Justia Energy, Oil & Gas Law Opinion Summaries

Come Big or Stay Home, LLC (CBSH) appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of EOG Resources, Inc. dismissing its claims for refusing to provide it with oil and gas well information unless CBSH agreed to not disclose the information to third parties without EOG's consent. EOG owned and developed oil and gas interests in North Dakota and has drilled and operated numerous oil and gas wells in the state. CBSH owned mineral or leasehold interests in the state, including interests in spacing units where wells have been drilled and operated by EOG. In late 2008, EOG sent CBSH an invitation to participate in drilling a horizontal oil and gas well in Mountrail County, ending with a joint operating agreement (JOA) for that well. CBSH refused to execute subsequent JOAs for several additional wells. After each refusal by CBSH to execute a JOA, EOG sent letters to CBSH explaining it was willing to provide well information to CBSH if it would agree to the nondisclosure provision contained in the JOA. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, concluding as a matter of law that CBSH's theories of recovery were not viable under the circumstances. View "Come Big or Stay Home, LLC v. EOG Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a dispute between Ghana and Balkan Energy Company where Balkan contracted with Ghana to refurbish and recommission a 125 megawatt power barge. Ghana filed an application for discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782, seeking documents exchanged in a separate lawsuit between the current defendants. The district court granted Ghana's application and ordered the Missouri companies (collectively ProEnergy) to produce documents. ProEnergy produced some documents and discovery materials from its lawsuit with Balkan, but it refused other documents related to the settlement of that lawsuit. Because ProEnergy had already produced most of the documents, depositions, and interrogatory answers from its lawsuit with Balkan, and because ProEnergy was not party to the foreign litigation, the court was not persuaded that any fundamental unfairness was caused by the district court declining to compel production of the settlement documents. Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision. View "Government of Ghana v. ProEnergy Services, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

Ballard, successor in interest to Kilroy, sued Devon, successor in interest to Wise Oil, for breach of a provision in an American Association of Petroleum Land Men (AAPL) Model Form Operating Agreement (Operating Agreement) that was an exhibit to and incorporated by reference in a May 1971 Farmout Agreement (collectively, Joint Operating Agreement or JOA) between Kilroy and Wise Oil. Ballard's lawsuit turned on the interpretation of one sentence in the multi-paragraph "Area of Mutual Interest" (AMI) provision of the Operating Agreement. The court held that, because the entire AMI provision - including its acquisition provisions and its surrender provisions - expired before the claims asserted by Ballard arose, Devon had not breached its contract with Ballard, and the district court's summary judgment was proper. View "Ballard v. Devon Louisiana Corp." on Justia Law

In 1983, Congress enacted the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 10101-10270, authorizing the Department of Energy to enter into contracts with nuclear facilities for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste (HLW). Congress mandated that, under the Standard Contract, DOE dispose of SNF and HLW beginning not later than January 31, 1998. In 1983, DOE entered into a Standard Contract with Consolidated Edison under which DOE agreed to accept SNF stored at the Indian Point facility. Following DOE’s breach, the Claims Court awarded two categories of damages: wet storage costs for continued operation of its Unit 1 spent fuel pool and regulatory fees paid to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Federal Circuit reversed the awards, affirmed denial of damages for the cost of financing mitigation activities, but reversed denial of damages for indirect overhead costs associated with mitigation. The company had chosen to prioritize removal of Unit 2 SNF and Unit 1 material would not have been removed by the time at issue; the company did not establish that the breach caused an increase in fees to the NRC. View "Consol. Edison Co. of NY, Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law

John and Minerva Sutherland entered into a mining lease granting Meridian Granite Company the right to conduct mining operations on the Sutherlands' property. A dispute developed between the Sutherlands and Meridian regarding the Sutherlands' obligation to pay taxes relating to the mineral production. The dispute led to litigation. The district court granted Meridian's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Sutherlands were obligated to pay the disputed taxes. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in allowing Meridian to deduct ad valorem and severance taxes from payments to the Sutherlands when such tax payments were not required by the State, as the Sutherlands and Meridian agreed in the mining lease that the Sutherlands would pay the taxes. View "Sutherland v. Meridian Granite Co." on Justia Law

In addition to about $4 million invested through his family corporation, Nonneman personally invested about $15 million in OKO for domestic oil and gas exploration, although he had no experience in such businesses, was showing signs of dementia, and suffered disabilities. In 2003, Nolfi assumed management of Nonneman’s affairs and it was apparent that the OKO investments would yield no returns. Of 128 wells, only 11 produced oil, and did not produce enough to recoup the investment. Nolfi filed suit in Ohio state court and learned facts that gave rise to federal and state securities claims. He filed in federal court, alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 77l(a)(1); violations of the Ohio Blue Sky laws by the sale of unregistered securities; federal securities fraud; misrepresentation; common law fraud; breach of fiduciary duties; and breach of contract. The cases were consolidated and, after complicated rulings concerning limitations periods, the district court entered judgment for Nonneman. Despite having stated rescissory damages as more than $7 million, the jury only listed an award of $1,777,909 on its verdict form. The court held that plaintiffs had waived their right to challenge the verdict. Sixth Circuit affirmed.View "Nolfi v. OH KY Oil Corp." on Justia Law

