Remove 2006 Remove Downstream Remove E&A
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

In 2006, however, BlueStone acquired the lease and became responsible for paying royalties on production thereunder. For almost a decade, the original lessee to the agreements never subtracted post-production costs from the royalty owners’ royalty payments. If not superseded, BlueStone would be permitted to deduct post-production costs.

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

In 2006, however, BlueStone acquired the lease and became responsible for paying royalties on production thereunder. For almost a decade, the original lessee to the agreements never subtracted post-production costs from the royalty owners’ royalty payments. If not superseded, BlueStone would be permitted to deduct post-production costs.

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

In 2006, however, BlueStone acquired the lease and became responsible for paying royalties on production thereunder. Factual and Procedural Background. For almost a decade, the original lessee to the agreements never subtracted post-production costs from the royalty owners’ royalty payments. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co.,

Royalty 40