Justia Energy, Oil & Gas Law Opinion Summaries

Lion Oil, a small Arkansas refinery, petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency for an exemption from the 2013 Renewable Fuel Standard program, 42 U.S.C. 7545(o), under which refineries must blend their share of renewable fuel or buy credits from those who exceed blending requirements. Congress exempted “small” refineries—75,000 barrels of crude oil or less per day—from RFS obligations until 2011. The exemption can be extended. Lion cited disruption to a key supply pipeline and argued that RFS compliance would cause disproportionate economic hardship. Before EPA considered the petition, the Department of Energy determined that Lion Oil did not score high enough on the viability index to show disproportionate economic hardship. EPA “independently” analyzed the pipeline disruption and Lion Oil’s blending capacity, projected RFS-compliance costs, and financial position. EPA denied the petition. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, first holding that it could consider the matter because EPA had not “published” a determination of nationwide scope or effect. The denial was not arbitrary or inadequately explained. View "Lion Oil Co. v. Envt'l Protction Agency" on Justia Law

The City of Osceola purchases wholesale energy from Entergy Arkansas under an agreement filed with and approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Osceola sued Entergy in Arkansas state court, seeking reimbursement for charges allegedly in violation of their agreement. Entergy removed the case to the federal district court which denied Osceola's motion to remand, granted summary judgment to the defendant energy providers, and dismissed the case. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that FERC has primary jurisdiction to determine the appropriate treatment of the bandwidth payments under the parties' agreement. View "City of Osceola v. Entergy Ark., Inc." on Justia Law

The lessee-operator of twenty-five oil and gas leases sold its raw natural gas at the wellhead to third parties, who processed the gas before it entered the interstate pipeline system. The price the operator was paid, and the price upon which royalties were calculated, was based on a formula that starts with the price the third parties received for the processed gas and then deducts certain costs incurred or adjustments made. At issue here was whether the operator may take into account the deductions and adjustments identified in the third-party purchase agreements when calculating royalties. The class of royalty owners in this case argued that post-production, post-sale expenses necessary to transform natural gas into the quality required for interstate pipeline transmission were attributable solely to the operator as part of the operator’s sole responsibility to make the gas marketable. The district court grand summary judgment in favor of the class for an as-yet undetermined amount of unpaid royalties. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the class was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the duty to make gas marketable is satisfied when the operator delivers the gas to the purchaser in a condition acceptable to the purchaser in a good faith transaction. View "Fawcett v. Oil Producers, Inc. of Kan." on Justia Law

WesternGeco’s patents relate to technologies used to search for oil and gas beneath the ocean floor. Ships tow long streamers equipped with sensors. An airgun bounces sound waves off of the ocean floor. The sensors pick up the returning sound waves and create a map of the subsurface geology to aid in identifying drilling locations. The streamers can be miles long and can tangle or drift apart, resulting in distorted maps. The patents relate to controlling the streamers and sensors in relation to each other by using winged positioning devices and generating four-dimensional maps with which it is possible to see changes in the seabed over time. WesternGeco manufactures the Q-Marine, and performs surveys for oil companies. ION manufactures the DigiFIN, and sells to its customers, who perform surveys for oil companies. WesternGeco filed suit. A jury found infringement and no invalidity and awarded $93,400,000 in lost profits and $12,500,000 in reasonable royalties. The Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that WesternGeco was not the owner of the patents and lacked standing and that the court applied an incorrect standard under 35 U.S.C. 271(f)(1). The court upheld denial of enhanced damages for willful infringement and reversed the award of lost profits resulting from conduct occurring abroad. View "WesternGeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs own mineral interests in Chalybeat Springs and granted 21 oil and gas leases based on those interests. EnerQuest and BP America are the lessees. The property interests in Chalybeat, including the leases at issue, are subject to a Unit Agreement that establishes how the oil and gas extracted from certain formations will be divided and provides for a unit operator with the exclusive right to develop the oil and gas resources described in the Unit Agreement. In the late 1990s, PetroQuest became the operator of the Chalybeat Unit. Unhappy with the level of extraction, lessors filed suit against EnerQuest and BP, seeking partial cancellation of the oil and gas leases on the ground that EnerQuest and BP breached implied covenants in the leases to develop the oil and gas minerals. The district court granted the companies’ motion for summary judgment, reasoning that the lessors had not provided EnerQuest and BP with required notice and opportunity to cure a breach. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the plaintiffs’ earlier effort to dissolve the Chalybeat Unit constituted notice. View "Lewis v. Enerquest Oil & Gas, LLC" on Justia Law

