hired to perform services does not.

The fourth finding sets the default. Cost-sharing provisions are enforceable unless the parties expressly write the exclusion — so silence favours sharing.