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
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.
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. As there are no such provisions governing the Crooks plaintiffs’ mineral royalties claims, the legislature has retained its discretion to appropriate funds for those claims. 1/1/23), So.
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.
In a recent case, the Texas Supreme Court considered whether interest on late royalty payments was supposed to be simple or compound interest. When Samson paid previously unpaid royalties to the Plaintiff, it included simple interest. In Samson Exploration, LLC v. Bordages, 662 S.W.3d 3d 501, 2024 (Tex.
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.
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. ,
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
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.
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.
The Associated Press reported today that a federal jury found Kerr McGee liable for additional royalties on crude oil produced from federal properties and sold through Texon. Kerr McGee had denied the allegations and claimed that no additional royalties were owed. Kerr McGee has indicated that intends to appeal the verdict.
Ross alleged that Shell failed to pay royalties in accordance with the lease agreement and that it fraudulently deprived him of royalties by making payments “based on an arbitrary amount even below the internal transfer price.” Shell, however, did not calculate royalty payments based on the price it received for the gas.
By Dana Douglas The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal recently held that an operator is not responsible for payment of a non-operator’s royalties and overriding royalties before payout. Thus, the non-participant was responsible for payment of its royalty and overriding royalty payments. In Gulf Explorer, LLC v.
15, 2008), the Texas Supreme Court again addressed the propriety of class actions for gas royalty claims. The class affirmed the denial of two subclasses, but reversed the denial of a third subclass of royalty claimaints. Phillips Petroleum Co. , 03-0824 (Feb. The Court upheld the denial of class treatment.
by Elisabeth Lorio Baer Interior Secretary Ken Salazar informed Congress on September 17, 2009 that he would kill a controversial program, currently in effect, that allows energy companies to pay the government royalties for drilling on public lands in actual oil and gas in lieu of cash. For the full story, see [link]
the Third Circuit addressed the question of whether or not a mineral lessee must pay its lessor full lease-basis royalties for production undertaken during the effective period of a conditional allowable but prior to the effective date of a unit order. [1] Anglo-Dutch Energy, L.L.C. , Anglo-Dutch Energy, L.L.C. , Anglo-Dutch Energy, L.L.C. ,
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. in unpaid royalties, plus an additional double damages penalty of $484,058.52. in unpaid royalties, plus an additional double damages penalty of $484,058.52.
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.
When the dispute involves the nonpayment of royalties, the renewable energy lessee would be afforded 30 days to pay the royalties or respond in writing stating a reasonable cause for nonpayment (compare to La. compare to La. 122); The lessee of a renewable energy lease would be “bound to.
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.
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 5-4 decision, authored by Justice Hecht, is the latest in a series of cases from high courts across the country addressing the sharing of “post-production costs” between royalty owners and oil and gas lessees. NationsBank , 939 S.W.2d 2d 118 (Tex.
10] Gloria’s Ranch amended its petition to include a claim for failure to pay royalties on production in Section 15 (from the unit well drilled by Chesapeake). 11] The trial court also found that defendants failed to pay royalties in Section 15 and awarded Gloria’s Ranch the royalties owed plus punitive damages. [12]
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.
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.,
By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site. In addition to the unit order, the operator must receive approval for its injection wells.
By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site.
By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site. Chesapeake. Neither contained any provision for attorney’s fees.
12/19/07), the court addressed the payment of royalties and penalties under Mineral Code article 212.23(c) In exchange, the defendant agreed to transfer an overriding royalty interest in the subject prospect to the plaintiff in the event defendant acquired an interest in the prospect. In CLK Company, L.L.C. CXY Energy, Inc. ,
James Boldrick is an assignee of an overriding royalty interest in property subleased to BTA. Boldrick sued BTA and Chevron/Texaco, seeking monetary damages based upon breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion, alleging that his share of the overriding royalty interest was being used to benefit the Defendants.
—Tyler 5/5/2010), the Tyler Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the termination of an oil and gas lease for failure to pay shut-in royalty payments to the proper party. Van Hovenberg (“Van Hovenberg”) conveyed by royalty deed to O.B. In 1976, Karin H. In 1976, Karin H.
A unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that the United States Department of the Interior violated the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (“RRA”) by imposing price threshold conditions that require federal lessees to pay royalties when commodity prices rise.
Title I addresses the existing moratoria, future OCS access, exploration, production and royalty questions. per MMBtu, unless lease royalties were renegotiated with the Secretary , imposes Conservation of Resources Fee on nonproducing lease acreage of $3.75 House of Representatives passed Speaker Pelosi’s Energy Bill, H.R.
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.
. — (2006), the Supreme Court resolved a legal issue that has been at the center of federal royalty litigation for twenty years: viz. founded upon any contract,” applies to administrative royalty payment orders issued by the Minerals Management Service (MMS). whether 28 U.S.C. The Court held that it does not. Read more. 3d 722 (D.C.
Read more 25% royalty rate cap on prime oil and gas land heads to the House Summary : The New Mexico Senate passed Senate Bill 23 in a 21-15 vote, advancing legislation to raise the maximum royalty rate on prime oil and gas land in the Permian Basin from 20% to 25%. Meanwhile, global supply concerns persist as the U.S. GW capacity.
for a one-fourth (1/4) mineral royalty and as much as ten thousand ($10,000) dollars per acre bonus royalty.” 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. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
This new website combines the content you've come to trust from both our print newsletter (Producers Edge) and our former blog (OilandGasLawDigest.com) into one comprehensive online resource. To mark this launch, we're pleased to share our latest content: Vol. 2: Producers Edge - Fall 2024 Who Owns the Void?
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. ,
LEXIS 2750, the Louisiana court of appeal determined that a reservation “all of the minerals underlying or which may be produced from the above described tracts for a period of ten years” was a mineral servitude, not a mineral royalty, and that the servitude was subject to the statutory prescriptive period.
At issue in Southwest Royalties, Inc. Liskow & Lewis attorneys Butch Marseglia and Jillian Marullo submitted an amicus brief in Southwest Royalties on behalf of EOG Resources, Inc. Thus, because the Equipment was not used to “process” or directly cause the changes to the hydrocarbons, Southwest was not entitled to the exemption.
By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site. Tauren Exploration, Inc. , A detailed summary of that decision is available here.
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