In a unique twist on a common challenge to the deductibility of post-production expenses, plaintiffs in Grayson L.L.C. (Of Louisiana), et al. v. BPX Operating Co., et al. sued the unit operator for breach of contract to recover transportation costs incurred as a result of alleged regulatory violations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC”)

Last week, the U.S. Department of the Interior released its proposed Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) five-year program for offshore oil and gas leasing. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) requires the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to “prepare and periodically revise and maintain an oil and gas leasing program” (i.e., a five-year

In response to various pressures on the energy industry to reduce the environmental impact associated with excess carbon dioxide emissions, many energy companies are investigating carbon capture and sequestration projects as a means of reducing their carbon emissions. In addition to reducing carbon emissions, carbon capture and sequestration projects often qualify for valuable income tax

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

In Mary v. QEP Energy Company, the U.S. Fifth Circuit held that a landowner is not entitled to a pipeline company’s profits as a consequence of a portion of a pipeline being located partially outside of a servitude. The Fifth Circuit concluded that a landowner can only recover the additional profits earned by defendant

The subsequent purchaser doctrine has been litigated extensively in Louisiana legacy cases involving claims for oilfield remediation.  The doctrine provides that a current landowner has no standing to bring a lawsuit for property damage that occurred prior to its acquisition absent a valid assignment from the prior landowner of the personal right to sue.  However, until now, no appellate court had addressed whether the doctrine barred a claim brought by a closely held or family-owned company who acquired the property in an intra-family transfer.  In Louisiana Wetlands, LLC v. Energen Resources Corporation, 2021-0290 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/4/21), 2021 WL 4548529, —So. 3d—, the Louisiana First Circuit answered this question in the affirmative, holding that the subsequent purchaser doctrine applies to property transfers from family members to a company which they also own.
Continue Reading Louisiana First Circuit Applies Subsequent Purchaser Doctrine to Property Transfer Involving Closely Held LLC

Perhaps the most important right granted in a solar development agreement is the right of the solar developer to use the surface of the property to evaluate, construct, and operate the solar farm.  But how can the solar developer ensure that its right to use the surface of the property is not encumbered by or inferior to the rights of others?  Or, more specifically, how can the solar developer ensure that a mineral estate owner will not be able to locate a well in the middle of its solar farm?  This issue is at the forefront of the minds of the renewables industry and was the subject of a recent Texas Court of Appeals decision.  As renewable energy projects continue to multiply, clashes between solar developers and mineral interest owners will increase as well.
Continue Reading Solar Leasing in Louisiana: The Accommodation Doctrine

In recent years, there has been an increase in litigation relating to the unleased owner reporting requirements contained in La. R.S. 30:103.1 and the penalty imposed in La. R.S. 30:103.2.  There are few cases interpreting these statutes. However, the existing authority recognizes that even if an operator fails to comply with such reporting requirements, an unleased owner must provide sufficient notice under La. R.S. 30:103.1 and 103.2 before the statutory penalty may be imposed. The recent non-final interlocutory ruling in Limekiln Development, Inc. v. XTO Energy, Inc.,[1] provides yet another data point in an otherwise barren area of Louisiana law about the notices required under this statutory scheme in order to properly place operators on notice and to potentially impose the penalty of La. R.S. 30:103.2.
Continue Reading United States Western District of Louisiana Issues Opinion on Notice Required Under La. R.S. 30:103.1 and 103.2 to State a Plausible Claim for Relief