The Energy Law

APRIL 4, 2023

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

Royalty Operator Royalty Interest E&A 98

The Energy Law

MARCH 7, 2023

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. ,

Royalty 98

Royalty Oil Gas Royalty Interest 98

The Energy Law

JUNE 8, 2020

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., 2d 118, 120-21 (Tex.

Royalty 52

Royalty Exploration and Production Oil IT 52

The Energy Law

FEBRUARY 19, 2008

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.

Royalty 40

Royalty Gas Petroleum Casing 40

Vorys Energy

FEBRUARY 4, 2022

The Court held that the lessees’ payment of royalties based on amounts they received from sales to their affiliates at the well was proper and followed the language of the lease. By using the netback method to determine those royalties, “Plaintiffs’ royalties are based on the wellhead value of the gas sold.

Royalty 40

Royalty E&P Downstream E&A 40

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

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

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

JANUARY 4, 2007

The Miesch case, set for argument on February 13, is one of two related cases decided by the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals last year. The royalty owners intervened and asserted claims against Exxon for, among others, common law waste, statutory waste, negligence per se, tortious interference, and failure to develop.

Casing 40

Casing Royalty Abandonment Oil 40

Producer's Edge

DECEMBER 3, 2024

This article discusses a couple more cases in 2024. In each of these cases, one side successfully argued that the Van Dyke presumption applied, and the other side unsuccessfully argued that it was rebutted. Many anticipate that double-fraction cases will continue to steadily flow through Texas courts for the foreseeable future.

Royalty Interest 52

Royalty Interest Royalty Casing Instrumentation 52

The Energy Law

JUNE 18, 2015

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. 14-0302 , was highly anticipated, but left many of us scratching our heads. NationsBank , 939 S.W.2d 2d 118 (Tex.

Royalty 40

Royalty IT Exploration and Production Oil 40

The Energy Law

JANUARY 12, 2017

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. ,

Royalty 40

Royalty IT Gas Operator 40

The Energy Law

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016

On September 2, 2016, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to review three oil and gas cases involving issues pertinent to the industry and land and mineral owners. is another top-lease case from the Amarillo Court of Appeals. BP America Production Company v. Red Deer Resources, LLC In BP America Production Company v. Laddex, Ltd.

Casing 52

Casing Oil Gas Royalty 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 40

Royalty Gas Oil Downstream 40

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. 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.

Royalty 40

Royalty E&A Oil Gas 40

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

Producer's Edge

NOVEMBER 1, 2024

The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in a case that could substantially clarify, or even fundamentally reshape, the characterization and ownership of underground storage rights in Texas. The case was Myers-Woodward v. The case remains pending before the Texas Supreme Court on petition for review.

Royalty 52

Royalty Royalty Interest Casing Oil 52

The Energy Law

JUNE 12, 2017

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]

Royalty 40

Royalty E&P Exploration and Production Operator 40

The Energy Law

APRIL 3, 2023

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.

Government 98

Government Energy Energy Royalty 98

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

JANUARY 25, 2008

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. ,

Royalty 40

Royalty Royalty Interest Casing IT 40

The Energy Law

MAY 10, 2010

—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. The case involved a dispute between the original lessee and a top lessee. In 1976, Karin H.

Royalty 40

Royalty Royalty Interest Oil IT 40

The Energy Law

AUGUST 8, 2017

Tauren Exploration, Inc. , A detailed summary of that decision is available here. A vigorous dissent by Judge Bleich warns that, if maintained, the original opinion could have both “[d]evastating economic repercussions” for the lending industry, and “[s]erious and harmful impact on the oil and gas industry.”

Casing 40

Casing Oil Gas Royalty 40

Producer's Edge

JANUARY 27, 2025

In this case, CT Land and Cattle and Cattle Co., In this case, CT Land and Cattle and Cattle Co., Citing two Fifth Circuit cases, CT Land also argued that the burial provision ran with the land, meaning that it could be enforced by successive surface owners. —Amarillo June 28, 2024, pet.

Royalty 52

Royalty Pipeline Gas IT 52

The Energy Law

DECEMBER 11, 2007

Faced with competing claims for royalty payments from the PPG and State of Louisiana, Chevron, as sublessee of the 1938 BLD lease, filed a petition for concursus and deposited royalty payments into the court registry. Ultimately, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s finding that the State’s claims were barred by res judicata.

Royalty 40

Royalty Casing Government IT 40

Producer's Edge

NOVEMBER 4, 2024

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.

Oil 52

Oil Gas Royalty Casing 52

The Energy Law

JANUARY 6, 2009

The Texas Supreme Court decided the case on contract construction grounds, deeming the unit to be a pooling of lands under the terms of the agreement, not just leases.

Royalty 40

Royalty Casing Oil Operator 40

The Energy Law

JUNE 12, 2017

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

Royalty 40

Royalty Exploration and Production Royalty Interest Operator 40

The Energy Law

MAY 8, 2009

In the past, the State hired outside counsel to pursue claims for allegedly underpaid royalties and severance taxes and paid those outside lawyers on a contingency basis. Challenges were often raised to the contingency fee structure in those cases as violating the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in Meredith v.

Royalty 40

Royalty Casing Oil IT 40

Drillers

MARCH 24, 2020

Recently, the Nigerian government demanded more than $60 billion in back royalties under a production sharing agreement with the supermajors operating in the country. Pipeline vandalism, militant attacks on infrastructure, protests and lawsuits are among the issues that have plagued Nigerias oil industry for years. How did this happen?

Oil 52

Oil Royalty Exploration and Production Government 52

The Energy Law

JUNE 21, 2016

On June 17, 2016, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that an oil and gas producer (“Southwest”) was not entitled to a statutory exemption from sales taxes on its purchases of casing, tubing and pumps used in the production of oil and gas (the “Equipment”). At issue in Southwest Royalties, Inc.

Manufacturing 52

Manufacturing Oil Gas Royalty 52

The Energy Law

APRIL 19, 2021

The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) 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”). TRO-X, L.P. , 19, 2021) (“ Eagle II ”).

Royalty 52

Royalty Exploration and Production IT Casing 52

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.” In that case, the plaintiff-lessors argued, the lease should be rescinded based on their error. However, if the current trend continues, the Haynesville could approach its prior peak production average in early 2019.

Gas 52

Gas Exploration and Production E&P E&A 52

The Energy Law

MARCH 31, 2022

Earlier information about this case can be found here. *In For nearly three years, unit operators in Louisiana have waited to see whether the Western District of Louisiana would change course or double down on its March 2019 decision in Johnson v. Chesapeake. Neither contained any provision for attorney’s fees.

Operator 98

Operator Management E&A Gas 98

The Energy Law

JANUARY 18, 2011

Dunn-McCampbell Royalty Interest Inc. The case involved land in the Padre Island National Park, created in 1963. Nat’l Park Serv. , 09-40187 (5th Cir. The Service appealed the decision of the district court. The Service made two arguments on appeal.

Royalty Interest 40

Royalty Interest Casing Royalty Oil 40

The Energy Law

APRIL 19, 2021

The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) 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”). TRO-X, L.P. , 19, 2021) (“ Eagle II ”).

Exploration and Production 40

Exploration and Production Royalty IT Oil 40

The Energy Law

MARCH 26, 2019

30:10 was inapplicable to the case because the costs outlined in the statute comprised only pre-production and production costs. 30:10(A)(3), the UMOs argued that such expenses were not recoverable from a UMO’s share of production. [4] 4] In opposition, the unit operator contended that La. 6] The statute at the center of Johnson is La.

Operator 52

Operator Exploration and Production E&A Casing 52