Louisiana Amends La. Rs. 30:10 Non-Consent Law
The Governor has signed into law an amendment to Louisiana's forced pooling statute, 30:10.
This is the statute that provides for forced pooling of non-consenting Working Interests (WI) and Unleased Mineral Interests (UMI). The amended statute showing changes is attached.
The key substantive change is that a WI owner who non-consents will now be forwarded the royalty he owes under the terms of his lease (or the average royalty of the unit, whichever is less) which he is then obligated to forward to the royalty owner. Prior to this change, the WI owner would get nothing from the operator, and would have to pay the royalties out of pocket. Needless to say, this was a substantial incentive to the WI owner to make a deal, because he would get sued when he most likely failed to pay that royalty.
This situation appears much more just to the unsuspecting royalty owner who leased to the wrong party. Instead of getting no royalty and some legal bills, they will now get most or all of the royalty they are owed. The WI owner still gets a 200% risk charge after payout, and the UMI still has no risk charge.
Views: 6510
- Attachments:
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by 1kw6x71km1v37 on
-
A UMI has no intent to tort, and does not do anything, nullifying any claim of negligence, so there should be no cause of action against a UMI. Under the legal doctrine of mandate, the Commissioner would be liable first anyway. I don't think that is going to happen anytime soon. JMHO.
-
-
post failed
-
-
RB Dunlap,
That's it!
Gulf Explorer vs. Clayton Williams Energy 964 So.2d 1042
The court failed to recognize the legal absurdity of drilling and development operations authorized by a lessor not being paid royalty from those very operations.
Royalty (thanks, IRS) is a rent. Everyone knows what happens when the rent isn't paid. Eviction is imminent. Yet, Louisiana law will only cancel the lease under the direst of circumstances, after the longest of times. This is hell on the impecunious landowner ill equipped to fight Big Oil to the bone.
This strikes me as an unconstitutional restraint of the freedom to contract under Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, albeit now protected mostly by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
You write a contract of lease requiring payment in so many days of the operator is in default for non-payment of royalties, he should be terminated upon default, or at your discretion. It's really none of the State's business.
Of course, now it's different with the statutory changes. Been a long time coming.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Blog Posts
The Lithium Connection to Shale Drilling
Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…
ContinuePosted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
Franklin County, Texas
9 members
-
Cass County, TX
120 members
-
Rusk County
97 members
-
Livingston Parish, LA
34 members
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Miller County, Arkansas
27 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
South Caddo Parish Group
440 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
244 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
