Justia Energy, Oil & Gas Law Opinion Summaries

A Barbados-based company acquired an 18 percent share in a Venezuelan oil company, alongside two state-owned shareholders. When dividends were distributed in 2008 and 2009, the state-owned entities received their share, but the Barbados-based company did not. In 2013, the company initiated arbitration proceedings against Venezuela in The Hague, seeking damages for not receiving its dividends. The arbitral tribunal, after a jurisdictional and merits phase, eventually awarded the company $59 million plus costs, fees, and interest. During the proceedings, a dispute arose about which government and legal counsel represented Venezuela, given the contested presidency between Nicolás Maduro and Juan Guaidó.The company sought to enforce the arbitration award in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Venezuela argued that enforcement would violate U.S. public policy by contradicting the U.S. President’s official recognition of the Guaidó government, as the tribunal had allowed the Maduro regime to change legal counsel during the arbitration. The district court rejected Venezuela’s argument, concluding that the President’s recognition power was not a cognizable public policy under the New York Convention, and even if it were, enforcement would not violate it. The court granted the company’s petition to enforce the award.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that none of the exceptions in the New York Convention, including the public policy exception, applied to prevent recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award. The court found that enforcing the award did not undermine the President’s exclusive recognition power or express any view on the legitimacy of either Venezuelan government, and thus did not violate fundamental U.S. public policy. View "Venezuela US SRL v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela" on Justia Law

At an oil and gas wellsite in Texas, a contractor, TCP Specialists, LLC, provided wireline services alongside other companies that managed the well’s pressure and equipment. During a maintenance operation, a pressurized pipe ruptured while the well was being depressurized, causing fatal injuries to two workers and serious injury to a TCP employee. Although TCP did not control the depressurization or supply the faulty pipe, its employees were standing near the wellhead at the time of the accident. The Department of Labor alleged that TCP exposed its employees to known hazards by not establishing a buffer zone around the well during depressurization.An administrative law judge (ALJ) of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission held a hearing and found that TCP had violated the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The ALJ determined that TCP had control over its employees’ proximity to the hazard and that a buffer zone would have been a feasible and effective abatement measure. The ALJ concluded that TCP failed to implement adequate safety policies and upheld the citation, imposing a penalty. The full Commission declined to review the ALJ’s decision, making it a final order.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed TCP’s petition and denied it. The court held that the hazard was properly defined by reference to the physical agents (the frac stack and pressurized piping) and that TCP had control over its employees’ exposure to that hazard. The court found substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s conclusions regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of a buffer zone, and rejected TCP’s constitutional and procedural arguments. The order upholding the citation and penalty was affirmed. View "TCP Specialists, LLC v. Secretary of Labor" on Justia Law

SWN Production Company, LLC sought to drill multiple horizontal natural gas wells on a 301-acre tract within the City of Weirton, West Virginia. The City required a conditional use permit for oil and gas extraction under its zoning ordinance. SWN applied for such a permit, and the City’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) held hearings where community members raised concerns about traffic, noise, and the effect on local development. The BZA denied SWN’s application, citing incompatibility with the City’s comprehensive development plan and other adverse impacts. Afterward, SWN obtained a drilling permit from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).SWN filed two actions in the Circuit Court of Brooke County: a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the BZA’s decision and a complaint seeking a declaration that the City’s zoning ordinance was preempted by state law, especially the Natural Gas Horizontal Well Control Act. The circuit court rejected SWN’s preemption argument and affirmed the BZA’s denial of the permit. SWN appealed both rulings to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia (ICA). The ICA reversed the circuit court on the preemption issue, finding the City’s ordinance conflicted with state law, but dismissed SWN’s appeal of the certiorari ruling for lack of jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed both appeals. It held that there was no irreconcilable conflict between the City’s zoning ordinance and the state’s environmental statutes; rather, any overlap was incidental and not preempted. The Court reversed the ICA’s decision on preemption and reinstated the circuit court’s order dismissing SWN’s facial preemption challenge. Regarding the certiorari appeal, the Court affirmed the ICA’s dismissal, holding that the ICA lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review extraordinary remedies such as certiorari. View "City of Weirton v. SWN Production Company, LLC" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on land in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, owned by a public entity, where oil and gas exploration occurred for decades under a mineral lease originally granted in 1943. The plaintiff acquired several tracts of this land between 1968 and 1987, with prior owners reserving mineral rights. The mineral lease was assigned multiple times before terminating in 2020. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants, or their predecessors, caused environmental damage to the property through oil and gas operations predating the plaintiff’s ownership, and sought damages under both tort and contract theories.Defendants filed exceptions of no right of action, arguing that under the “subsequent purchaser rule” articulated in Eagle Pipe and Supply, Inc. v. Amerada Hess Corp., a property owner cannot recover for damage inflicted before their purchase unless assigned the prior owner’s rights. The trial court denied these exceptions. On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, reversed in part. It dismissed all claims against one defendant (Honeywell) for preacquisition damage, and limited claims against the other (Texas Pacific) to an 87-day period when both the plaintiff and Texas Pacific’s predecessor simultaneously held interests in one tract.The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted review. It extended the subsequent purchaser rule from Eagle Pipe to cases involving mineral leases, holding that a purchaser of property, absent an assignment or subrogation, has no right of action for preacquisition property damage caused by mineral lessees. However, the court recognized an exception for damages occurring during the period when the plaintiff owned the property and the defendant held lease rights. Additionally, the court held that a current surface owner may enforce the prudent operator standard under Mineral Code article 122 for end-of-lease obligations that become due upon termination, but not for historic operational damage. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "VINTON HARBOR & TERMINAL DISTRICT VS. REUNION ENERGY COMPANY" on Justia Law

ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., an oil and gas producer, conducted drilling operations in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, a federal property located within the territorial bounds of Alaska. As required by federal lease terms and the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, ConocoPhillips submitted well data to the U.S. Department of the Interior. To comply with Alaska law, it also submitted a subset of that data to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Alaska law requires such well data to be kept confidential for 24 months, after which it must be disclosed to the public unless certain additional confidentiality conditions are met. ConocoPhillips sought to prevent the Commission from releasing this data, citing concerns about the loss of trade secrets.After the Alaska Department of Natural Resources denied ConocoPhillips’s request to extend the confidentiality period, ConocoPhillips filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Commission’s motion to dismiss, granted partial summary judgment to ConocoPhillips, and entered final judgment in its favor. The district court concluded that while the federal Production Act did not expressly preempt Alaska law, it did impliedly preempt the state’s disclosure provision because releasing the data would conflict with the purposes of the federal statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and reversed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the Production Act does not expressly preempt Alaska’s disclosure statute, nor do Department of the Interior regulations do so. The court also found there was no implied preemption, as the Production Act does not demonstrate a congressional intent that would be obstructed by Alaska’s law. Thus, Alaska’s disclosure requirements were not preempted by federal law. View "CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA, INC. V. ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION" on Justia Law

Oak Run Solar Project, L.L.C. sought approval from the Ohio Power Siting Board to construct a solar-powered electric generation facility in Madison County, Ohio. The proposed facility would occupy approximately 4,400 acres and include an 800 MW solar array, a 300 MW battery energy storage system, and two transmission lines. Oak Run entered agreements with landowners for the project site and committed to an agrivoltaics program, maintaining agricultural productivity alongside solar generation. Local governments and other parties intervened, raising concerns about environmental, visual, water, plant, wildlife, and safety impacts. The board’s staff issued a report, and a hearing was held, resulting in project approval subject to conditions for landscape screening and safety.Prior to reaching the Supreme Court of Ohio, the Ohio Power Siting Board considered Oak Run’s application and allowed intervenors, including several township boards and the county board of commissioners, to participate. After a hearing and review, the board granted Oak Run’s certificate for construction, finding the statutory requirements satisfied and imposing conditions related to visual screening and emergency response. The local governments filed an application for rehearing, which was denied. They then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, arguing the board failed to obtain necessary information, especially regarding visual impacts and environmental effects.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case, applying a standard of review for “unlawful or unreasonable” board orders. The court held that Oak Run failed to provide required photographic simulations or sketches of substations, as mandated by administrative rules, thereby depriving the board of necessary information to assess visual impacts. The court affirmed the board’s orders in part, reversed in part regarding the visual-impact information, and remanded the matter to the board for further consideration of the project’s visual effects. View "In re Application of Oak Run Solar Project, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Maryland enacted legislation regulating how retail electricity suppliers may market “green power” to consumers, seeking to address concerns that consumers were misled by claims about renewable energy. The statute prohibits suppliers from using terms such as “clean,” “green,” or “100% renewable” unless at least 51% of the energy is backed by renewable energy credits (RECs) from within a specific regional grid (the PJM region). Additionally, suppliers are required to include disclosures explaining the nature of RECs and their relationship to renewable electricity, with the exact disclosure language later specified by the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC).Retail Energy Advancement League and Green Mountain Energy Company brought a facial First Amendment challenge against these provisions and sought a preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The district court denied the injunction, applying intermediate scrutiny to the speech restriction and concluding that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on the merits. The court also found that the statute’s disclosure requirements likely survived constitutional review.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success in showing the speech restriction was unconstitutional even under intermediate scrutiny, because the restriction did not materially advance Maryland’s asserted interest in preventing consumer deception and was not adequately tailored. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction as to the speech restriction and ordered an injunction against enforcement of that provision. However, regarding the compelled disclosure requirement, the Fourth Circuit remanded the case for the district court to review the constitutionality of the new PSC-promulgated disclosure language in the first instance. View "Retail Energy Advancement League v. Brown" on Justia Law

