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
Accordingly, auditing of royalty payments was left to the Mineral Board’s internal accountants, and when an issue arose as to whether royalty payments were made correctly, the Mineral Board’s land personnel and internal counsel would oversee sending demands and pursuing litigation against the State’s mineral lessees and well operators.
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).
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 at *8 (citing La.
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.
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.
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 Res., NationsBank , 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.” The Texas Supreme Court recently released its opinion in Van Dyke v. Dils Co. ,
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.
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.
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.
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. compare to La. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
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.
This article discusses a couple more cases in 2024. This article discusses a couple more cases in 2024. Travis Lattner, Jr., “a non-participating royalty of one-fourth (1/4th) of the landowner’s usual one-eighth (1/8th) royalty on oil and gas produced and saved from said land[.]” Montgomery, Tr.
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.
This article summarizes the arguments made by the parties, and the Justices' questions and observations at the oral argument. This case presents two critical questions: Who owns subsurface caverns created by salt mining operations, and How should in-kind royalties be calculated for salt production? 3d 39 , 47 (Tex. It is a solid.
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 To mark this launch, we're pleased to share our latest content: Vol.
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.
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. This widespread distribution makes it an attractive target for lithium exploration and production.
A deed reserving a mineral servitude for a period of ten years does not create a ten-year fixed servitude, but instead re-affirms the statutory ten-year prescription of nonuse applicable to mineral servitudes established in article 27 of the Louisiana Mineral Code. Mary Operating Company v. Lester Joseph Champagne , 06-984 (La.
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] in unpaid royalties and an additional double damages penalty of $484,058.52
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. *In Chesapeake.
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.,
UNOCAL also reserved a 3% overriding royalty. UNOCAL retained rights as to certain depths, but never conducted any lease operations whatsoever at any depth. After receiving an order from BSEE, Sojitz decommissioned the leases at its expense and filed suit against UNOCAL to recover the costs. 611 (Bankr.
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. TRO-X, L.P. ,
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] 1] In the case, an operator initiated a concursus action seeking to resolve ownership interest in minerals underlying property on which it was operating.
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.
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. TRO-X, L.P. ,
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. In 2007, The Louisiana Commissioner of Conservation granted TMR a permit to drill for minerals on property not owned by Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Hills”).
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. In 2007, The Louisiana Commissioner of Conservation granted TMR a permit to drill for minerals on property not owned by Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Hills”).
30:10] simply means that, for all of this, he is given the equivalent of a “no cost” royalty clause on production proceeds. 9] The Court described the question before it as an issue of first impression and focused on the language of La. 10] In its analysis, the Court first looked to the statutory language of La. 30:10) throughout La.
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. In the meantime, more questions than answers remain regarding the regulatory framework for offshore CCS.
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. Thus, it shouldn’t surprise you to hear that the global market for lithium is currently valued at $7.5 Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
POTENTIALLY DISRUPTIVE LOW COST ECONOMICS IS A WINNER FOR FARMERS & INVESTORS Brazil Is Fastest Growing Potash Market But Imports 98% of It! A few weeks ago, Brazil Potash got a big endorsement from an unusual place its BIGGEST competitor. Brazil Potash is an up-and-coming potash producer with a mine under construction in Brazil. CHA CHA CHA!
See this valuation chart from the article I wrote on Nexgold a few months ago: The opportunity has been sitting in plain sight for a long time, but Giustra and Lekstrom are making it happen. royalty on Goldboro that Nexgold can re-purchase at their option. Both companies have great deposits, with high grade, infrastructure and permits.
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”.
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. Background. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
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.
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.
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.
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. But the oil and gas industry stands to be impacted regardless of the election outcome in November, and those impacts will have wide-reaching effects on the U.S.
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