Justia Energy, Oil & Gas Law Opinion Summaries

A party with a royalty interest in a property, who has not signed a division order with an oil company, may recover underpayments from the oil company. Newfield Production Company ("Newfield") operates four oil and gas wells on the property at issue here. The Trustees of the George S. Maragos Residuary Trust ("the Trust") asserted they owned a 1/8 of 1% royalty interest in the property. While operating the wells, Newfield relied upon a division order-title opinion ("division order") to allocate the royalty interest for the property. The Trust argued it acquired its interest in the royalties through the following process: H. H. Hester possessed a royalty interest in the property and conveyed to George S. Maragos a 1/8% royalty interest in December 1937. George S. Maragos retained his interest until his death when the administrators of his estate assigned the royalty interest to the Trust in January 1985. The Trust sued Newfield for an accounting and all unpaid revenue from the 1/8% royalty interest in the property. The Trust moved for summary judgment. Newfield filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing it was not a proper party defendant because it did not have a competing interest in the 1/8% royalty interest. The district court granted Newfield's cross-motion for summary judgment, holding the Trust claim was really a quiet title claim, Newfield was not a proper party defendant, the proper parties are the other competing royalty interest owners, and the Trust was not entitled to attorney's fees and interest under N.D.C.C. 47-16-39.1. The Trust appealed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Newfield, determining Newfield was not a proper party defendant. Because Newfield failed to establish they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed and remanded. View "Maragos v. Newfield Production Company" on Justia Law

Petitioners filed suit challenging EPA's promulgation of a Final Rule setting several renewable fuel requirements for the years 2014 through 2017. The D.C. Circuit rejected all challenges except for one: the court agreed with Americans for Clean Energy that EPA erred in how it interpreted the "inadequate domestic supply" waiver provision. The court held that the "inadequate domestic supply" provision authorizes EPA to consider supply-side factors affecting the volume of renewable fuel that is available to refiners, blenders, and importers to meet the statutory volume requirements. It does not allow EPA to consider the volume of renewable fuel that is available to ultimate consumers or the demand-side constraints that affect the consumption of renewable fuel by consumers. Accordingly, the court granted Americans for Clean Energy's petition for review of the Final Rule, vacated EPA's decisions to reduce the total renewable fuel volume requirements for 2016 through use of its "inadequate domestic supply" waiver authority, and remanded for further consideration. View "Americans for Clean Energy v. EPA" on Justia Law

Consolidation Coal Company appealed after the Department of Labor (“DOL”) awarded survivor’s benefits to Judy Noyes under the Black Lung Benefits Act (“BLBA”). The administrative law judge (“ALJ”) determined that Mrs. Noyes was entitled to a statutory presumption that the death of her husband, James Noyes, resulted from his exposure to coal dust in underground coal mines. The ALJ further concluded that Consolidation failed to rebut that presumption by showing either that Mr. Noyes did not suffer from pneumoconiosis or that pneumoconiosis did not cause his death. Consolidation argued on appeal the ALJ erred in retroactively applying the rebuttal standard from DOL’s revised regulations to Mrs. Noyes’ claim for benefits, and that the ALJ’s determination that Consolidation failed to meet its burden of rebuttal was not supported by substantial evidence. After review, the Tenth Circuit held the ALJ permissibly applied the rebuttal standard from the revised regulations to Mrs. Noyes’ claim, and that standard could further be applied retrospectively to claims, like Mrs. Noyes’, that were filed prior to the effective date of the revised regulations. However, the Court agreed with Consolidation that the ALJ incorrectly stated the revised rebuttal standard in analyzing Mrs. Noyes’ claim. View "Consolidation Coal Company v. OWCP" on Justia Law

The Department of the Interior (“DOI”) adopted an administrative appeal requirement for agency actions under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (“SMCRA”). Following an initial decision by an administrative law judge (“ALJ”), DOI regulations required an adversely affected party to concurrently file an appeal and a petition for stay pending appeal with the Interior Board of Land Appeals (“IBLA”) to exhaust administrative remedies. However, an ALJ decision is not always rendered inoperative pending appeal: the IBLA retains discretion to grant or deny the stay. The issue this case presented for the Tenth Circuit's review was whether the IBLA’s denial of a stay rendered an ALJ’s decision final for purposes of judicial review, notwithstanding a pending IBLA appeal. The Tenth Circuit found that intra-agency review “is a prerequisite to judicial review only when expressly required by statute or when an agency rule requires appeal before review and the administrative action is made inoperative pending that review.” Because the ALJ’s decision in this case was not rendered inoperative pending appeal to the IBLA, it was final agency action. View "Farrell-Cooper Mining v. DOI" on Justia Law

SemGroup purchased oil from producers and resold it to downstream purchasers. It also traded financial options contracts for the right to buy or sell oil at a fixed price on a future date. At the end of the fiscal year preceding bankruptcy, SemGroup’s revenues were $13.2 billion. SemGroup’s operating companies purchased oil from thousands of wells in several states and from thousands of oil producers, including from Appellants, producers in Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma. The producers took no actions to protect themselves in case 11 of SemGroup’s insolvency. The downstream purchasers did; in the case of default, they could set off the amount they owed SemGroup for oil by the amount SemGroup would owe them for the value of the outstanding futures trades. When SemGroup filed for bankruptcy, the downstream purchasers were paid in full while the oil producers were paid only in part. The producers argued that local laws gave them automatically perfected security interests or trust rights in the oil that ended up in the hands of the downstream purchasers. The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the downstream purchasers; parties who took precautions against insolvency do not act as insurers to those who took none. View "In re: SemCrude LP" on Justia Law

