The Energy Law

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

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

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

JANUARY 4, 2007

Mary Operating Company v. 12/06/06), 2006 La. Mary Operating Company filed a concursus proceeding to determine to determine the proper recipient of royalties from an oil well in Vermilion Parish, Louisiana. Lester Joseph Champagne , 06-984 (La.

Royalty 40

Royalty Operator Oil IT 40

The Energy Law

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016

On appeal, the Amarillo Court of Appeals agreed with Red Deer, finding that BP could not invoke the lease’s shut-in royalty clause because production from the last well was so slow that production in paying quantities had ceased, and thus the lease terminated, prior to BP shutting the wells in and offering to pay shut-in royalties.

Casing 52

Casing Oil Gas Royalty 52

The Energy Law

JANUARY 4, 2007

For a copy of TxOGA’s brief, click on the following link Amicus Curiae Brief of TXOGA – Received: 10/16/2006 . The royalty owners intervened and asserted claims against Exxon for, among others, common law waste, statutory waste, negligence per se, tortious interference, and failure to develop. The Jury awarded the royalty owners: 1.

Casing 40

Casing Royalty Abandonment Oil 40

The Energy Law

JUNE 12, 2017

1] In the case, a landowner sued its mineral lessees for: (1) failure to provide a recordable act evidencing the expiration of a mineral lease under Mineral Code articles 206-209 and (2) failure to pay royalties under Mineral Code articles 137-140. [2] in unpaid royalties and an additional double damages penalty of $484,058.52

Royalty 40

Royalty Exploration and Production Royalty Interest Operator 40