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
By Jonathan Hunter: In a highly anticipated decision, the Tenth Circuit held this week that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over a qui tam action filed by an MMS auditor concerning royalty payments on crude oil produced from offshore federal leases.
Recently, when there was talk about Houston-based ATP Oil and Gas’ (ATP) legal problems, it was inevitably about its bankruptcy and its effort to bring the overriding royalty interests it had conveyed back into the bankrupt estate as debt instruments.
Recently, the Nigerian government demanded more than $60 billion in back royalties under a production sharing agreement with the supermajors operating in the country. Chevron has stakes in both onshore and offshore fields through a JV with NNPC that has the same percentage distribution as Exxon’s. How did this happen?
Further, offshore Lease Sales 257 and 258, which were included in the Five-Year Program that was approved under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), were both canceled. It is also possible that Interior could take steps to amend the Five-Year Program to modify the offshore lease sale schedule. Louisiana v. June 15, 2021).
Further, offshore Lease Sales 257 and 258, which were included in the Five-Year Program that was approved under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), were both canceled. It is also possible that Interior could take steps to amend the Five-Year Program to modify the offshore lease sale schedule. Louisiana v. June 15, 2021).
Further, offshore Lease Sales 257 and 258, which were included in the Five-Year Program that was approved under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”), were both canceled. It is also possible that Interior could take steps to amend the Five-Year Program to modify the offshore lease sale schedule. Louisiana v. June 15, 2021).
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.
Let's personalize your content