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
CALGARY, Alberta, March 10, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — PrairieSky Royalty Ltd. PrairieSky) (TSX:PSK) announced today that its Board of Directors has declared a quarterly dividend of CDN $0.26 per common share, payable in cash on April 15, 2025 to shareholders of record on March 31, 2025.
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
Earlier this month, the Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association (TIPRO) released the 10th edition of its State of Energy Report, offering a detailed analysis of national and state trends in oil and natural gas employment, wages and other key economic factors for ?the the energy industry in 2024 (full copy below).
Accordingly, auditing of royalty payments was left to the Mineral Board’s internal accountants, and when an issue arose as to whether royalty payments were made correctly, the Mineral Board’s land personnel and internal counsel would oversee sending demands and pursuing litigation against the State’s mineral lessees and well operators.
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.
million judgment for reimbursement of mineral royalties. million in mineral royalties attributable to ownership of these banks. As there are no such provisions governing the Crooks plaintiffs’ mineral royalties claims, the legislature has retained its discretion to appropriate funds for those claims. 1/1/23), So.
Investing in oil and gas royalties involves purchasing the rights to receive a portion of the revenue generated from the production and sale of oil and gas from a particular property or lease. Passive Income : Oil and gas royalties can provide investors with a source of passive income.
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
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.
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.
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. Heritage Res., NationsBank , 939 S.W.2d
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.
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. In addition to the estate misconception theory, the Court analyzed the “legacy of the one-eighth royalty.” The Texas Supreme Court recently released its opinion in Van Dyke v. Dils Co. ,
Ross alleged that Shell failed to pay royalties in accordance with the lease agreement and that it fraudulently deprived him of royalties by making payments “based on an arbitrary amount even below the internal transfer price.” Shell, however, did not calculate royalty payments based on the price it received for the gas.
By Dana Douglas The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal recently held that an operator is not responsible for payment of a non-operator’s royalties and overriding royalties before payout. Thus, the non-participant was responsible for payment of its royalty and overriding royalty payments. In Gulf Explorer, LLC v.
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. The Court upheld the denial of class treatment.
by Elisabeth Lorio Baer Interior Secretary Ken Salazar informed Congress on September 17, 2009 that he would kill a controversial program, currently in effect, that allows energy companies to pay the government royalties for drilling on public lands in actual oil and gas in lieu of cash. For the full story, see [link]
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.
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 company said its working-interest oil production before royalties in the Manora field in the Gulf of Thailand has increased from 2,144 bpd in December 2024 to 2,866 bpd.
The Court held that the lessees’ payment of royalties based on amounts they received from sales to their affiliates at the well was proper and followed the language of the lease. By using the netback method to determine those royalties, “Plaintiffs’ royalties are based on the wellhead value of the gas sold.
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 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. ,
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. NationsBank , 939 S.W.2d 2d 118 (Tex.
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.
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.
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.
Travis Lattner, Jr., “a non-participating royalty of one-fourth (1/4th) of the landowner’s usual one-eighth (1/8th) royalty on oil and gas produced and saved from said land[.]” Several 2023 decisions rendered by the El Paso Court of Appeals, reflect a trend toward near-automatic application of the presumption.
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]
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 case presents two critical questions: Who owns subsurface caverns created by salt mining operations, and How should in-kind royalties be calculated for salt production? ” The Fifth Circuit, applying Texas law in Dunn-McCampbell Royalty Interest, Inc. Anadarko E&P Onshore, LLC , 520 S.W.3d 3d 39 , 47 (Tex.
Mooney , 2023-Ohio-4451, Ohio’s Seventh Appellate District considered whether an 1898 assignment conveyed a fixed or floating royalty. The assignment in question conveyed “the one-half (1/2) part of his royalty Being 1/16 part of all the oil and gas in and under the following described premises.” Specifically, it reasoned that:
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. compare to La. 122); The lessee of a renewable energy lease would be “bound to.
12/19/07), the court addressed the payment of royalties and penalties under Mineral Code article 212.23(c) In exchange, the defendant agreed to transfer an overriding royalty interest in the subject prospect to the plaintiff in the event defendant acquired an interest in the prospect. In CLK Company, L.L.C. CXY Energy, Inc. ,
James Boldrick is an assignee of an overriding royalty interest in property subleased to BTA. Boldrick sued BTA and Chevron/Texaco, seeking monetary damages based upon breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion, alleging that his share of the overriding royalty interest was being used to benefit the Defendants.
—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. Van Hovenberg (“Van Hovenberg”) conveyed by royalty deed to O.B. In 1976, Karin H. In 1976, Karin H.
A unanimous panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that the United States Department of the Interior violated the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (“RRA”) by imposing price threshold conditions that require federal lessees to pay royalties when commodity prices rise.
Title I addresses the existing moratoria, future OCS access, exploration, production and royalty questions. per MMBtu, unless lease royalties were renegotiated with the Secretary , imposes Conservation of Resources Fee on nonproducing lease acreage of $3.75 House of Representatives passed Speaker Pelosi’s Energy Bill, H.R.
In this case, CT Land and Cattle and Cattle Co., LLC sought to enforce a provision in a 1948 mineral lease requiring Unitex WI, LLC and Unitex Oil and Gas, LLC (Unitex) to bury pipelines on the ranch land surface CT Land acquired in 2013. Nevertheless, CT Land argued that the surface deed from Andrew P.
. — (2006), the Supreme Court resolved a legal issue that has been at the center of federal royalty litigation for twenty years: viz. founded upon any contract,” applies to administrative royalty payment orders issued by the Minerals Management Service (MMS). whether 28 U.S.C. The Court held that it does not. Read more. 3d 722 (D.C.
LEXIS 2750, the Louisiana court of appeal determined that a reservation “all of the minerals underlying or which may be produced from the above described tracts for a period of ten years” was a mineral servitude, not a mineral royalty, and that the servitude was subject to the statutory prescriptive period.
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. Emerald’s remaining claims were tried with those of the royalty owners (see next section). The Jury awarded the royalty owners: 1. $5
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