The Energy Law

FEBRUARY 22, 2024

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.

Royalty 52

Royalty Gas Oil E&A 52

The Energy Law

NOVEMBER 12, 2020

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.

Royalty 52

Royalty Oil Gas E&A 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 52

Royalty Gas Oil Downstream 52

The Energy Law

JUNE 28, 2018

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.

Royalty 40

Royalty E&A Oil Gas 40

The Energy Law

APRIL 3, 2023

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.

Government 98

Government Energy Energy Royalty 98

The Energy Law

NOVEMBER 12, 2020

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.

Royalty 40

Royalty Oil Gas E&A 40

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

MARCH 28, 2022

This article focuses on the latter. Article original published in the Society of Applied Geoscientists and Engineers Magazine, the SAGE MAGE, March 2022, vol. Regulatory approval for CCUS falls under two broad categories. Namely, agency approvals related to enhanced hydrocarbon recovery and those related to geologic sequestration.

Underground Injection Control 98

Underground Injection Control Operator Exploration and Production Oil 98

The Energy Law

MARCH 18, 2024

1, 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that an oil-and-gas royalties class action belongs in federal court based on its interpretation that the “principal injuries” prong of the CAFA local controversy exception requires all plaintiffs sustain their principal injuries in the forum state. As a matter of first impression, in Cheapside Mins.,

Royalty 52

Royalty E&A Sustainable Sustainability 52

The Energy Law

MARCH 31, 2022

In the interest of full disclosure, the authors of this article served as counsel of record on behalf of an amici group in Johnson, as counsel of record on behalf of the defendants in Self, and as counsel of record on behalf of various Louisiana operators in other lawsuits implicated by Johnson and Self.

Operator 98

Operator Management E&A Gas 98

The Energy Law

MAY 22, 2023

Of particular note is Arkansas’s unique payment structure for bromine production; rather than paying a royalty based on a percentage value for the brine or bromine, producers essentially pay a flat rental per acre to the landowners. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.

Exploration and Production 98

Exploration and Production Operator Oil E&A 98

The Energy Law

OCTOBER 4, 2018

for a one-fourth (1/4) mineral royalty and as much as ten thousand ($10,000) dollars per acre bonus royalty.” 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.

Gas 52

Gas Exploration and Production E&P E&A 52

The Energy Law

MARCH 11, 2020

UNOCAL also reserved a 3% overriding royalty. 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. UNOCAL assigned operating rights in the leases to ATP, who later assigned 20% of those rights to Sojitz.

Royalty 52

Royalty E&P Offshore E&A 52

The Energy Law

APRIL 19, 2021

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”). When the suit went to trial, the leases subject to the Chesapeake sale had not generated any royalty income.

Royalty 52

Royalty Exploration and Production IT Casing 52

The Energy Law

MARCH 10, 2021

Louisiana Revised Statute 31:210 addresses rental and royalty payments that are owed to parties holding an interest in the leased property when an issue arises as to title. 31:210 did not apply, and that the Hills’ argument that La. 31:210 preempts provisions of the Louisiana Civil Code had no merit.

Oil 52

Oil E&A Operator IT 52

The Energy Law

APRIL 30, 2020

Importantly, the first resolution emphasizes “that the Temporary Moratorium and Resumption Period enacted by this Resolution do not allow an operator or lessee to fail to pay royalties if they continue to obtain production during these times. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.

Maintenance 40

Maintenance Energy Energy Operator 40

The Energy Law

APRIL 19, 2021

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”). When the suit went to trial, the leases subject to the Chesapeake sale had not generated any royalty income.

Exploration and Production 40

Exploration and Production Royalty IT Oil 40

The Energy Law

MARCH 10, 2021

Louisiana Revised Statute 31:210 addresses rental and royalty payments that are owed to parties holding an interest in the leased property when an issue arises as to title. 31:210 did not apply, and that the Hills’ argument that La. 31:210 preempts provisions of the Louisiana Civil Code had no merit.

Oil 40

Oil Exploration and Production E&A Operator 40

The Energy Law

MARCH 26, 2019

30:10] simply means that, for all of this, he is given the equivalent of a “no cost” royalty clause on production proceeds. 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. A strict construction of [La.

Operator 52

Operator Exploration and Production E&A Casing 52

The Energy Law

MARCH 10, 2023

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. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter.

E&P 105

E&P E&A Oil Gas 105

The Energy Law

NOVEMBER 28, 2022

The CEQ report noted that royalty rate reduction credits for carbon capture could potentially create financial incentives for investment and recognized the need to address long-term liability after a storage site has been closed. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.

Offshore 105

Offshore Operator E&A Transportation 105

The Energy Law

APRIL 7, 2020

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”.

Instrumentation 40

Instrumentation E&A Management IT 40

The Energy Law

FEBRUARY 24, 2022

In short, the Plaintiff States would suffer increased energy costs, additional regulatory burdens, violation of their procedural rights, and reduced revenue from taxes and royalties as energy production and exploration slowed. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.

Energy 96

Energy Energy Exploration and Production Royalty 96

The Energy Law

JUNE 17, 2021

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. at 38-40. (2) 2) Substantial Threat of Irreparable Harm.

Oil 59

Oil Gas Offshore Exploration and Production 59

The Energy Law

JUNE 17, 2021

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. at 38-40. (2) 2) Substantial Threat of Irreparable Harm.

Oil 52

Oil Gas Offshore E&A 52

The Energy Law

JUNE 17, 2021

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. at 38-40. (2) 2) Substantial Threat of Irreparable Harm.

Oil 52

Oil Gas Offshore Exploration and Production 52

The Energy Law

OCTOBER 26, 2020

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. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter.

Oil 40

Oil Gas Energy Energy 40

The Energy Law

OCTOBER 26, 2020

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. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter.

Oil 40

Oil Gas Energy Energy 40

The Energy Law

OCTOBER 26, 2020

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. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state regarding a particular matter.

Oil 40

Oil Gas Energy Energy 40