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
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.
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? Anadarko E&P Onshore, LLC , 520 S.W.3d ” The Fifth Circuit, applying Texas law in Dunn-McCampbell Royalty Interest, Inc. 3d 39 , 47 (Tex.
Anadarko E & P Onshore, LLC, 676 S.W.3d Anadarko E& P Onshore, LLC, no. Anadarko failed to account to Cimarex for its 1/6th share of production, and Cimarex brought suit in February 2013. This particular species of lease washouts is based on two recent cases from the El Paso Court of Appeals – Cimarex Energy Co.
Eastland 2013, pet. Several years later, Eagle purchased several leases and sold them to Chesapeake Exploration, LLC (“Chesapeake”), reserving an overriding royalty interest and a back-in working interest (the “Interests”). When the suit went to trial, the leases subject to the Chesapeake sale had not generated any royalty income.
Eastland 2013, pet. Several years later, Eagle purchased several leases and sold them to Chesapeake Exploration, LLC (“Chesapeake”), reserving an overriding royalty interest and a back-in working interest (the “Interests”). When the suit went to trial, the leases subject to the Chesapeake sale had not generated any royalty income.
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