Texas Appeals Court Interprets Mineral Conveyances
The Energy Law
MAY 25, 2007
04-05-00904-CV, 2007 WL 460648 (Tex. 14, 2007). Morris Resources, Ltd., Hamilton v. Morris Res., San Antonio Feb.
40 
Texas Court Subjects Override to Non-Consent Penalties
The Energy Law
MAY 24, 2007
11-06-00029-CV, 2007 WL 865811 (Tex. Eastland March 22, 2007). James Boldrick is an assignee of an overriding royalty interest in property subleased to BTA. BTA, the assignor and creator of Boldrick’s interest, elected non-consent status regarding the well at issue, proposed and drilled by Chevron.
Join 5,000+
Insiders
Sign Up for our Newsletter
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Court Addresses Sufficiency of Demand Letter Under Mineral Code Articles 212.21-23
The Energy Law
JANUARY 25, 2008
07-834, 2007 WL 4409686 (La. 12/19/07), the court addressed the payment of royalties and penalties under Mineral Code article 212.23(c) In exchange, the defendant agreed to transfer an overriding royalty interest in the subject prospect to the plaintiff in the event defendant acquired an interest in the prospect.
Texas Supreme Court Holds that Add-Back Provision in Oil and Gas Lease Required Royalties to be Paid on Prices in Excess of the Producers’ Gross Proceeds
The Energy Law
MARCH 15, 2023
2023), in which it held that lessees owed royalties in excess of their gross proceeds, specifically “adding back” costs incurred by third-party buyers that were enumerated in the sales contract and subtracted from the sales price. The lessees owned working interests in certain oil and gas leases that were executed in 2007.
Let's personalize your content