Remove Article Remove Casing Remove Royalty
article thumbnail

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

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 leases contained the following royalty provisions: 3. Sheppard , — S.W.3d NationsBank”, 939 S.W.2d

Royalty 98
article thumbnail

Louisiana Supreme Court holds that payment of mineral royalties judgment against LDNR is a matter of legislative discretion, reversing grant of mandamus

The Energy Law

million judgment for reimbursement of mineral royalties. million in mineral royalties attributable to ownership of these banks. The Court then pointed to Louisiana Constitution article XII §10(C) and La. State of Louisiana through the Department of Natural Resources , 22-0625 (La. 1/1/23), So. 13:5109(B)(2).

Royalty 98
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

New Developments in Shocking Case Before the Texas Supreme Court Regarding Construction of Novel Oil & Gas Royalty Term

The Energy Law

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.

Royalty 59
article thumbnail

Court Addresses Sufficiency of Demand Letter Under Mineral Code Articles 212.21-23

The Energy Law

12/19/07), the court addressed the payment of royalties and penalties under Mineral Code article 212.23(c) c) and concluded that plaintiff’s letters were insufficient to trigger the provisions of that article. Next, the court noted the dearth of reported cases involving Mineral Code articles 212.21-23 31:212.21).

Royalty 40
article thumbnail

Louisiana Legislature to Consider Amendments to Forced Pooling Regime Requiring Operators to Pay Lessors of Nonparticipating Working Interest Owners Directly

The Energy Law

While 30:10 was amended during the 2022 legislative session, the amendment preserved the limited obligation of remitting the royalty and overriding royalty burdens to the nonparticipating owner for the benefit of the royalty and overriding royalty owners.

Royalty 98
article thumbnail

Louisiana Second Circuit Provides Clarity on Production in Paying Quantities and Affirms Lease Cancellation Under Mineral Code Article 140 for Failure to Pay Royalties

The Energy Law

On June 2, 2017 the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s judgment cancelling a mineral lease under Mineral Code article 140 and provided further clarity on a production in paying quantities analysis under Louisiana Mineral Code article 124. [1] 1] The dispute in Gloria’s Ranch, L.L.C. 035 cents per mcf.

Royalty 40
article thumbnail

Trudging the Rocky Landscape of Royalty Dispute Litigation with the Texas Supreme Court Yet Again in BlueStone

The Energy Law

With the prevalence of cases involving royalty disputes in Texas, the state’s Supreme Court has never hesitated to address these issues. But the Court’s sporadic holdings regarding royalty clauses, each so specific to the particular language of the lease, have left lessees on unsteady footing. Heritage Resources , 939 S.W.2d

Royalty 52