Under the federal environmental laws, the owner of property contaminated with hazardous substances or a person who arranges for the disposal of hazardous substances may be strictly liable for subsequent clean-up costs. The United States owned national forest lands in New Mexico that were mined over several generations by Chevron Mining Inc. The question presented for the Tenth Circuit’s review was whether the United States is a “potentially responsible party” (PRP) for the environmental contamination located on that land. The Tenth Circuit concluded that under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), the United States is an “owner,” and, therefore, a PRP, because it was strictly liable for its equitable portion of the costs necessary to remediate the contamination arising from mining activity on federal land. The Court also concluded the United States cannot be held liable as an “arranger” of hazardous substance disposal because it did not own or possess the substances in question. The Court reversed the district court in part and affirmed in part, remanding for further proceedings to determine the United States’ equitable share, if any, of the clean-up costs. View "Chevron Mining v. United States" on Justia Law

Orangeburg challenged the Commission's approval of an agreement between two utilities, alleging that the approval constituted an authorization of the North Carolina Utilities Commission's (NCUC) unlawful regime. The DC Circuit held that Orangeburg has standing to challenge the Commission's approval because, among other reasons, the city has demonstrated an imminent loss of the opportunity to purchase a desired product (reliable and low-cost wholesale power), and because that injury was fairly traceable to the Commission's approval of the agreement at issue. On the merits, the court held that the Commission failed to justify its approval of the agreement's disparate treatment of wholesale ratepayers; to justify the disparity, the Commission relied exclusively on one line from a previous FERC order that, without additional explication, appeared either unresponsive or legally unsound. Accordingly, the court vacated in part the orders approving the agreement and denying rehearing, and remanded. View "Orangeburg, South Carolina v. FERC" on Justia Law

The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP) sought permission to enter Hazel Palmer’s property to conduct preliminary surveys in order to build a natural gas transmission line. When Palmer withheld her consent, ACP provided a notice of intent to enter her property pursuant to Va. Code 56-49.01. Palmer continued to deny permission, and ACP filed a petition for a declaratory judgment requesting a declaration of its rights under section 56-49.01. Palmer filed a plea in bar and a demurrer, arguing that section 56-49.01 applies only to domestic public service companies and is unconstitutional under Va. Const. art. I, 11 because it impermissibly burdens a fundamental right. The circuit court overruled Palmer’s plea in bar and demurrer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 56-49.01 establishes the General Assembly’s intent that the entry-for-survey privilege be available to foreign natural gas companies that do business within the Commonwealth; and (2) Palmer’s fundamental property rights do not include the right to exclude ACP in this case. View "Palmer v. Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC" on Justia Law

The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC (ACP) sent Landowners letters seeking permission to enter their properties to conduct preliminary surveys and studies in order to build a natural gas transmission line. When Landowners withheld their permission, ACP provided notices of intent to enter their properties pursuant to Va. Code 56-49.01. ACP then filed petitions for declaratory judgment against Landowners seeking an order declaring that the notices of intent to enter provided ACP with a right to enter Landowners’ properties. The circuit court issued a final order concluding that ACP was entitled to enter landowners’ properties pursuant to section 56-49.01. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that ACP’s notices were deficient because they did not “set forth the date of the intended entry” as required by section 56-49.01(C). View "Chaffins v. Atlantic Coast Pipeline, LLC" on Justia Law

Absent a prior conveyance of pore space to a third party, the owner of a surface estate owns the pore space beneath the surface. A surface owner may recover damages from a mineral developer for the developer's use of pore space for saltwater disposal. Plaintiffs Randall Mosser, Douglas Mosser, Marilyn Koon, and Jayne Harkin owned a surface estate in a quarter section of land in Billings County. When the plaintiffs acquired their surface estate, it was subject to a 1977 oil and gas lease granted by the plaintiffs' predecessors-in-interest, who had owned both the surface and mineral estate in several tracts of land included in the lease. In 2003, the Industrial Commission approved a plan for unitization of several tracts of land in Billings County, including the plaintiffs' surface estate. Denbury Onshore, LLC operated a well located on the plaintiffs' surface estate, and used the well for saltwater disposal since September 2011. Plaintiffs sued Denbury for saltwater disposal into their pore space, alleging claims for nuisance, for trespass and for damages under the Oil and Gas Production Damage Compensation Act in N.D.C.C. ch. 38-11.1. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability, claiming Denbury's liability was clear and the only issue for trial was the amount of their damages. Denbury moved for summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiffs' action, contending it had the right to dispose of saltwater into the plaintiffs' pore space without providing them compensation. A federal magistrate judge denied the parties' motions, but ruled the plaintiffs owned the pore space beneath their surface estate and Denbury could be liable for saltwater disposal into their pore space under N.D.C.C. ch. 38-11.1. Denbury filed a second motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' statutory claim for damages on the ground they failed to proffer any evidence to establish that they were currently using the pore space beneath their surface estate, that they had any concrete plans to do so in the near future, or that their property had diminished in value. The federal magistrate judge deferred ruling on that motion and certified several questions of North Dakota law to the North Dakota Supreme Court involving the plaintiffs' right to recover compensation for Denbury's disposal of saltwater into the pore space beneath the plaintiffs' surface estate under N.D.C.C. ch. 38-11.1. View "Mosser v. Denbury Resources, Inc." on Justia Law