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
Its royalty-focused, asset-light model stands out versus traditional E&Ps like Diamondback, offering high efficiency and lower risk. Viper’s reliance on Diamondback, which operates over 70 percent of its Midland Basin royalty acres, introduces concentration risk and could limit flexibility if Diamondback’s priorities shift.
On June 2, 2017 the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s judgment cancelling a mineral lease under Mineral Code article 140 and provided further clarity on a production in paying quantities analysis under Louisiana Mineral Code article 124. [1] 1] The dispute in Gloria’s Ranch, L.L.C. 035 cents per mcf.
This article summarizes the arguments made by the parties, and the Justices' questions and observations at the oral argument. 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? 3d 39 , 47 (Tex.
El Paso E & P Co. , El Paso E & P Co. , for a one-fourth (1/4) mineral royalty and as much as ten thousand ($10,000) dollars per acre bonus royalty.” For example, in Alyce Gaines Johnson Special Trust v. Alyce Gaines Johnson Special Trust v. 2d 640, 641-43 (W.D.
UNOCAL also reserved a 3% overriding royalty. 2003) (“the regulations govern the parties’ joint and several liabilities vis-à-vis the Government not amongst themselves”) and Total E&P USA, Inc. UNOCAL assigned operating rights in the leases to ATP, who later assigned 20% of those rights to Sojitz. Parker Drilling Co. ,
The advantage for minerals firms is that they have no investment in equipment or drilling costs, as do E&Ps. The challenge is that they must still do geological research on formations, and then predict where the E&P is planning to drill. Some of the E&Ps will sell minerals to raise cash, said Stavinoha.
Privacy Policy: By subscribing to Liskow & Lewis’ E-Communications, you will receive articles and blogs with insight and analysis of legal issues that may impact your industry. 45X(c)(6)(P). [3] 30D(e)(1). [4] Communications include firm news, insights, and events. 1] 26 U.S.C. § 45X(b)(1)(M). [2] 2] 26 U.S.C. §
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