The Energy Law Blog

MARCH 31, 2021

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

Royalty Gas Oil Downstream 52

The Energy Law Blog

MARCH 31, 2021

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

Royalty Gas Oil Downstream 40

The Energy Law Blog

MARCH 31, 2021

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

Royalty Gas Oil Downstream 52

The Energy Law Blog

MARCH 11, 2020

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. UNOCAL assigned operating rights in the leases to ATP, who later assigned 20% of those rights to Sojitz. Parker Drilling Co. ,

Royalty 52

Royalty E&P Offshore E&A 52

The Energy Law Blog

MARCH 30, 2017

19] Petro-Chem then requested that the surface owner, Lott, obtain a Compatible Use Authorization (“CUA permit”) from the USDA, which would be required before the spudding of Petro-Chem’s proposed unit well on December 17, 2003. [20] 20] The CUA permit was obtained on January 20, 2004. However, art.

Spud-in 40

Spud-in Operator IT E&A 40