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 West Virginia Supreme Court was scheduled to hear two significant oil and gas royalty disputes during a morning session today. Both cases center on whether natural gas companies can deduct post-production costs from royalty payments and, if so, under what circumstances. The first case,
(World Oil) – Elk Range Royalties has announced a landmark acquisition of a significant mineral and royalty position spanning approximately 250,000 net royalty acres (NRA) in the DJ Basin from affiliates of Occidental Petroleum (Oxy). In February 2025, NGP and the Elk Range team established Elk Range Royalties III.
Another case interpreting a royalty reservation in an old conveyance has been decided by the 11th Court of Appeals in Eastland: Boren Descendants and Mabee Descendants v. The deed reserves “an undivided one-fourth (1/4th) of the usual one eighth (18th) royalty.” Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. , Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd.
04-23-00106-CV, the San Antonio Court of Appeals was asked to construe a royalty reservation in a 1960 deed: There is saved, excepted and reserved, in favor of the undersigned, B.A. Said interest hereby reserved is Non-Participating Royalty. In Fasken Oil and Ranch, Ltd. Puig, Jr., as his own property free of cost forever. 2d 118 (Tex.
An important decision was recently issued in a federal court case (in Ohio) that potentially affects landowners and drillers with shale leases throughout the Marcellus/Utica. The case, The Grissoms, LLC v. At least, we believe it has broader implications.
Our firm represented the Opielas in two cases involving a Magnolia horizontal well in Karnes County: a suit against Magnolia in Karnes County, and a suit against the Texas Railroad Commission in Travis County. In both cases the Opielas contended that Magnolia had no right to drill a horizontal well located partly on their land.
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
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.
3d 544 (2024) , the Texas Supreme Court addressed a case where the Plaintiff claimed that two leases had terminated because a shut in royalty payment was made late. The leases in question had a pretty standard shut in royalty clause that allowed a payment of $50.00 In Scout Energy Management, LLC v. Taylor Properties, 704 S.W.3d
The Associated Press reported today that a federal jury found Kerr McGee liable for additional royalties on crude oil produced from federal properties and sold through Texon. Kerr McGee had denied the allegations and claimed that no additional royalties were owed. Kerr McGee has indicated that intends to appeal the verdict.
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.
The Texas Supreme Court is going to hear a case in which the issue is whether the interest to be paid on past due royalties is simple or compound interest. In the case of Samson Exploration, LLC v. Bordages, 662 S.W.3d 3d 501 (Tex. App.Beaumont 2022, pet. App.Beaumont 2022, pet.
Whether a royalty granted or reserved in a deed is a “fixed” or “floating” royalty has resulted in a lot of litigation in Texas. The Plaintiff sold land to a third party and reserved a 1/8 royalty nonparticipating royalty interest (fixed royalty language). ConocoPhillips Co.,
In a recent case, the Texas Supreme Court considered whether interest on late royalty payments was supposed to be simple or compound interest. When Samson paid previously unpaid royalties to the Plaintiff, it included simple interest. In Samson Exploration, LLC v. Bordages, 662 S.W.3d 3d 501, 2024 (Tex.
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.
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.
In 2002 Hahn conveyed the tract to William and Lucille Gips, reserving an undivided one-half non-participating interest in and to all of the royalty [Hahn] now owns (same being an undivided one-half of [Hahn’s] one-fourth or an undivided one-eighth royalty) … Continue reading
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.”
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. Element Petroleum Props., 11-21-00103-CV (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
15, 2008), the Texas Supreme Court again addressed the propriety of class actions for gas royalty claims. The class affirmed the denial of two subclasses, but reversed the denial of a third subclass of royalty claimaints. Phillips Petroleum Co. , 03-0824 (Feb.
Case Overview This recent case ( Rock River Minerals, LP v. The 1996 Assignment and Unit Agreement Michael Cass owned a 2.125% overriding royalty interest in certain leases that were part of the North Pembrook Spraberry Unit. Pioneer Nat. USA Inc. , 08-23-00216-CV, 2024 WL 4528917 [Tex. —El Paso Oct. 18, 2024, no pet.
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.
The Miesch case, set for argument on February 13, is one of two related cases decided by the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals last year. The royalty owners intervened and asserted claims against Exxon for, among others, common law waste, statutory waste, negligence per se, tortious interference, and failure to develop.
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. By using the netback method to determine those royalties, “Plaintiffs’ royalties are based on the wellhead value of the gas sold.
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.
Ohio’s Seventh District Court of Appeals recently held that an “anti-washout” provision found in multiple assignments of overriding royalty interests covering leases that subsequently expired was not binding on the original lessee’s assignees, which had taken new leases to those same lands, as there was no privity of contract.
This article discusses a couple more cases in 2024. In each of these cases, one side successfully argued that the Van Dyke presumption applied, and the other side unsuccessfully argued that it was rebutted. Many anticipate that double-fraction cases will continue to steadily flow through Texas courts for the foreseeable future.
On September 2, 2016, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to review three oil and gas cases involving issues pertinent to the industry and land and mineral owners. is another top-lease case from the Amarillo Court of Appeals. BP America Production Company v. Red Deer Resources, LLC In BP America Production Company v. Laddex, Ltd.
In 2022, in a case decided by the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals , the issue was who owns the right to use underground salt caverns: the mineral owner or the surface owner? In this case, Myers-Woodward, LLC v. 30, 2024), the Court also considered how a salt royalty should be calculated. granted (Aug. granted (Aug. 2d 686 (Tex.
In this case, the lessee, Underground Services (“USM”) owned the mineral estate, and Myers owned the surface and a 1/8 royalty in all the minerals. USM sued Myers, seeking declaratory relief regarding the royaltys calculation and the right to use the underground salt caverns. May 16, 2025).
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. ."
the Third Circuit addressed the question of whether or not a mineral lessee must pay its lessor full lease-basis royalties for production undertaken during the effective period of a conditional allowable but prior to the effective date of a unit order. [1] Anglo-Dutch Energy, L.L.C. , Anglo-Dutch Energy, L.L.C. , Anglo-Dutch Energy, L.L.C. ,
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. in unpaid royalties, plus an additional double damages penalty of $484,058.52.
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.
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). 11] The trial court also found that defendants failed to pay royalties in Section 15 and awarded Gloria’s Ranch the royalties owed plus punitive damages. [12]
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?
Part of the funding for Autazes will come from a royalty agreement with Franco Nevada. That is $1M for the option – the purchase price of the royalty will be based on a 12.5% There is also a 2% royalty that will be paid to the Brazilian government. pre-tax IRR at the time the option is exercised.
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.
The Eastland Court of Appeals addressed, for the first time, the interpretation of a double-fraction royalty reservation in light of Van Dyke. The case ( Boren Descendants v. centered on whether a 1933 deed reserved a floating 1/4 royalty interest or a fixed 1/32 interest. Fasken Oil & Ranch, Ltd. , LEXIS 8405, at *1 (Tex.
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