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
The lease royalty case 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 royalty case 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.”
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.
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.
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.
This lease royalty case involved a dispute over whether the lessee was permitted to deduct volumes of gas used off the premises to power post-production activities on other gas produced from the same well. The lease provided for a royalty calculated based on the “market value at the well.” Randle, 620 S.W.3d
Alaska leaders seek 90% of federal oil royalties as state revenues suffer from low oil prices, while supporting ConocoPhillips’ Willow oil project. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 to limit environmental reviews for energy projects, barring agencies from assessing upstream/downstream impacts under NEPA. Read more U.S. Read more U.S.
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