The Clean Air Act (CAA) directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from stationary sources, such as refineries and factories, 42 U.S.C. 7412; it may regulate power plants under this program only if it concludes that “regulation is appropriate and necessary” after studying hazards to public health. EPA found power-plant regulation “appropriate” because power plant emissions pose risks to public health and the environment and because controls capable of reducing these emissions were available. It found regulation “necessary” because other CAA requirements did not eliminate those risks. EPA estimated that the cost of power plant regulation would be $9.6 billion a year, but that quantifiable benefits from the reduction in hazardous-air-pollutant emissions would be $4-$6 million a year. The D. C. Circuit upheld EPA’s refusal to consider costs. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. EPA interpreted section 7412(n)(1)(A) unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to the decision to regulate power plants. “’Appropriate and necessary’ is a capacious phrase.” It is not rational, nor “appropriate,” to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. That other CAA provisions expressly mention cost indicates that section 7412(n)(1)(A)’s broad reference to appropriateness encompasses multiple relevant factors, including cost. The possibility of considering cost at a later stage, when deciding how much to regulate power plants, does not establish its irrelevance at the earlier stage. Although the CAA makes cost irrelevant to the initial decision to regulate sources other than power plants, the point of having a separate provision for power plants was to treat power plants differently. EPA must decide how to account for cost. View "Michigan v. Envtl. Prot. Agency" on Justia Law

In 2009, Appellants acquired by way of a deed the surface rights to certain land in Harrison County. The deed did not convey to Appellants all of the mineral rights underlying their surface property. But after an oil and gas company inquired about leasing the mineral rights to the land, Appellants initiated procedures under the Dormant Mineral Act to have the mineral interests deemed abandoned and vested in them along with their surface ownership. Less than one month after Appellants published a notice of abandonment of the mineral interests underlying their property, John Croskey recorded a quitclaim deed for mineral interests underlying the property. The trial court determined that the Croskey affidavit preserved the mineral-rights holders’ interests for purposes of the Dormant Mineral Act and thus concluded that Appellants could not establish a claim for the abandonment of the oil and gas rights underlying their surface property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a mineral-interest holder’s claim to preserve filed pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code 5301.56(H)(1)(a) is sufficient to preclude the mineral interests from being deemed abandoned if filed within sixty days after notice of the surface owner’s intent to declare those interests abandoned. View "Dodd v. Croskey" on Justia Law

Under Pub. Util. Code 1701(a)1, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC ) promulgated Rule 1.1, stating: Any person who . . . transacts business with the Commission . . . agrees . . . never to mislead the Commission or its staff by an artifice or false statement of fact or law. After a massive 2010 explosion of an underground gas pipeline owned and operated by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), the PUC imposed reforms, including requiring that PG&E improve its recordkeeping and information technology capabilities. PG&E was directed to keep the PUC informed of any reported pipeline leaks and any discovered information regarding the safety of pipeline operations. Following discovery of a pipeline leak, PG&E also discovered that some information it had provided to the PUC concerning the internal pressure at which certain pipelines could be safely operated might not be correct. About seven months after internally verifying the information, PG&E, communicated to the PUC via a written “Errata”‖ to a previous filing. Following extensive hearings, the PUC deemed this filing both a substantive and a procedural violation and imposed civil penalties totaling $14,350,000. The court of appeal affirmed, finding that the penalties were not grossly disproportional to the gravity of PG&E‘s tardiness. View "Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm'n" on Justia Law

Kern River and the Shippers seek review of seven orders issued by FERC during rate proceedings. The Shippers ship natural gas using Kern River's pipeline. The court concluded that the Commission complied with the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717c, and the court's precedents; the Commission responded meaningfully to petitioners’ objections and articulated a rational explanation for its decisions under the particularly deferential standard of review the court applied to ratemaking decisions; and therefore, the court denied the petitions for review. View "Aera Energy LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

In a 1996 purchase and sale agreement Torch Energy Advisors Inc. sold its leasehold interests in undeveloped oil and gas fields located under federal waters. Certain interests were excluded from the conveyance. A decade later, a federal court determined that the federal government had repudiated the mineral leases because a statute enacted before the conveyance had been applied in a manner that precluded development of the leasehold interests. Consequently, the purchaser’s successor in interest, Plains Exploration & Production Company, was awarded restitution of the lease-bonus payments that Torch’s predecessor had paid to secure the leases. Torch claimed an ownership interest in approximately half of the judgment based on the terms of the excluded-assets provision in the 1996 agreement. Plains declined to pay. Torch sued, alleging contract and equitable theories of recovery. The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment in Plains’s favor. The court of appeals reversed in part and remanded the equity claim for a trial on the merits, concluding that Torch’s equitable claim hinged on the proper construction of the 1996 agreement’s terms. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the relevant excluded-assets provisions in the 1996 agreement were unambiguous and, as a matter of law, Torch did not retain ownership of the claimed asset. View "Plains Exploration & Prod. Co. v. Torch Energy Advisors, Inc." on Justia Law