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
Another case interpreting a royalty reservation in an old conveyance has been decided by the 11th Court of Appeals in Eastland: Boren Descendants and Mabee Descendants v. Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. , The deed reserves “an undivided one-fourth (1/4th) of the usual one eighth (18th) royalty.”
In Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. 04-23-00106-CV, the San Antonio Court of Appeals was asked to construe a royalty reservation in a 1960 deed: There is saved, excepted and reserved, in favor of the undersigned, B.A. Said interest hereby reserved is Non-Participating Royalty. Puig, Jr., as his own property free of cost forever.
Our firm represented the Opielas in two cases involving a Magnolia horizontal well in Karnes County: a suit against Magnolia in Karnes County, and a suit against the Texas Railroad Commission in Travis County. In both cases the Opielas contended that Magnolia had no right to drill a horizontal well located partly on their land.
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.
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.
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.
The Texas Supreme Court is going to hear a case in which the issue is whether the interest to be paid on past due royalties is simple or compound interest. In the case of Samson Exploration, LLC v. granted September 1, 2023) , the lessors executed a number of oil and gas leases with Samson. Bordages, 662 S.W.3d
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.
Whether a royalty granted or reserved in a deed is a “fixed” or “floating” royalty has resulted in a lot of litigation in Texas. The Plaintiff sold land to a third party and reserved a 1/8 royalty nonparticipating royalty interest (fixed royalty language). ConocoPhillips Co.,
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.
In 2002 Hahn conveyed the tract to William and Lucille Gips, reserving an undivided one-half non-participating interest in and to all of the royalty [Hahn] now owns (same being an undivided one-half of [Hahn’s] one-fourth or an undivided one-eighth royalty) … Continue reading
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Court will also hear arguments on the applicability of the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment to claims by oil and gas lessors. Liskow & Lewis attorney Butch Marseglia submitted an amicus curiae brief on behalf of The Texas Oil & Gas Association. Emerald Oil & Gas v. Emerald Oil & Gas Company, L.P.,
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 Oil Industry of Nigeria If anyone asks Chevron or Shell, for example, how they feel about Nigeria, the response would probably be that they were tired of problems, at least if they were honest. History of oil in Nigeria Oil was first discovered in Nigeria in the mid-1950s after decades of fruitless exploration.
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.
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.
Ohio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals recently held that an “anti-washout” provision found in multiple assignments of overriding royalty interests covering leases that subsequently expired was not binding on the original lessee’s assignees, which had taken new leases to those same lands, as there was no privity of contract.
In 2022, in a case decided by the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals , the issue was who owns the right to use underground salt caverns: the mineral owner or the surface owner? In this case, Myers-Woodward, LLC v. 30, 2024), the Court also considered how a salt royalty should be calculated. granted (Aug. granted (Aug. 2d 686 (Tex.
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. This consolidation allows us to deliver content more efficiently, with enhanced security and improved formatting.
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.
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.
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. ,
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.” Tauren Exploration, Inc. , A detailed summary of that decision is available here. Chief Judge Henry Brown, Jr.,
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
—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.
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.
filed) Mineral owners are often subject to general oil and gas lease forms that include provisions benefitting the surface estate. In this case, CT Land and Cattle and Cattle Co., The applicant, Ammonite Oil Gas Corporation, was in the business of acquiring State riverbed leases and then getting them included in adjacent pooled units.
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.
Several industry groups, including the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry and the Louisiana Oil and Association, oppose the bill on the basis that it would lead to “frivolous” suits and target certain industries within the State. Ieyoub, 96-1110 (La. 9/9/97), 700 So.
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. Earlier information about this case can be found here. *In Chesapeake.
The Texas Supreme Court recently released its anticipated opinion in Eagle Oil & Gas Co. The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) TRO-X”) and Eagle Oil & Gas Co. Eagle”) regarding their agreement to jointly acquire and sell oil and gas leases. TRO-X, L.P. ,
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. 9/22/10); 48 So. 3d 341, 342-43.
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