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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
98 
Let's personalize your content