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
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.
Court Interprets “Free of Cost Forever” Royalty Language Broadly In this case ( Fasken Oil & Ranch, Ltd. Background: 1960 Deed and Royalty Dispute The dispute arose from a 1960 deed where B.A. Hyder , which also addressed a royalty provision with “cost-free” language. 30, 2024, no pet.
The lease royaltycase Carl v. The lease provided for a royalty calculated based on the “market value at the well.” First, the lessor relied on a portion of the royalty clause indicating that royalty was due “on gas … produced from said land and sold or used off the premises.”
The lease royaltycase Carl v. The lease provided for a royalty calculated based on the “market value at the well.” First, the lessor relied on a portion of the royalty clause indicating that royalty was due “on gas … produced from said land and sold or used off the premises.”
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.” Eastland June 1, 2021). Dils Co. , 2d 904 (Tex. Element Petroleum Props.,
19-0459, 2021 WL 936175 (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.
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.
The Case In this recent case, the Texas Supreme Court resolved whether ratification of a lease or signing of a stipulation agreement could transform a fixed non-participating royalty interest (NPRI) into a floating NPRI. " The Gipses later leased the minerals to ConocoPhillips for a 1/4 royalty. ." 3d 226 (Tex.
19-0459, 2021 WL 936175 (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. Factual and Procedural Background.
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. 19-0459, 2021 WL 936175 (Tex. In 2006, however, BlueStone acquired the lease and became responsible for paying royalties on production thereunder.
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?
In this case, CT Land and Cattle and Cattle Co., Citing two Fifth Circuit cases, CT Land also argued that the burial provision ran with the land, meaning that it could be enforced by successive surface owners. The lease provided for a royalty calculated based on the “market value at the well.”
18-0983, 2021 WL 1045723, at *1 (Tex. 19, 2021) (“ Eagle II ”). The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) When the suit went to trial, the leases subject to the Chesapeake sale had not generated any royalty income. TRO-X, L.P. , TRO-X”) and Eagle Oil & Gas Co.
18-0983, 2021 WL 1045723, at *1 (Tex. 19, 2021) (“ Eagle II ”). The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) When the suit went to trial, the leases subject to the Chesapeake sale had not generated any royalty income. TRO-X, L.P. , TRO-X”) and Eagle Oil & Gas Co.
One case before the Texas Supreme Court was argued on March 18: Cactus Water Services, LLC, v COG Operating, LLC. And the crux of the case, in the courts words: Years after executing the mineral leases with COG, the surface owners executed Produced Water Lease Agreements with Cactus. Phelan is CEO of U.S. Why do they sell?
There are cases where the tumor is causing HI by creating a non-insulin substance (Diazoxide works by stopping insulin production so if that’s not the problem, the drug doesn’t do much). These were issued from 2021 to 2024. Diazoxide and glucocorticoids to treat the hypoglycemia. There are also 15M pre-funded warrants.
The NRC case is being argued at a time when President Donald Trumps administration has taken aim at various federal agencies in his campaign to downsize and overhaul the U.S. The NRC issued a license in 2021 to Interim Storage Partners to build a nuclear waste storage facility in Andrews County in Texas, near the New Mexico border.
2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021). The Lease Pause had been issued pursuant to Executive Order 14008, which was signed by President Biden on January 27, 2021 (“Executive Order”). Louisiana v. at 38-40. (2) 2) Substantial Threat of Irreparable Harm.
2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021). The Lease Pause had been issued pursuant to Executive Order 14008, which was signed by President Biden on January 27, 2021 (“Executive Order”). Louisiana v. at 38-40. (2) 2) Substantial Threat of Irreparable Harm.
2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021). The Lease Pause had been issued pursuant to Executive Order 14008, which was signed by President Biden on January 27, 2021 (“Executive Order”). Louisiana v. at 38-40. (2) 2) Substantial Threat of Irreparable Harm.
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