Justia Energy, Oil & Gas Law Opinion Summaries

The Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2011, requires that nuclear generators implement access authorization programs. Many employees at privately-owned nuclear power plants must receive a security clearance with "unescorted access" privileges. When such access is denied or revoked, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires owner-licensees to provide the aggrieved worker with a review procedure. From 1991 to 2009, the Commission took the position that labor arbitrators could review access denials at unionized facilities. Courts agreed. In 2009, the Commission completed post-9/11 overhaul of security requirements. New language was ambiguous as to whether the Commission had changed its policy to prohibit arbitral review. The district court entered declaratory judgment that the amendments prohibited arbitration of access denial decisions. The Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding that the Commission did not "flip-flop on an important, longstanding, and controversial policy without clearly indicating either in the text of the rule or at any point in the rulemaking history that it was doing so." View "Exelon Generation Co., LLC v. Local 15, Int'l Bhd of Elec. Workers" 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

Occidental and a number of its subsidiaries petitioned for review of final orders of the FERC granting negotiated rate authority to Tres Amigas, a proposed energy transmission project. Occidental argued that Tres Amigas did not satisfy the criteria the FERC had set out as preconditions for such authority. Because the court concluded that Occidental lacked standing to challenge these orders, the court did not reach this question and instead dismissed the petition. View "Occidental Permian Ltd. v. FERC" on Justia Law

This case arose when Mirant, an energy company, sought to expand its European operations by acquiring nine power islands from General Electric. When the power island deal fell through, Mirant made payments pursuant to a guaranty and soon thereafter sought bankruptcy protection. Mirant, as debtor-in-possession, sued Commerzbank and other lenders in bankruptcy court to avoid the guaranty and to recover the funds Mirant paid pursuant to the guaranty. After Mirant's bankruptcy plan was confirmed MCAR, plaintiff, substituted into the case for Mirant. Commerzbank and other lenders, defendants, filed a motion to dismiss based on Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The district court subsequently denied defendants' motion to dismiss based on plaintiff's alleged lack of standing. Thereafter, the district court granted summary judgment for defendants. Both sides appealed. While the court agreed that the district court correctly determined that there was standing to bring the avoidance claim, the court vacated the judgment of dismissal because the district court erroneously applied Georgia state law rather than New York state law to the avoidance claim. View "MC Asset Recovery LLC v. Commerzbank A.G., et al." 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

Appellants Angeline Maki and other relatives of Richard Arndt (collectively "Maki defendants") appealed a judgment that declared that Appellee Richard Arndt and others (collectively "Arndt plaintiffs") were the owners of mineral interests underlying the Arndt family farm, and the Arndt plaintiffs cross-appealed part of the judgment that denied their claim against the Maki defendants for attorney fees and costs for slandering title to the minerals. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the Maki defendants' counterclaim for reformation of a 1973 contract for deed and a 1984 personal representative's deed and correctly quieted title to the minerals in the Arndt plaintiffs. The Court further concluded, however, that genuine issues of material fact existed on the claim for attorney fees and costs for slandering title to the minerals. View "Arndt v. Maki" on Justia Law

Noble Energy and other lessees sued in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that application of the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451-1464, suspension requests constituted a material breach of their lease agreements to drill for, develop, and produce oil and natural gas on submerged lands off the coast of California. The Court of Federal Claims agreed; on appeal the Federal Circuit affirmed. One year after the Federal Circuit's decision in the breach-of-contract litigation, the Minerals Management Service (MMS), sent a letter to Noble ordering it to plug and abandon Well 320-2 permanently. The district court ruled that the common law doctrine of discharge did not relieve Noble of the regulatory obligation to plug its well permanently, an obligation that the lease did not itself create. Resolution of the dispute depended on what the plugging regulations meant. The court held that it was up to MMS's successor to interpret its regulation in the first instance and to determine whether they apply in situations like Noble's. If they do, the agency must explain why. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment and sent the case back to the district court with instructions to vacate Interior's order and to remand to the Secretary for further proceedings. View "Noble Energy, Inc. v. Salazar, et al." on Justia Law

Buckeye Wind filed an application to construct a proposed wind-powered electric generation facility with the power siting board (the board). A group of neighboring landowners (the neighbors) opposed the application. Several other entities, including the county and several local townships (collectively, the county) also intervened. The board approved construction of most of the proposed turbines. The neighbors and county appealed. Buckeye intervened on behalf of the board. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the board acted in accordance with all pertinent statutes and regulations and based its determinations on the evidence in the record, and therefore, the board's decision was reasonable and lawful. View "In re Application of Buckeye Wind, LLC" on Justia Law

During World War II, the U.S. contracted with oil companies for the production of aviation fuel, which resulted in production of hazardous waste. The waste was dumped at the California McColl site. Several decades later, the oil companies were held liable for cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601, and sought reimbursement from the government based on the contracts. The district court entered summary judgment on liability, finding that the contracts contained open ended indemnification agreements and encompassed costs for CERLCA cleanup, and awarded $87,344,345.70. The trial judge subsequently discovered that his wife had inherited 97.59 shares of stock in a parent to two of the oil companies. The judge ultimately vacated his summary judgment rulings; severed two companies from the suit and directed the clerk to reassign their claims to a different judge; reinstated his prior decisions with respect to two remaining companies; and entered judgment against the government ($68,849,505). The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for reassignment to another judge. The judge was required to recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(4) and the error was not harmless.View "Shell Oil Co. v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Arnold Oil Properties, LLC hired Defendant Schlumberger Technology Corp. to perform a specialized cement job on its deep-zone gas well. After Schlumberger poured too much cement into the well, Arnold sued for breach of contract and negligence. The district court concluded as a matter of law that an alleged exculpatory provision in the parties' contract was an indemnification provision and therefore did not bar Arnold's recovery. After a jury found the parties were in unequal bargaining positions, the district court denied Schlumberger's request to enforce the contractual limitation-of-liability provision. Schlumberger appealed the district court's denial of summary judgment and its denial of judgment as a matter of law. Finding that the evidence supported the jury's finding, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Arnold. View "Arnold Oil Properties LLC v. Schlumberger Technology Corp." on Justia Law