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
For Viper, it is a bit riskier as the buyer of assets, but it offers a big upside should oil and gas prices rise. Its royalty-focused, asset-light model stands out versus traditional E&Ps like Diamondback, offering high efficiency and lower risk. Weak natural gas prices ($2.08/Mcf
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 lessees owned working interests in certain oil and gas leases that were executed in 2007.
Accordingly, auditing of royalty payments was left to the Mineral Board’s internal accountants, and when an issue arose as to whether royalty payments were made correctly, the Mineral Board’s land personnel and internal counsel would oversee sending demands and pursuing litigation against the State’s mineral lessees and well operators.
(Oil & Gas 360) –MIDLAND, Texas, June 03, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Viper Energy, Inc. NASDAQ:FANG) (Diamondback), and Sitio Royalties Corp. NASDAQ:VNOM) (Viper or the Company), a subsidiary of Diamondback Energy, Inc. billion, including Sitios net debt of approximately $1.1 billion as of March 31, 2025.
In the context of antiquated oil and gas conveyances including a double fraction that includes “one-eighth,” the Court affirmed this principle by holding that such language gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that “one-eighth” refers to the entire mineral estate. Dils Co. , 2d 904 (Tex.
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 gasroyalties 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.
(Oil & Gas 360) – CanCambria Energy Corp. TSXV: CCEC ) ( FSE: 4JH ) is pleased to announce that it has been granted its first drilling permit from the Hungarian Mining Directorate for the CC- Ba-E-2 appraisal well at its 100% owned Kiskunhalas tight gas project in Hungarys Pannonian Basin. About CanCambria Energy Corp.
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.
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.
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
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. Related to royalty provisions are “free-use clauses” and “off-lease clauses.” Lessees often use gas produced from a leased premises to power those processes.
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.
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. In fact, there’s no deduction at all.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
In August 2018, dry natural gas production from the Haynesville shale averaged 6.774 billion cubic feet per day, which is the highest daily Haynesville production average since September 2012 when production averaged 6.962 billion cubic feet per day. El Paso E & P Co. , El Paso E & P Co. , August 2018 was not an anomaly.
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).
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? As I recently summarized in my annual oil and gas law review (Austin W. Brister & Logan Jones, Oil, Gas & Mineral Law, 9 SMU ANN. 3d 39 , 47 (Tex.
(Oil & Gas 360) – Publisher’s Note: EOG Resources will present at EneCom Denver – The Energy Investment Conference at the Westin Downtown , August 17-20, 2025. Register to attend. HOUSTON, May 30, 2025 /PRNewswire/ EOG Resources, Inc. ( billion, inclusive of EAPs net debt. billion of debt and $2.1
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?
(Oil & Gas 360) Publisher’s Note: Whitecap Resources will be presenting at the 30th Anniversary EnerCom Denver-The Energy Investment Conference at the Westin Denver Downtown on August 17-20, 2025. Under the terms of the Agreement, Veren shareholders will receive 1.05 common shares of Whitecap for each Veren common share held. .”
Formed during the Jurassic period, this geological formation has been tapped for oil and gas, as well as brine for production of bromine, since the 1950s. Recently, several operators have started pilot projects to produce lithium from Smackover brine as well. A brine extraction prospect would be very similar to an oil and gas prospect.
Title I addresses the existing moratoria, future OCS access, exploration, production and royalty questions. per MMBtu, unless lease royalties were renegotiated with the Secretary , imposes Conservation of Resources Fee on nonproducing lease acreage of $3.75 House of Representatives passed Speaker Pelosi’s Energy Bill, H.R.
Oil and gas related injection wells are considered Class II wells and are regulated by the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program within the Office of Conservation, which has achieved primary enforcement authority under the applicable federal guidelines. 30:1101-1111). Approval of a storage facility is not the creation of a unit.
The so called “Anadarko Washout” involves a washout of oil and gas leases on undivided working interests owned by non-operating mineral cotenants. Anadarko E & P Onshore, LLC, 676 S.W.3d Anadarko E& P Onshore, LLC, no. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., 3d 73, 93 (Tex. 3d 860 (Tex. —El Paso, 2023 pet.
1, 2024), the Fifth Circuit held that an oil-and-gasroyalties class action belongs in federal court based on its interpretation that the “principal injuries” prong of the CAFA local controversy exception requires all plaintiffs sustain their principal injuries in the forum state. As a matter of first impression, in Cheapside Mins.,
In the original Johnson decision, the district court sent shockwaves across the oil and gas industry in Louisiana by finding that post-production costs were not properly deductible against proceeds owed to unleased mineral owners. Chesapeake. BPX Operating Co.,
The CEQ report noted that royalty rate reduction credits for carbon capture could potentially create financial incentives for investment and recognized the need to address long-term liability after a storage site has been closed.
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. Marubeni Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. , Sojitz Energy Venture, Inc. Union Oil Co. of California , 394 F. 3d 687 (S.D.
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!
The Texas Supreme Court recently released its anticipated opinion in Eagle Oil & Gas Co. TRO-X”) and Eagle Oil & Gas Co. Eagle”) regarding their agreement to jointly acquire and sell oil and gas leases. In the first, Eagle Oil & Gas Co. TRO-X, L.P. , 18-0983, 2021 WL 1045723, at *1 (Tex. TRO-X, L.P. ,
The Texas Supreme Court recently released its anticipated opinion in Eagle Oil & Gas Co. TRO-X”) and Eagle Oil & Gas Co. Eagle”) regarding their agreement to jointly acquire and sell oil and gas leases. In the first, Eagle Oil & Gas Co. TRO-X, L.P. , 18-0983, 2021 WL 1045723, at *1 (Tex. TRO-X, L.P. ,
A recent decision from the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal may have lasting effects on good faith purchasers of oil. TMR Exploration, Inc , 2021 WL 267916, the First Circuit affirmed a district court ruling on summary judgment applying the good faith purchaser defense provision set forth in La.
1] The dispute in Johnson involved a group of unleased mineral owners (“UMOs”) who filed suit against a unit operator for deducting a litany of post-production costs against their share of production proceeds from an oil and gas unit in the Haynesville Shale. [2] Chesapeake Louisiana, LP. [1] 2] The UMOs argued that La. 8] However, La.
Importantly, the first resolution emphasizes “that the Temporary Moratorium and Resumption Period enacted by this Resolution do not allow an operator or lessee to fail to pay royalties if they continue to obtain production during these times. The Board approved two proposed resolutions (1. Proposed Enforcement Moratorium Resolution 2.
A recent decision from the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal may have lasting effects on good faith purchasers of oil. TMR Exploration, Inc , 2021 WL 267916, the First Circuit affirmed a district court ruling on summary judgment applying the good faith purchaser defense provision set forth in La.
American oil and gas producers may soon be poised to capitalize on this demand, as produced water from some areas contains appreciable levels of dissolved lithium. One such issue is the applicability of an oil, gas and mineral lease to the production and selling of lithium.
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] 1] In the case, an operator initiated a concursus action seeking to resolve ownership interest in minerals underlying property on which it was operating.
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.
The SCC Estimate assigned a dollar value on estimated global damages caused by every additional ton of greenhouse gas emitted into the atmosphere by using economic models that capture the impacts of climate change, including rising sea levels, changes to agricultural productivity, water shortages, property damages from increased flood risk, etc.
But the oil and gas industry stands to be impacted regardless of the election outcome in November, and those impacts will have wide-reaching effects on the U.S. But the oil and gas industry stands to be impacted regardless of the election outcome in November, and those impacts will have wide-reaching effects on the 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