article thumbnail

Two Decisions by Eastland Court of Appeals on Fraction-of-Royalty Issue

Oil and Gas Lawyer

Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. , Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. The Boren and Mabee descendants raised several affirmative defenses, including waiver, division order estoppel/estoppel by contract, judicial estoppel, estoppel by Continue reading two consolidated appeals, Nos. 11-22-00365-CV and 11-23-00001-CV.

Royalty 130
article thumbnail

Oil and Gas Commission Upholds Restart Order in AWMS Appeal

Vorys Energy

On May 21, 2021, the Division of Oil and Gas Resources Management issued Chief’s Order 2021-97 (the “Restart Order”), authorizing AWMS Water Solutions, LLC, to resume injection operations at one of its Class II injection wells.

Oil 40
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Calling Dibs! Oil and Gas Security Interests and Texas’ Unique First Purchaser Statute

Producer's Edge

Oil, gas, and other minerals that have not been extracted from the ground are treated as real property, to which the Texas UCC does not apply. This is often the subject of litigation, and one of the reasons outside counsel should be retained when structuring the sale of oil and gas assets. Real property is not subject to the Texas UCC.

Oil 52
article thumbnail

Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal Dismisses Claim for Unjust Enrichment for Receipt of Royalty Payments in Excess of Ownership Interest: Hall v. James, 43,263-CW (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/4/08), 986 So. 2d 817

The Energy Law Blog

Division orders were prepared by Kelley Oil Corporation, a predecessor-in-interest to Samson, and the Jameses began receiving royalties. On July 12, 1996, the Jameses purchased immovable property from Gray Investments, a corporation owned by Leon Gray, Sr. and his wife, Mary Gray.

Royalty 40
article thumbnail

Texas Court Subjects Override to Non-Consent Penalties

The Energy Law Blog

BTA Oil Producers , No. Based on both the division order and the JOA terms, the Count found that BTA was not obligated to make any present payments to Boldrick for his overriding royalty interest currently being used to pay the costs and expenses of the well. By Marie Carlisle: Boldrick v. 11-06-00029-CV, 2007 WL 865811 (Tex.