Environmental

Subscribe to Environmental via RSS

In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of denials of applications to decommission offshore pipelines in place in a departure from the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement’s (“BSEE”) longstanding practices.  The denials are accompanied by an order from BSEE to decommission the pipelines by removal, with reference to Notice to Lessees (“NTL”) 2009-G04 and/or “significant sediment resource areas” (“SSRA”) in the vicinity of the pipeline.  BSEE is also issuing orders to companies to remove pipelines located in SSRAs that were previously decommissioned in place.

Continue Reading Federal Offshore Pipeline Decommissioning in BOEM Significant Sediment Resource Areas

Last year, in another dispute over who should bear the cost of decommissioning offshore facilities, the Southern District of Texas held that a former sub-assignee of offshore operating rights was entitled to equitable subrogation from the record title owner and initial assignor.  Sojitz Energy Venture, Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 394 F. Supp. 3d 687 (S.D. Tex. 2019).Continue Reading Fifth Circuit to Hold Oral Argument in Sojitz v. UNOCAL in April 2020

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) recently issued an Information to Lessees (ITL) regarding the potential applicability of new regulations issued by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to bids at the upcoming March 18th federal offshore lease sale (Lease Sale 254), which will offer for lease all available, unleased acreage in the Gulf of Mexico region.

Continue Reading Increasing Scrutiny of Foreign Investment in the U.S.: BOEM Puts Companies on Notice of Potential CFIUS Review of Bids at Upcoming Federal Offshore Lease Sale

Since the initiation of climate change litigation several years ago, various state governments and interest groups have filed lawsuits against fossil fuel companies and governing authorities.  The current landscape consists of (1) two lawsuits brought by state governments against an oil and gas company alleging investor fraud; (2) numerous cities, counties, and other local governments seeking compensation from fossil fuel companies for climate change related damages; and (3) nine lawsuits brought by a non-profit law firm, through children, against governments for failing to protect them from fossil fuel emissions.  Below we take a closer look at each category of lawsuits and provide an update on where they stand today.

Continue Reading U.S. Climate Change Litigation: 2020 Update

In a stark reminder of the sanctity of Coast Guard investigations, and the consequences of impeding such investigations, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) recently took action against a maritime employer for allegedly retaliating against a seaman who cooperated with the Coast Guard in connection with its investigation of a maritime casualty.  On October 20, 2017, Bouchard Transportation’s ATB BUSTER BOUCHARD/B. NO. 255 suffered an explosion and fire while transporting roughly 2,000 barrels of oil off Port Aransas, Texas.  Two crewmembers perished as a result of the casualty.  The brother of one of the deceased crewmembers, who also happened to be a Bouchard Transportation employee, cooperated with the Coast Guard in the ensuing investigation.  Three months later, the surviving brother was terminated without explanation.  OSHA found the termination constituted a retaliatory discharge in violation of the Seaman’s Protection Act (46 U.S.C. §2114) (the “SPA”).  In broad terms, the SPA prohibits maritime employers from terminating or discriminating against seamen who cooperate with Coast Guard, Department of Labor or National Transportation Safety Board investigations.  The obvious intent of the SPA is to guaranty “that, when seamen provide information of dangerous situations to the Coast Guard, they will be free from the “debilitating threat of employment reprisals for publicly asserting company violations” of maritime statutes or regulations.”  Gaffney v. Riverboat Services of Indiana, Inc., 451 F.3d 424, 444 (7th Cir. 2006).  In 2010, Congress empowered OSHA to administer claims arising under the SPA.Continue Reading OSHA Awards Damages for Retaliatory Discharge of Jones Act Seaman in Violation of Seaman’s Protection Act

In May 2018, oil and gas industry defendants removed a docket of 42 cases alleging violations of Louisiana’s coastal zone management laws to federal court in the Eastern and Western Districts of Louisiana (“CZM cases”).  One year later, the Eastern District granted motions to remand filed by Plaquemines Parish and the State of Louisiana in Parish of Plaquemines v. Riverwood Production Company, et al. (“Riverwood”), No. 18-5217, 2019 WL 2271118 (E.D. La. May 28, 2019).  The Western District recently joined the Eastern District and granted similar remand motions filed by Cameron Parish and the State of Louisiana in Parish of Cameron, et al. v. Auster Oil & Gas Incorporated, et al. (“Auster”), No. 18-677, 2019 WL 4734394 (W.D. La. Sept. 26, 2019), —F. Supp. 3d—.  Although there are procedural differences between Riverwood and Auster, both district courts found no federal officer or federal question jurisdiction over the CZM cases.  The Fifth Circuit is poised to resolve these jurisdictional issues in the upcoming year. 
Continue Reading Second Remand Order in Coastal Zone Management Cases Pending Before Fifth Circuit

The saga of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) ten-year effort to amend its interpretation of key components of the Jones Act continues.  After failed attempts to expand the scope of the Jones Act’s prohibition on activities by non-coastwise endorsed vessels in 2009 and 2017, CBP recently published a notice of proposed modification and revocation of certain ruling letters interpreting the Jones Act (see https://liskow.sharefile.com/d-s45a327d7ae7441e9). Unlike its recent, unsuccessful efforts to amend its interpretations, the current proposal attempts to expand one prohibition while narrowing another.Continue Reading Possible Change to Jones Act Interpretations Regarding Coastwise Activities

Today the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in this landmark case concerning punitive damages.  The six justices in the majority opinion reversed the Ninth Circuit and resolved a circuit split on this issue.  The question presented was whether punitive damages may be awarded to a Jones Act seaman in a personal injury suit alleging a breach of the general maritime duty to provide a seaworthy vessel.  Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Thomas, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.  Justice Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor.Continue Reading SCOTUS Decides Dutra Group v. Batterton

On May 28, 2019, United States District Judge Martin Feldman issued a sixty-four page Order and Reasons which granted motions to remand filed by Plaquemines Parish and the State of Louisiana in The Parish of Plaquemines v. Riverwood Production Co., et al.  That case is one of forty-two Coastal Zone Management Act (“CZMA”) cases that were removed to Federal court in May 2018.  Those cases generally allege that more than 200 oil and gas companies violated Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 (“SLCRMA”) by either failing to obtain or violating state coastal use permits.  The cases were removed to Federal court by Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (the federal officer removal statute) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (the federal question statute) on the basis that Plaintiffs’ claims (1) implicate wartime and national emergency activities undertaken at the direction of federal officers, and (2) necessarily require resolution of substantial, disputed questions of federal law.  In response, Plaintiffs filed motions to remand.  In those motions, Plaintiffs argued that (1) the removal was not timely because Defendants had notice of the grounds alleged in the removal notice more than thirty days before the cases were removed, (2) the Defendants could not satisfy the elements of the jurisdictional test for “federal officer” removal jurisdiction, and (3) Defendants could not satisfy the test for substantial federal question jurisdiction set forth by the United States Supreme Court.

Continue Reading Motion to Remand Granted in One Coastal Zone Management Act Case But Federal Appellate Options Remain Viable

On March 29, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it had finalized a voluntary disclosure program for new owners of upstream oil and natural gas exploration and production facilities. Under the program, EPA will not impose any civil penalties on new owners of these facilities (which include well sites and associated tanks and vapor control systems) who find, self-disclose, and correct Clean Air Act violations pursuant to an audit program agreement with EPA. EPA is offering the program to such new owners because EPA and states have seen significant excess emissions and Clean Air Act noncompliance from vapor control systems at these facilities.Continue Reading EPA’s New Audit Program for New Owners of Upstream Oil and Natural Gas Facilities