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
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
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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.” Dils Co. , 2d 904 (Tex. Element Petroleum Props., 11-21-00103-CV (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. after deductions), resulting in lower royalty payments for the royalty owners.
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.
In a straightforward application of Louisiana’s prescriptive principles, the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit affirmed the trial court’s grant of exceptions of prescription, finding plaintiff’s claims for fraud, under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA), and for unpaid royalties all prescribed in Karen May v.
hands a victory to financiers of oil and gas operations and settles a long-running controversy over the amount of damages available for failure to pay mineral royalties. Those articles set forth the obligations of the “former owner” or “former lessee” to provide written evidence that mineral rights have been extinguished.
This article discusses a couple more cases in 2024. In each of these cases, one side successfully argued that the Van Dyke presumption applied, and the other side unsuccessfully argued that it was rebutted. Many anticipate that double-fraction cases will continue to steadily flow through Texas courts for the foreseeable future.
Although the bill expressly provides that “[a] renewable energy lease is not a mineral lease,” the proposed legislation contains a number of provisions that are either identical or substantially similar to the Louisiana Mineral Code articles governing mineral leases. An identical provision exists in the Mineral Code.
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.
In a straightforward application of Louisiana’s prescriptive principles, the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit affirmed the trial court’s grant of exceptions of prescription, finding plaintiff’s claims for fraud, under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA), and for unpaid royalties all prescribed in Karen May v.
The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in a case that could substantially clarify, or even fundamentally reshape, the characterization and ownership of underground storage rights in Texas. The case was Myers-Woodward v. The case remains pending before the Texas Supreme Court on petition for review.
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.
If you're already a valued subscriber to one or both of our existing publications, then rest assured, you'll continue to receive the same high-quality case updates and insightful articles — now through our new ProducersEdge.law domain. This 2: Producers Edge - Fall 2024 Who Owns the Void?
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] for failure to pay royalties under Mineral Code article 140. [5]
Earlier information about this case can be found here. *In Privacy Policy: By subscribing to Liskow & Lewis’ E-Communications, you will receive articles and blogs with insight and analysis of legal issues that may impact your industry. Although not yet final, this reversal is long-awaited victory for unit operators in Louisiana.
for a one-fourth (1/4) mineral royalty and as much as ten thousand ($10,000) dollars per acre bonus royalty.” In that case, the plaintiff-lessors argued, the lease should be rescinded based on their error. 9/22/10); 48 So. 3d 341, 342-43. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) 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. , 19, 2021) (“ Eagle II ”).
1] In the case, an operator initiated a concursus action seeking to resolve ownership interest in minerals underlying property on which it was operating. Flat River Farms, L.L.C. , the Louisiana Second Circuit addressed issues affecting the creation and preservation of mineral servitudes and payment of court costs in a concursus action. [1]
The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) 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. , 19, 2021) (“ Eagle II ”).
30:10 was inapplicable to the case because the costs outlined in the statute comprised only pre-production and production costs. 30:10] simply means that, for all of this, he is given the equivalent of a “no cost” royalty clause on production proceeds. 4] In opposition, the unit operator contended that La. This is hardly unjust. [19]
Part of the funding for Autazes will come from a royalty agreement with Franco Nevada. That is $1M for the option – the purchase price of the royalty will be based on a 12.5% There is also a 2% royalty that will be paid to the Brazilian government. Note: BRAZIL POTASH has reviewed and sponsored this article.
This article briefly describes four structured capital raising techniques that may be available to meet those needs: (1) convertible debt instruments; (2) convertible or non-convertible preferred equity instruments; (3) preferred limited partnership interests; and (4) debt instruments issued with “equity kickers”.
The Court found that the Plaintiff States demonstrated a substantial threat of irreparable harm due to “reduced funding for bonuses, ground rent, royalties, and rentals,” and “damage for reduced funding” for various state programs. Louisiana v. 2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021). at 38-40. (2)
The Court found that the Plaintiff States demonstrated a substantial threat of irreparable harm due to “reduced funding for bonuses, ground rent, royalties, and rentals,” and “damage for reduced funding” for various state programs. Louisiana v. 2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021). at 38-40. (2)
The Court found that the Plaintiff States demonstrated a substantial threat of irreparable harm due to “reduced funding for bonuses, ground rent, royalties, and rentals,” and “damage for reduced funding” for various state programs. Louisiana v. 2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021). at 38-40. (2)
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.
98 
Let's personalize your content