Producer's Edge
NOVEMBER 1, 2024
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 Energy Law
MARCH 13, 2009
billion from 2011 to 2019. However, the tax will only affect companies currently using a loophole to avoid paying royalties on the energy supplies they drill. Those already paying royalties would get a tax credit. oil and gas supplies.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Producer's Edge
MAY 19, 2025
May 16, 2025), the Texas Supreme Court resolved two significant issues affecting mineral owners and surface owners: (1) who owns the empty caverns created by salt mining operations, and (2) how to calculate royalty payments on produced salt. Despite this substantial production, USM did not pay Myers any royalty. Can a Cavern Be Owned?
The Energy Law
JANUARY 18, 2011
Dunn-McCampbell Royalty Interest Inc. by: Megan J. Nat’l Park Serv. , 09-40187 (5th Cir. The case involved land in the Padre Island National Park, created in 1963. The conflict arose between the National Park Service (“Service”), owner of surface estates, and Plaintiffs who were owners of mineral estates.
Producer's Edge
JUNE 2, 2025
Cimarex instead chose to rely on production from several wells Anadarko drilled in 2011 and 2012. When Passive Production Becomes a Legal Battleground In August 2011, Cimarex’s lessors granted a top-lease covering the 1/6th interest to Petro-Land Group. Anadarko subsequently acquired the top-lease in June 2012.
The Energy Law
OCTOBER 4, 2018
for a one-fourth (1/4) mineral royalty and as much as ten thousand ($10,000) dollars per acre bonus royalty.” 2d 640, 641-43 (W.D. Seeming to suggest Plaintiff’s motivation, the Court noted that Plaintiff filed its action after receiving “offers from numerous third parties to lease the mineral formation known as the Haynesville Shale.
The Energy Law
JUNE 12, 2017
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
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content