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
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
Governor Edwards’ Climate Initiatives Task Force, charged with making recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions originating in Louisiana, recently took another step towards that goal.
Continue Reading Renewable Energy Efforts Highlighted in Draft Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Louisiana
This blog post is the first in a series of blog posts that will discuss some of the nuances of Louisiana property law relating to solar leasing. With solar companies entering the Louisiana market, many of which having no prior experience in Louisiana, it is important to identify and avoid some pitfalls that may not be immediately obvious to the common-law practitioner.
Earlier this month, Gulf Coast Sequestration (“GCS”), a limited liability company based in Lake Charles, announced its plans to build and operate a carbon capture and sequestration (“CCS”) project that will create a repository 10,000 feet underground for the permanent storage of more than 80 million tons of carbon. Once completed, the GCS facility is expected to be the largest CCS project in the United States and one of the largest in the world, according to its press release.
Continue Reading Advancement of CCS in Louisiana
A special meeting of the Louisiana State Mineral and Energy Board was held on April 29, 2020, to address the impacts of both COVID-19 and historically low oil prices on operation and maintenance of Louisiana State Leases. The Board approved two proposed resolutions (1. Proposed Enforcement Moratorium Resolution 2. Proposed Penalty Waiver Resolution) that will assist State Lessees during these difficult times.
Continue Reading Louisiana State Mineral and Energy Board Approves Resolutions Providing Relief for State Lessees
In January of this year, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania tackled an issue that has been confronted by few other courts—whether the rule of capture precludes a claim for subsurface trespass due to hydraulic fracturing.[1]
The impacts of COVID-19 have rapidly swept across the country and the globe. Coupled with the recent decline in oil and gas prices, many operators are left scrambling in an attempt to navigate unprecedented circumstances. With shutdowns and stay-at-home orders in place and regulatory deadlines looming, Louisiana operators are looking for guidance from regulators on how to proceed.
On March 21, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held that a unit operator may not recover post-production costs from an unleased mineral owner’s share of production proceeds in Allen Johnson, et al. v. Chesapeake Louisiana, LP.[1] The dispute in Johnson involved a group of unleased mineral owners (“UMOs”) who filed suit against a unit operator for deducting a litany of post-production costs against their share of production proceeds from an oil and gas unit in the Haynesville Shale.[2]
The UMOs argued that La. R.S. 30:10 governed whether a unit operator may deduct post-production costs against UMO’s share of production proceeds.[3] The argument, however, was one of exclusion. The UMOs argued that La. R.S. 30:10 contains the exclusive list of any costs that could be properly charged against a UMO’s share of production proceeds. Therefore, because post-production costs were not expressly listed in La. R.S. 30:10(A)(3), the UMOs argued that such expenses were not recoverable from a UMO’s share of production.[4] In opposition, the unit operator contended that La. R.S. 30:10 was inapplicable to the case because the costs outlined in the statute comprised only pre-production and production costs. The operator argued the statute was never intended to address post-production costs.[5] As a result, the unit operator claimed that the statute did not forbid deductions for post-production costs against a UMO, but instead those costs were properly authorized under the general principles of unjust enrichment and co-ownership.[6]
In Gladney v. Anglo-Dutch Energy, L.L.C., the Third Circuit addressed the question of whether or not a mineral lessee must pay its lessor full lease-basis royalties for production undertaken during the effective period of a conditional allowable but prior to the effective date of a unit order.[1] In the case, the Plaintiffs granted a mineral lease to the Defendant-Lessee that provided for a 1/5 royalty in 2009.
Continue Reading Louisiana Third Circuit Addresses Payment of Royalties in Situations Involving Production Under a Mineral Lease Pursuant to a Conditional Allowable Prior to Unitization