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
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. Part II: The Royalty Calculation Dispute A. 3d 39 , 47 (Tex.
The terminal is already 95% complete , and the startup timeline points to a mid-2025 launch for exports. The project dates back to 2011 , when former B.C. billion in provincial natural gas royalties over the next three years (up from just $600 million last year). Help Canada diversify its natural gas markets beyond the U.S.
Cimarex instead chose to rely on production from several wells Anadarko drilled in 2011 and 2012. The resulting settlement agreement required Anadarko to pay Cimarex for its 1/6th co-tenant share of the value of production, less Cimarex’s 1/6th share of the reasonable drilling completion and operations costs.
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
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