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 lessees owned working interests in certain oil and gas leases that were executed in 2007.
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.
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. Devon Energy Production Company, L.P. and several lessors, Michael A. Sheppard, et. Factual Background and Issue.
In the context of antiquated oil and gas conveyances including a double fraction that includes “one-eighth,” the Court affirmed this principle by holding that such language gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that “one-eighth” refers to the entire mineral estate. Dils Co. , 2d 904 (Tex.
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.
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.
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. Oil & Gas Co. 2d at 120-21.
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. Related to royalty provisions are “free-use clauses” and “off-lease clauses.” Lessees often use gas produced from a leased premises to power those processes.
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.
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.
We're excited to announce the launch of ProducersEdge.law , our new consolidated digital platform that brings together the best of McGinnis Lochridge's oil and gas law publications. All of our historical articles from both publications have been migrated to the new platform for your convenience.
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.
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.
The deed conveyed to the Jameses one-half of the royalties and mineral interests in the property and reserved the other one-half to Gray Investments. Division orders were prepared by Kelley Oil Corporation, a predecessor-in-interest to Samson, and the Jameses began receiving royalties.
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. 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[.]” By way of background, in 1955 J.D. and Elva Arthur conveyed to W.
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.
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? West , 508 S.W.2d
This article focuses on the latter. Oil and gas related injection wells are considered Class II wells and are regulated by the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program within the Office of Conservation, which has achieved primary enforcement authority under the applicable federal guidelines. 1, issue 1, sagetech.org.
Formed during the Jurassic period, this geological formation has been tapped for oil and gas, as well as brine for production of bromine, since the 1950s. A brine extraction prospect would be very similar to an oil and gas prospect. Recently, several operators have started pilot projects to produce lithium from Smackover brine as well.
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 original Johnson decision, the district court sent shockwaves across the oil and gas industry in Louisiana by finding that post-production costs were not properly deductible against proceeds owed to unleased mineral owners. Chesapeake. Johnson Ruling Reversing Prior PPC Ruling. Self-Granting of 12b6 Motion to Dismiss.
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. Devon Energy Prod.
A recent decision from the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal may have lasting effects on good faith purchasers of oil. The Hills later added claims against Sunoco, who was the purchaser of oil produced by TMR and the other operators. 521-524 instead of applying provisions of the Mineral Code, more specifically, La.
Union Oil Co. UNOCAL also reserved a 3% overriding royalty. Marubeni Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. , 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. Sojitz Energy Venture, Inc. 3d 687 (S.D.
A recent decision from the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal may have lasting effects on good faith purchasers of oil. The Hills later added claims against Sunoco, who was the purchaser of oil produced by TMR and the other operators. 521-524 instead of applying provisions of the Mineral Code, more specifically, La.
14] The Second Circuit’s decision in regard to this issue does not represent a departure from the viewpoint that most in the oil and gas industry have towards notarial acts of correction. 29] As a result, it found that bad weather is not an obstacle under Mineral Code article 59. [30]
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.
The Texas Supreme Court recently released its anticipated opinion in Eagle Oil & Gas Co. TRO-X”) and Eagle Oil & Gas Co. Eagle”) regarding their agreement to jointly acquire and sell oil and gas leases. In the first, Eagle Oil & Gas Co. TRO-X, L.P. , 18-0983, 2021 WL 1045723, at *1 (Tex.
The Texas Supreme Court recently released its anticipated opinion in Eagle Oil & Gas Co. TRO-X”) and Eagle Oil & Gas Co. Eagle”) regarding their agreement to jointly acquire and sell oil and gas leases. In the first, Eagle Oil & Gas Co. TRO-X, L.P. , 18-0983, 2021 WL 1045723, at *1 (Tex.
A special meeting of the Louisiana State Mineral and Energy Board was held on April 29, 2020, to address the impacts of both COVID-19 and historically low oil prices on operation and maintenance of Louisiana State Leases. The Board approved two proposed resolutions (1. Proposed Enforcement Moratorium Resolution 2.
1] The dispute in Johnson involved a group of unleased mineral owners (“UMOs”) who filed suit against a unit operator for deducting a litany of post-production costs against their share of production proceeds from an oil and gas unit in the Haynesville Shale. [2] Chesapeake Louisiana, LP. [1] 2] The UMOs argued that La.
American oil and gas producers may soon be poised to capitalize on this demand, as produced water from some areas contains appreciable levels of dissolved lithium. One such issue is the applicability of an oil, gas and mineral lease to the production and selling of lithium. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
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. total CO 2 emissions. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
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.
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. Conclusion. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana granted Plaintiff States’ request for an injunction to block the Biden Administration’s pause on new federal oil and gas lease sales (“Lease Pause”). District Judge Terry A. Louisiana v. 2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021).
Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana granted Plaintiff States’ request for an injunction to block the Biden Administration’s pause on new federal oil and gas lease sales (“Lease Pause”). District Judge Terry A. Louisiana v. 2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021).
Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana granted Plaintiff States’ request for an injunction to block the Biden Administration’s pause on new federal oil and gas lease sales (“Lease Pause”). District Judge Terry A. Louisiana v. 2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021).
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. oil and gas production, with the former pledging continued expansion of domestic oil and gas drilling and production, and the latter pledging to transition 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