Remove 2003 Remove E&A Remove Royalty
article thumbnail

Texas Supreme Court Update: The Court Decides Issue of First Impression Related to the Scope of an Oil and Gas Lease’s Free-Use Clause and Further Interprets Conflicting Royalty Clause Provisions

The Energy Law Blog

While the Court is no stranger to interpreting (and often muddling) the familiar royalty clause interpretation questions surrounding the first issue, in a case of first impression, the Court also analyzed the breadth of a lease’s free-use clause. after deductions), resulting in lower royalty payments for the royalty owners.

Royalty 52
article thumbnail

Texas Supreme Court Update: The Court Decides Issue of First Impression Related to the Scope of an Oil and Gas Lease’s Free-Use Clause and Further Interprets Conflicting Royalty Clause Provisions

The Energy Law Blog

While the Court is no stranger to interpreting (and often muddling) the familiar royalty clause interpretation questions surrounding the first issue, in a case of first impression, the Court also analyzed the breadth of a lease’s free-use clause. after deductions), resulting in lower royalty payments for the royalty owners.

Royalty 40
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Texas Supreme Court Update: The Court Decides Issue of First Impression Related to the Scope of an Oil and Gas Lease’s

The Energy Law Blog

Free-Use Clause and Further Interprets Conflicting Royalty Clause Provisions The Texas Supreme Court recently issued its anticipated decision in BlueStone Natural Resources II, LLC v. For almost a decade, the original lessee to the agreements never subtracted post-production costs from the royalty owners’ royalty payments.

Royalty 52
article thumbnail

Fifth Circuit to Hold Oral Argument in Sojitz v. UNOCAL in April 2020

The Energy Law Blog

UNOCAL also reserved a 3% overriding royalty. 2003) (“the regulations govern the parties’ joint and several liabilities vis-à-vis the Government not amongst themselves”) and Total E&P USA, Inc. Sojitz Energy Venture, Inc. Union Oil Co. of California , 394 F. 3d 687 (S.D. Parker Drilling Co. , 3d 558, 563 (5th Cir.

Royalty 52
article thumbnail

Louisiana Second Circuit Addresses: (1) Creation of Mineral Servitudes Via Notarial Acts of Correction; (2) Obstacles Suspending the Prescription of Nonuse from Running Against Mineral Servitudes; and (3) Payment of Court Costs in Concursus Actions

The Energy Law Blog

Flat River Farms, L.L.C. , the Louisiana Second Circuit addressed issues affecting the creation and preservation of mineral servitudes and payment of court costs in a concursus action. [1] 1] In the case, an operator initiated a concursus action seeking to resolve ownership interest in minerals underlying property on which it was operating.

Spud-in 40