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
In the case Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Game Commission v. Alice, get ready to go down the rabbit hole into litigation Wonderland. This post is about a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision issued on May 30, 2025. Proctor Heirs Trust, the PA Supremes addressed a question from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals regarding.
2023), in which it held that lessees owed royalties in excess of their gross proceeds, specifically “adding back” costs incurred by third-party buyers that were enumerated in the sales contract and subtracted from the sales price. The leases contained the following royalty provisions: 3. Sheppard , — S.W.3d NationsBank”, 939 S.W.2d
million judgment for reimbursement of mineral royalties. million in mineral royalties attributable to ownership of these banks. The Court distinguished those cases, pointing to constitutional and statutory provisions that mandate appropriation under those specific circumstances. 1/1/23), So.
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.
While 30:10 was amended during the 2022 legislative session, the amendment preserved the limited obligation of remitting the royalty and overriding royalty burdens to the nonparticipating owner for the benefit of the royalty and overriding royalty owners.
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.” Dils Co. , 2d 904 (Tex.
With the prevalence of cases involving royalty disputes in Texas, the state’s Supreme Court has never hesitated to address these issues. But the Court’s sporadic holdings regarding royalty clauses, each so specific to the particular language of the lease, have left lessees on unsteady footing. Heritage Resources , 939 S.W.2d
TotalEnergies E&P USA, Inc, et al. The Court held that the lessees’ payment of royalties based on amounts they received from sales to their affiliates at the well was proper and followed the language of the lease.
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. after deductions), resulting in lower royalty payments for the royalty owners.
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.
In a straightforward application of Louisiana’s prescriptive principles, the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit affirmed the trial court’s grant of exceptions of prescription, finding plaintiff’s claims for fraud, under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA), and for unpaid royalties all prescribed in Karen May v.
The Louisiana Legislature’s 2023 Regular Session begins on April 10th, and last Friday, Louisiana Senator Allain of District 21 filed SB 154 proposing to enact a statutory framework directly governing the rights and obligations of parties to renewable energy leases. 122); The lessee of a renewable energy lease would be “bound to. compare to La.
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. after deductions), resulting in lower royalty payments for the royalty owners.
hands a victory to financiers of oil and gas operations and settles a long-running controversy over the amount of damages available for failure to pay mineral royalties. in unpaid royalties, plus an additional double damages penalty of $484,058.52. Tauren Exploration, Inc. The lower courts awarded Gloria’s Ranch $726,087.78
In a straightforward application of Louisiana’s prescriptive principles, the Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit affirmed the trial court’s grant of exceptions of prescription, finding plaintiff’s claims for fraud, under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA), and for unpaid royalties all prescribed in Karen May v.
The Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in a case that could substantially clarify, or even fundamentally reshape, the characterization and ownership of underground storage rights in Texas. The case was Myers-Woodward v. The case remains pending before the Texas Supreme Court on petition for review.
10] Gloria’s Ranch amended its petition to include a claim for failure to pay royalties on production in Section 15 (from the unit well drilled by Chesapeake). 10] Gloria’s Ranch amended its petition to include a claim for failure to pay royalties on production in Section 15 (from the unit well drilled by Chesapeake).
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. For almost a decade, the original lessee to the agreements never subtracted post-production costs from the royalty owners’ royalty payments.
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?
This particular species of lease washouts is based on two recent cases from the El Paso Court of Appeals – Cimarex Energy Co. Anadarko E & P Onshore, LLC, 676 S.W.3d Anadarko E& P Onshore, LLC, no. In a similar case, Cromwell v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., 3d 73, 93 (Tex. 3d 860 (Tex. 23-0297, slip op.
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.” In that case, the plaintiff-lessors argued, the lease should be rescinded based on their error. For example, in Alyce Gaines Johnson Special Trust v.
Earlier information about this case can be found here. *In 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. BPX Operating Co., Johnson Ruling Reversing Prior PPC Ruling.
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. Click here to listen to the Audio verison of this story!
. (“Veren”) (TSX: VRN) (NYSE: VRN) are pleased to announce a strategic combination to create a leading light oil and condensate producer with concentrated assets in the Alberta Montney and Duvernay. Under the terms of the Agreement, Veren shareholders will receive 1.05 common shares of Whitecap for each Veren common share held. .”
Transaction Highlights Transforms EOG into a leading Utica E&P The acquisition of Encinos 675,000 net core acres significantly increases EOGs Utica position to a combined 1,100,000 net acres, representing more than two billion barrels oil equivalent of undeveloped net resource. Register to attend. billion, inclusive of EAPs net debt.
The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) 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”). TRO-X, L.P. , 19, 2021) (“ Eagle II ”).
30:10 was inapplicable to the case because the costs outlined in the statute comprised only pre-production and production costs. 30:10 was inapplicable to the case because the costs outlined in the statute comprised only pre-production and production costs. Chesapeake Louisiana, LP. [1] 2] The UMOs argued that La. 8] However, La.
The Eagle II case is the second case that arose between TRO-X, L.P. (“TRO-X”) 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”). TRO-X, L.P. , 19, 2021) (“ Eagle II ”).
1] In the case, an operator initiated a concursus action seeking to resolve ownership interest in minerals underlying property on which it was operating. Flat River Farms, L.L.C. , the Louisiana Second Circuit addressed issues affecting the creation and preservation of mineral servitudes and payment of court costs in a concursus action. [1]
The equity for these LLCs is known as “membership interests” but may be referred to in the LLC operating agreement as “units”. Many LLC operating agreements provide for the issuance of additional membership interests or units, but may not provide for the issuance of a different class of membership interests or units.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana granted Plaintiff States’ request for an injunction to block the Biden Administration’s pause on new federal oil and gas lease sales (“Lease Pause”). Louisiana v. 2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021). at 26-27.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana granted Plaintiff States’ request for an injunction to block the Biden Administration’s pause on new federal oil and gas lease sales (“Lease Pause”). Louisiana v. 2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021). at 26-27.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana granted Plaintiff States’ request for an injunction to block the Biden Administration’s pause on new federal oil and gas lease sales (“Lease Pause”). Louisiana v. 2:21-cv-00778-TAD-KK, 2021 WL 2154963 (W.D. June 15, 2021). at 26-27.
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