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
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.
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.
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
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. That rationale led to the Court’s holding that the mere use of one-eighth in a double fraction is some evidence that the parties were operating under the estate misconception theory.
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
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 access to one of the largest natural gas reserves in the world, the region has seen hundreds of thousands of family-sustaining jobs created across sectors not only in drilling and pipeline operations, but also in manufacturing, construction, engineering, and local service industries. The program has provided $2.7
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.
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 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. ,
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.
operate the property leased as a reasonably prudent operator for the mutual benefit of himself and his lessor.” When the dispute involves the nonpayment of royalties, the renewable energy lessee would be afforded 30 days to pay the royalties or respond in writing stating a reasonable cause for nonpayment (compare to La.
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.
Like traditional exploration and development, CCUS projects require the operator to secure both the necessary private property rights from landowners as well as regulatory approval from the appropriate administrative agency in order to proceed. In addition to the unit order, the operator must receive approval for its injection wells.
Recently, several operators have started pilot projects to produce lithium from Smackover brine as well. The high lithium concentration in Smackover brines makes this formation the perfect target for operators looking to scale up these newer methods. A brine extraction prospect would be very similar to an oil and gas prospect.
For nearly three years, unit operators in Louisiana have waited to see whether the Western District of Louisiana would change course or double down on its March 2019 decision in Johnson v. BPX Operating Co., Chesapeake. The district court recognized this was a res nova issue for which there was no authority directly on point.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held that a unit operator may not recover post-production costs from an unleased mineral owner’s share of production proceeds in Allen Johnson, et al. 30:10 governed whether a unit operator may deduct post-production costs against UMO’s share of production proceeds. [3]
Another significant issue that will have to be addressed is the liability of operators and lessees or rights holders for potential leaks from offshore CCS projects. Interior is currently conducting ongoing research on various technical and operational issues associated with offshore CCS.
Last year, in another dispute over who should bear the cost of decommissioning offshore facilities, the Southern District of Texas held that a former sub-assignee of offshore operating rights was entitled to equitable subrogation from the record title owner and initial assignor. UNOCAL also reserved a 3% overriding royalty.
On appeal, the Amarillo Court of Appeals agreed with Red Deer, finding that BP could not invoke the lease’s shut-in royalty clause because production from the last well was so slow that production in paying quantities had ceased, and thus the lease terminated, prior to BP shutting the wells in and offering to pay shut-in royalties.
A special meeting of the Louisiana State Mineral and Energy Board was held on April 29, 2020, to address the impacts of both COVID-19 and historically low oil prices on operation and maintenance of Louisiana State Leases. The Board approved two proposed resolutions (1. Proposed Enforcement Moratorium Resolution 2.
T]he opinion will have a most chilling effect on the financing of oil and gas operations, which in turn will have an adverse economic effect on government and business in our state. Tauren Exploration, Inc. , A detailed summary of that decision is available here. Chief Judge Henry Brown, Jr.,
At issue in Southwest Royalties, Inc. Liskow & Lewis attorneys Butch Marseglia and Jillian Marullo submitted an amicus brief in Southwest Royalties on behalf of EOG Resources, Inc.
The Hills claim that TMR, and its successor operators, produced and sold minerals from underneath their property without their knowledge or consent. The Hills later added claims against Sunoco, who was the purchaser of oil produced by TMR and the other operators. 31:210 did not apply, and that the Hills’ argument that La.
The Hills claim that TMR, and its successor operators, produced and sold minerals from underneath their property without their knowledge or consent. The Hills later added claims against Sunoco, who was the purchaser of oil produced by TMR and the other operators. 31:210 did not apply, and that the Hills’ argument that La.
But Giustra brought in a new operating team, and led the initial finance rounds into West Red Lake Gold Mines (WRLG-TSX) —and now, VOILA—they just announced commercial production. So the government needs all the employment, taxes and royalties from this asset. So it’s a known, simple type of asset. Drill core samples (HQ: 63.5
4] As it becomes faster and more efficient to extract lithium from lower-concentration oilfield brines, oil and gas operators will find themselves increasingly capable of entering the booming lithium marketplace in the next few years. New technologies aimed at overcoming current issues with extracting lithium from brine are in development. [4]
The closing hours of the 57th Session of the New Mexico Legislature found oil and gas advocates engaging in an intense effort to protect the industry from proposals that would have increased regulations and costs for operators, many with little to no benefit to the people or environment of New Mexico, let alone the industry. 137, and H.B.
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.
By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site.
By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site.
By using this blog site you understand and acknowledge that there is no attorney client relationship formed between you and Liskow & Lewis and/or the individual Liskow & Lewis lawyers posting to this site by virtue of your using this site.
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.
98 
Let's personalize your content