A group of affiliated energy companies brought a civil case in North Dakota against several environmental organizations and individuals, alleging a coordinated campaign—sometimes involving unlawful acts—targeted at their pipeline operations. After six years of litigation, a three-week jury trial resulted in a unanimous verdict for the energy companies, awarding over $130 million in compensatory and exemplary damages against one defendant, Greenpeace International, and over $666 million against all Greenpeace entities combined. The jury found Greenpeace International liable for conspiracy, defamation, defamation per se, and tortious interference, but not for property-related torts.While the North Dakota case was pending, Greenpeace International initiated legal proceedings in the Netherlands, seeking relief under Dutch and European anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) laws. The Dutch action alleged, among other things, that the North Dakota suit was a SLAPP case and sought to declare it “manifestly unfounded,” potentially undermining the North Dakota verdict. The energy companies sought an antisuit injunction in North Dakota District Court to prevent Greenpeace International from proceeding with the Dutch litigation. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that the Dutch and North Dakota cases involved different issues because anti-SLAPP actions are not recognized under North Dakota law, and thus did not meet the threshold for an antisuit injunction. The district court also found that the Dutch action was not vexatious, did not threaten North Dakota policy, and did not implicate comity concerns.On review, the Supreme Court of North Dakota determined that the district court abused its discretion by misapplying the legal framework for antisuit injunctions. The Supreme Court held that the issues in both cases were substantially similar, as the Dutch action, as pleaded, would require relitigating questions already decided by the North Dakota jury. The Court adopted a “conservative” approach to comity, weighing respect for foreign tribunals against the need to protect the integrity of state proceedings. The Supreme Court granted the petition for a supervisory writ and remanded the case, directing the district court to enter a narrowly tailored antisuit injunction preventing Greenpeace International from pursuing any Dutch claims that would require a finding that the North Dakota case lacked legal foundation, while permitting claims based on matters not adjudicated in North Dakota. View "Energy Transfer v. Gion" on Justia Law

Several individuals who own royalty interests in the Kansas Hugoton Gas Field brought a putative class action against two energy companies. Their claims are based on an alleged breach of a 2008 class action settlement agreement, which had resolved earlier disputes about underpayment of royalties by one of the companies. The 2008 settlement required limits on certain deductions from royalty payments and specified that its terms would bind successors, assigns, and related entities. In 2014, one defendant acquired assets from the other and continued making royalty payments. Plaintiffs allege the acquiring company violated the settlement by taking improper deductions after the acquisition.The plaintiffs initially sought to enforce the settlement in Kansas state court, but the District Court of Stevens County determined the judgment had become dormant and unenforceable. Plaintiffs appealed that ruling, and while the appeal was pending, they filed this federal class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The district court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss but later denied class certification. The district court found that the proposed class was not ascertainable because identifying class members would require individualized title review and that other Rule 23 requirements were not satisfied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The appellate court clarified that, under its recent precedent, class ascertainability does not require administrative feasibility—only an objectively and clearly defined class. The court found the proposed class ascertainable, that common questions predominated, and that the plaintiffs satisfied all Rule 23 requirements. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of class certification and remanded with instructions to certify the putative class. View "Rider v. Oxy USA" on Justia Law

A private company specializing in the disposal of wastewater from oil and gas fracking leased land in an urban area and constructed two saltwater-injection wells. After two earthquakes were recorded near the wells, the State of Ohio determined the company’s activities caused the seismic events and temporarily suspended operations at both wells. One well was later permitted to resume limited operations, but the suspension of the second well remained until 2021. The company had been aware of seismicity risks before acquiring its leasehold and warned investors of possible regulatory shutdowns.After the suspension, the company pursued administrative and judicial challenges, including an appeal to the Ohio Oil and Gas Commission and the Tenth District Court of Appeals, both of which upheld the State’s actions. The company then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Eleventh District Court of Appeals, claiming a regulatory taking of its property. The Eleventh District initially denied relief, but following multiple remands from the Supreme Court of Ohio, it ultimately found no total taking but did find a compensable partial regulatory taking under the Penn Central analysis, ordering the State to initiate eminent-domain proceedings.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed whether the suspension order constituted a total or partial regulatory taking. The court held that the company failed to prove it was deprived of all economically beneficial use, rejecting the total taking claim. The court further held that, under a proper balancing of the Penn Central factors, the State’s actions did not amount to a compensable partial taking. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Eleventh District’s denial of the total takings claim, reversed its partial takings finding, and denied the writ of mandamus. View "State ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C. v. Mertz" on Justia Law