Nonneman, acting through Fencorp, a family investment corporation, invested $3,980,345.50 in OKO for domestic oil and gas exploration, although he had no experience in such businesses, was showing signs of dementia, and suffered disabilities. In 2003, Nolfi assumed management of Nonneman’s affairs and it was apparent that the OKO investments would yield no returns. Of 128 wells, only 11 produced oil, and did not produce enough to recoup the investment. Nolfi filed suit in Ohio state court. During discovery plaintiffs learned facts indicating federal and state securities violations and filed in federal court, alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77l(a)(1); violations of the Ohio Blue Sky laws by the sale of unregistered securities; federal securities fraud; common law fraud; misrepresentation; breach of fiduciary duties; and breach of contract. After a complicated set of rulings, the district court awarded Fencorp $1,012,835.50, the maximum not barred by the statute of repose. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part, upholding rulings concerning the statute of repose, but setting aside the verdict on the state common law fraud claim and directing reinstatement of the verdict on the federal securities claim ($847,858). View "Fencorp Co. v. OH KY Oil Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the doctrine of "contra non valentem" applied to suspend a ten year liberative prescriptive period applicable to an action by a mineral interest owner against the operator of a unit well who failed to pay the owner share of the proceeds for mineral production. Plaintiff James Wells filed suit after being contacted by a landman concerning leasing of his mineral interest in lands inherited from his parents. In the 1950s, Plaintiff's parents sold the land but reserved the mineral interests. Plaintiff's mother executed a mineral lease which was released a few years later because the well drilled resulted in a dry hole. However, the landowners executed their own mineral lease, which achieved production in 1965, and continued producing until 2007. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants Donald Zadeck and Zadeck Energy Group and several other companies who were allegedly conducting oil and gas exploration and production activities from his unleased unitized acreage without tendering to him (or his parents) their rightful share of proceeds from the production. In response, Zadeck filed a Peremptory Exception of Prescription, urging that Plaintiff's claim to recover payments was a quasi contract that prescribed ten years from Zadeck's successor's cessation of involvement with the "dry hole." Plaintiff argued that the doctrine of "contra non valentem" applied to suspend the running of prescription since he had no knowledge of the existence of the mineral interests or production until December 2008. Plaintiff contended that his ignorance was not attributable to any fault of his own, and he clearly exercised due diligence in discovering the relevant facts once he learned from the landman that he owned the mineral interests. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the doctrine of contra non valentem applied to suspend the running of prescription because the mineral interest owners did not know nor reasonably should they have known of the mineral production until December 2008. View "Wells v. Zadeck Energy Group" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court was the determination of the proper test for evaluating whether an oil or gas lease has produced "in paying quantities," as first discussed "Young v. Forest Oil Co.," (194 Pa. 243, 45 A. 1 (1899)). Appellant Ann Jedlicka owned a parcel of land consisting of approximately 70 acres. The Jedlicka tract is part of a larger tract of land consisting of approximately 163 acres, which was conveyed to Samuel Findley and David Findley by deed dated 1925. In 1928, the Findleys conveyed to T.W. Phillips Gas and Oil Co. an oil and gas lease covering all 163 acres of the Findley property which included the Jedlicka tract. The lease contained a habendum clause which provided for drilling and operating for oil and gas on the property so long as it was produced in "paying quantities." Notably, the term "in paying quantities" was not defined in the lease. Subsequently, the Findley property was subdivided and sold, including the Jedlicka tract, subject to the Findley lease. A successor to T.W. Philips, PC Exploration made plans to drill more wells on the Jedlicka tract. Jedlicka objected to construction of the new wells, claiming that W.W. Philips failed to maintain production "in paying quantities" under the Findley lease, and as a result, the lease lapsed and terminated. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court held that when production on a well has been marginal or sporadic, such that for some period profits did not exceed operating costs, the phrase "in paying quantities" must be construed with reference to an operator's good faith judgment. Furthermore, the Court found the lower courts considered the operator's good faith judgment in concluding the oil and gas lease at issue in the instant case has produced in paying quantities, the Court affirmed the order of the Superior Court which upheld the trial court's ruling in favor of T.W. Phillips Gas and Oil Co. and PC Exploration, Inc. View "T.W. Phillips Gas and Oil Co. v. Jedlicka" on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute over operation of an Exxon gas station located next to the Watergate in Washington, D.C. Metroil sued Exxon and Anacostia, claiming three violations of federal and D.C. law relating to the sale of the station by Exxon to Anacostia. The court concluded that the Retail Service Station Amendment Act of 2009, D.C. Code 36-304.12(a), did not take effect until after Exxon's sale to Anacostia and the law therefore did not give Metroil a right of first refusal in this case. Because it was undisputed that Metroil still operates the gas station, buys and sells Exxon fuel, and uses the Exxon trademark, the franchise relationship has continued. Therefore, Metroil's Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 2802, claim was properly dismissed. All of the burdens and risks alleged by Metroil were permitted by the original contract and were not attributable to the assignment. Therefore, the court rejected Metroil's claims that Exxon violated the D.C. Code's prohibition against contract assignments that materially increased the burden or risk on the non-assigning party. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Metroil, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp., et al." on Justia Law