Remove 2006 Remove Downstream Remove Energy
article thumbnail

Fifth Circuit Recognizes Gas Purchaser’s Right to Cancel Contract Due to Title Dispute

The Energy Law

JAG Energy, Inc., In 2006, Flint Hills received information that PMI/Pemex had been experiencing thefts of condensate. Two days later, Flint Hills clarified that it was suspending payments until JAG could provide evidence that the condensate was purchased from PMI/Pemex at some downstream point. 08-20152, F.3d

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. Texas Crude Energy LLC , 573 S.W.3d Meanwhile, an associated addendum—which the lease clarified would supersede in situations of conflict—stated that royalty payments were based on “the gross value received.”

Royalty 52
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 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. Texas Crude Energy LLC , 573 S.W.3d Meanwhile, an associated addendum—which the lease clarified would supersede in situations of conflict—stated that royalty payments were based on “the gross value received.”

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. Texas Crude Energy LLC , 573 S.W.3d Meanwhile, an associated addendum—which the lease clarified would supersede in situations of conflict—stated that royalty payments were based on “the gross value received.”

Royalty 40
article thumbnail

EPA and Army Corps of Engineers Propose Significant Revisions to Definition of “Waters of the United States”

The Energy Law

715 (2006), the scope of regulatory jurisdiction in the proposed rule is narrower than under the existing regulations. The agencies claim that, as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. It appears, however, that the proposed rule actually expands the scope of the waters regulated by the Act.

article thumbnail

EPA and Army Corps of Engineers Issue Draft Guidance on Waters Protected by Clean Water Act

The Energy Law

715 (2006). In this vein, non-navigable tributaries are subject to CWA jurisdiction, if the tributary is connected to a downstream traditional navigable water, and flow in the tributary is at least seasonal. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (SWANCC) and Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. Guidance at 13.