Yesterday the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) published a new ruling on Jones Act compliance in the installation of offshore wind turbines.  While the ruling addresses and confirms several established compliance points in the rapidly developing U.S. wind market, CBP introduced a new wrinkle that will aid U.S. vessel owners.

First, the new development. 

Recent developments in the challenge to an executive order from the Biden Administration in Louisiana v. Biden suggest that the “major questions” doctrine may begin to play a large role in the future of environmental law and regulations. While the existence of this doctrine is nothing new, its relevance in the realm of environmental law

In Litel Explorations, LLC v. Aegis Development Co., LLC, 21-0741 (La. App. 3 Cir. 4/6/22), –So. 3d–, the Louisiana Third Circuit denied the LDNR’s claims for recovery of over 6.3 million dollars in emergency costs from prior operators of an orphaned well. The Court held that, when the LDNR spends monies from the Oilfield

Congress has dedicated $4.7 billion to orphan well plugging, remediation, and restoration activities nationwide through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“IIJA”). A substantial portion of this money will be apportioned to the various states based on each state’s capacity and ability to effectively utilize the funds to plug orphan wells. Louisiana Senate Bills 23

For nearly three years, unit operators in Louisiana have waited to see whether the Western District of Louisiana would change course or double down on its March 2019 decision in Johnson v. Chesapeake. In the original Johnson decision, the district court sent shockwaves across the oil and gas industry in Louisiana by finding that post-production costs were not properly deductible against proceeds owed to unleased mineral owners. In the wake of that decision, at least two putative class actions were filed against the largest producers in the Haynesville Shale, and operators have been flooded with demands and suits from unleased owners who relied on Johnson to contest the validity of post-production cost decisions from unleased interests.
Continue Reading Long-Awaited Victory on the Proper Deductibility of Post-Production Costs from Unleased Mineral Owners – The Western District of Louisiana Reverses Course in Johnson v. Chesapeake and Self v. BPX

Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) projects involve various legal issues. Like traditional exploration and development, CCUS projects require the operator to secure both the necessary private property rights from landowners as well as regulatory approval from the appropriate administrative agency in order to proceed. This article focuses on the latter.

Regulatory approval for CCUS

Louisiana Revised Statutes 30:103.1 et seq. have been heavily litigated in recent years, but there are only a handful of reported decisions interpreting these statutes. Many of these decisions involve whether a party complied with the strict notice requirements contained in the statutes. B.A. Kelly Land Company, L.L.C. v. Aethon Energy Operating, L.L.C., 25

Thousands of workers across the country have filed discrimination claims with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) since the inception of the Covid-19 pandemic.  In an exclusive report, Bloomberg revealed that “[s]ince April 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has received roughly 6,225 Covid-related charges of discrimination under federal civil rights laws” and

On February 11, 2022, the Biden Administration’s climate change agenda sustained a major blow as Judge James D. Cain of the Western District of Louisiana enjoined a Biden administration executive order that charged federal agencies with considering the “social cost of carbon” in their decision making.  The injunction could have far reaching impacts on the

In a significant win for the #MeToo movement, the U.S. Senate passed a bill on Thursday, February 10, 2021, which ensures that employees who are sexually harassed or assaulted in the workplace can pursue their claims in court.  The bill invalidates pre-dispute agreements that require individuals to arbitrate claims related to sexual harassment or sexual