Second, there really has been no acquisition here. Shell`s general interest in pooled areas has not been greater than before under the pooling agreement; pooling is “financially neutral” (paragraph 43). Supreme Court of Appeals DecisionThe Appeal, the Supreme Court of Business raised the circuit court and noted that West Virginia`s precedent of oil and gas supported the explicit adoption of contract theory and not the cross-transportation theory with respect to pooling and its impact on NPRI owners.  The PPG-Gastar leasing agreement therefore resulted only in a consolidation of the leasing units, but did not result in any merger of securities among the shareholders of the 700-hectare unit.  The Court of Justice`s decision was remarkable in at least two respects. With regard to the leasing and development of oil and gas, the decision reinforces the contract theory in West Virginia and avoids several controversial aspects of the “cross-conveyance” theory, such as (i) the agreement of each NPRI in a given structure for pooling or imitization purposes and (ii) probably each NPRI holder as an indispensable party in all pool or unit disputes. In addition, a cross-conveyance theory could pose problems with “the validity of previous pooling agreements, increased licensing disputes, and complications for the leasing procurement process.”  In the Court`s view, such a scheme is undesirable for both producers and landowners, as the consolidation helps to “avoid waste, facilitate the orderly development of minerals, preserve the corresponding rights and obtain equitable participation in the reserve unit.”  First, the court clarified that the precedent in West Virginia was consistent with the pooling contract theory, and the court explicitly rejected the theory of cross-promotion. In its analysis of the precedent in West Virginia, the court found that it had previously recognized that an agreement on the merger of oil and gas was “a merger of contractual obligations” and that “it did not have the effect of merging the title.”  In addition, the Court found that it had previously identified the law of oil and gas conduct or “an interest-related agency,” often a necessary and reasonable mechanism for dealing with complex transactions that may become “unwieldy and uncertain” when applying for authorization from many people.  Accordingly, the Court stated that “the pooling of non-participating royalties with the interests of other persons or entities for the horizontal drilling and production of oil and gas from the Marcellus shale formation does not create a common or unrequited real estate interest in oil and gas oil and gas that undersusing the pooled wing.”  In particular, “the theory of cross-promotion that leads to such a common or undivided interest” is rejected and “approval or ratification by holders of non-participating royalty interest is not necessary” for the merger.  Pooling TheoriesAlance, under the cross-conveyance theory, a voluntary pooling agreement leads to a standardization of ownership, so that each interest rate holder enjoys an interest commensurated with the interest of all other interest rate holders.