Remove Article Remove Royalty Remove Royalty Interest
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 lessees owned working interests in certain oil and gas leases that were executed in 2007. 2d 118 (Tex.

Royalty 98
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 at *8 (citing La.

Royalty 40
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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

The Continued Struggle to Rebut the Van Dyke Presumption

Producer's Edge

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.

article thumbnail

Texas Supreme Court Holds that References to “One-Eighth” in Old Oil and Gas Conveyances Presumptively Refer to the Entire Mineral Estate

The Energy Law

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.

Royalty 98
article thumbnail

Who Owns the Void? Oral Arguments at SCOTX Regarding Underground Storage Rights

Producer's Edge

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.

Royalty 52
article thumbnail

Louisiana Second Circuit Finds Holder of Mortgage Encumbering a Mineral Lease Solidarily Liable with Mineral Lessees for Damages Under the Louisiana Mineral Code

The Energy Law

the Louisiana Second Circuit upheld a trial court’s ruling that the holder of a security interest in mineral leases was solidarily liable for damages under the Louisiana Mineral Code stemming from its mineral lessees/mortgagors’ actions. [1] in unpaid royalties and an additional double damages penalty of $484,058.52 4] $242,029.26

Royalty 40