This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Sheppard is a royalty dispute between several lessees, Devon Energy Production Co., concerning a novel royalty term that may have a huge impact on the way oil and gas royalties are paid in the future. The royalty clause at issue required the lessees to pay to the lessors 1/5th of the “gross proceeds” as a royalty.
19-0459, 2021 WL 936175 (Tex. 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.
In the 1920s—the time the deed at issue was executed—lessors commonly reserved a one-eighth royalty interest when they executed oil and gas leases. In addition to the estate misconception theory, the Court analyzed the “legacy of the one-eighth royalty.” Eastland June 1, 2021). Dils Co. , 2d 904 (Tex. Element Petroleum Props.,
Jan 12, 2024) concerns how three related provisions in an oil and gas lease interact: (1) a royalty clause; (2) a free-use clause; and (3) an off-lease clause. When parties to an oil and gas lease reserve royalties, they stipulate where those royalties are to be valued—sometimes referred to as the “valuation point”—in the royalty clause.
19-0459, 2021 WL 936175 (Tex. 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. Factual and Procedural Background.
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. 19-0459, 2021 WL 936175 (Tex. In 2006, however, BlueStone acquired the lease and became responsible for paying royalties on production thereunder.
This lease royalty case involved a dispute over whether the lessee was permitted to deduct volumes of gas used off the premises to power post-production activities on other gas produced from the same well. The lease provided for a royalty calculated based on the “market value at the well.” Randle, 620 S.W.3d
18-0983, 2021 WL 1045723, at *1 (Tex. 19, 2021) (“ Eagle II ”). Several years later, Eagle purchased several leases and sold them to Chesapeake Exploration, LLC (“Chesapeake”), reserving an overriding royalty interest and a back-in working interest (the “Interests”). TRO-X, L.P. , TRO-X”) and Eagle Oil & Gas Co.
18-0983, 2021 WL 1045723, at *1 (Tex. 19, 2021) (“ Eagle II ”). Several years later, Eagle purchased several leases and sold them to Chesapeake Exploration, LLC (“Chesapeake”), reserving an overriding royalty interest and a back-in working interest (the “Interests”). TRO-X, L.P. , TRO-X”) and Eagle Oil & Gas Co.
TMR Exploration, Inc , 2021 WL 267916, the First Circuit affirmed a district court ruling on summary judgment applying the good faith purchaser defense provision set forth in La. A recent decision from the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal may have lasting effects on good faith purchasers of oil.
TMR Exploration, Inc , 2021 WL 267916, the First Circuit affirmed a district court ruling on summary judgment applying the good faith purchaser defense provision set forth in La. A recent decision from the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal may have lasting effects on good faith purchasers of oil.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), signed into law on November 15, 2021, amended Section 40307 of the Outer Continental Shelfs Act (OCSLA) to provide authority to the U.S. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a “ Report to Congress on Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration ” in June of 2021.
royalty on Goldboro that Nexgold can re-purchase at their option. The 2021 feasibility study for Signals Goldboro asset showed pro-forma 100,000 oz of annual production with an AISC of US$849/oz, when gold was US$1600/oz, on a grade of 2.26 Nebari also gets a small 0.6% Capex was estimated at CAD$335 million.
The NRC issued a license in 2021 to Interim Storage Partners to build a nuclear waste storage facility in Andrews County in Texas, near the New Mexico border. The NRC case is being argued at a time when President Donald Trumps administration has taken aim at various federal agencies in his campaign to downsize and overhaul the U.S.
On April 22, 2021, the plaintiffs—Texas, Louisiana, and eight other energy producing states (the “Plaintiff States”)—filed suit to challenge Executive Order 13990, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021). The Lease Pause had been issued pursuant to Executive Order 14008, which was signed by President Biden on January 27, 2021 (“Executive Order”). Louisiana v. at 38-40. (2) 2) Substantial Threat of Irreparable Harm.
2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021). The Lease Pause had been issued pursuant to Executive Order 14008, which was signed by President Biden on January 27, 2021 (“Executive Order”). Louisiana v. at 38-40. (2) 2) Substantial Threat of Irreparable Harm.
2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021). The Lease Pause had been issued pursuant to Executive Order 14008, which was signed by President Biden on January 27, 2021 (“Executive Order”). Louisiana v. at 38-40. (2) 2) Substantial Threat of Irreparable Harm.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content