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. The deed reserves “an undivided one-fourth (1/4th) of the usual one eighth (18th) royalty.” Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. , 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. In Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. Puig, Jr., as his own property free of cost forever. 2d 118 (Tex.
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.
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
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. That rationale led to the Court’s holding that the mere use of one-eighth in a double fraction is some evidence that the parties were operating under the estate misconception theory.
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 Resources , 939 S.W.2d
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
4] In 2007, Fossil Operating, Inc. Fossil”), with whom Tauren contracted to conduct operations on the property, drilled and completed wells on the leased property in Sections 9, 10, and 16. [5] 5] Chesapeake Operating, Inc. (“Tauren”) and contained a three year primary term as well as a horizontal and vertical Pugh clause. [3]
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.
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.
operate the property leased as a reasonably prudent operator for the mutual benefit of himself and his lessor.” 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.
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.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held that a unit operator may not recover post-production costs from an unleased mineral owner’s share of production proceeds in Allen Johnson, et al. 30:10 governed whether a unit operator may deduct post-production costs against UMO’s share of production proceeds. [3]
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. BPX Operating Co., Chesapeake. The district court recognized this was a res nova issue for which there was no authority directly on point.
—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.
T]he opinion will have a most chilling effect on the financing of oil and gas operations, which in turn will have an adverse economic effect on government and business in our state. Tauren Exploration, Inc. , A detailed summary of that decision is available here. Chief Judge Henry Brown, Jr.,
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. The lease provided for a royalty calculated based on the “market value at the well.”
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. 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.
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
Recently, the Nigerian government demanded more than $60 billion in back royalties under a production sharing agreement with the supermajors operating in the country. The operator of Egina is China’s CNOOC: Chinese oil companies are expanding internationally, and Nigeria is one of the destinations, despite the challenges.
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.
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. ATP is the ATP Innovator’s operator and ATP-IP is the platform’s owner. See 40 C.F.R.
In Petro-Chem Operating Co., 1] In the case, an operator initiated a concursus action seeking to resolve ownership interest in minerals underlying property on which it was operating. 21] Prior to spudding the well, the operator faced weather delays and was required to obtain a CUA permit. [22]
A WORLD-CLASS MINE Brazil Potash expects Autazes to produce roughly 2.4Mt of potash (MOP) once operating at full capacity enough to satisfy 20% of Brazil’s needs. What’s left is the operating license. Part of the funding for Autazes will come from a royalty agreement with Franco Nevada.
Visible Long-Term Synergies: Visible operating, capital and corporate synergies which, in addition to supply chain efficiencies, can generate meaningful savings. Anticipated annual synergies of over $200 million can be achieved independent of commodity prices and will begin to be captured upon closing of the transaction.
The equity for these LLCs is known as “membership interests” but may be referred to in the LLC operating agreement as “units”. Many LLC operating agreements provide for the issuance of additional membership interests or units, but may not provide for the issuance of a different class of membership interests or units.
government and a company that was awarded a license by the NRC, the federal agency that regulates nuclear energy in the United States, to operate a facility in western Texas of a lower courts ruling declaring this storage arrangement unlawful. ” A ruling in the case is expected by the end of June. The Denver-based 10th U.S.
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