A commitment to pay 10% of the oil-drilling costs to a development partner upon electing to participate in a development scheme does not sufficiently benefit the land to be considered a covenant that runs with the land and therefore binding upon successors in interest.
Recognition under state law of an easement under equitable estoppel does not establish that the state law would recognize an equitable servitude with identical burdens and benefits.
Although the contractual commitment to provide a portion of the development costs is a benefit, it doesn't sufficiently arise from the land to be considered a property interest.