Check Your Mail: BSEE Inviting All of Its Friends to Pay for GOM Decommissioning

May 15, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

While bankruptcies and the passage of time have dried up the well of operator resources available to pay for these decommissioning obligations,1 BSEE has begun to turn to less traditional responsible parties and others from the past.  Beginning at the end of last year and continuing today, the Bureau sent waves of Orders to Decommission to former operators, parties who assigned their interests years ago, and even lessees with no operating interest whatsoever, asserting that “as [a] former co-lessee [or operator, the party] is responsible for decommissioning all wells, pipelines, platforms, and other facilities for which it accrued decommissioning obligations under 30 CFR § 250.1702 for [the subject] lease.” 

In reaching out to these historical entities, BSEE argues that OCSLA regulations deem lessees and owners of operating rights jointly and severally liable “for meeting decommissioning obligations for facilities on leases, including the obligations related to lease-term pipelines. . . .” BSEE argues that the duty to decommission accrued (and continue to survive until satisfied) when a party does any one of the following:

  1. Drills a well;
  2. Installs a platform, pipeline or other facility;
  3. Creates an obstruction to other users of the outer continental shelf;
  4. Is or becomes a lessee or the owner of operating rights of a lease on which there is a well that has not been permanently plugged according to [this subpart,] a platform, a lease term pipeline, or other facility or an obstruction;
  5. Is or becomes the holder of a pipeline right-of-way on which there is a pipeline, platform, or other facility, or an obstruction; or
  6. Re-enters a well that was previously plugged according [to this subpart].2

Accordingly, BSEE now seeks to enforce decommissioning obligations against parties holding old and inactive interests in oil and gas assets in the Gulf of Mexico, particularly where a current lessee or operator is insolvent.  As this is becoming more common, parties with interests in the GOM should develop a contingency plan to respond to BSEE’s invitation.  In the least, and to evaluate the availability of certain defenses, interested parties should familiarize counsel with lease, assignment, and farmout records governing historical facilities, as these may prove helpful in any appeal based upon statute of limitations grounds or the divisibility of the obligations, as well as in interpreting BSEE guidance as to the appropriate order and priority of any payees.  The administrative appeal process is highly regulated, thus parties should immediately notify their legal counsel upon receipt of an Order to Decommission. 


1 The recent ATP Oil & Gas Corporation bankruptcy case is a prominent example of a court permitting an insolvent entity to abandon certain OCS properties, including the accompanying decommissioning obligations.  See In re ATP Oil & Gas Corp., 2013 WL 3157567, (Bankr. S.D. Tex. June 19, 2013); See also Dana E. Dupre and  Rick M. Shelby (2014, April). Trending Risks and Liabilities on the OCS. Paper presented at the 61st meeting of the Mineral Law Institute, Baton Rouge, LA.

2 30 C.F.R. § 250.1702.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

August 07, 2024

*Thank you to JaKell Larson, 2024 Akin Summer Associate, for her valuable collaboration on this article.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 31, 2024

Interstate oil, liquid and refined products pipelines regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will soon be able to raise their transportation rates (provided they were set using FERC’s popular Index rate methodology) in the wake of a significant new decision by the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) in Liquid Energy Pipeline Association v. FERC (LEPA).

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On Wednesday, July 24, 2024, the U.S. House of Representative Committee on Energy and Commerce held a Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security hearing to review the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request. Members of the Subcommittee had the opportunity to hear testimony from all five Commissioners, including FERC Chairman Willie Phillips and Commissioner Mark Christie, as well as the three recently confirmed commissioners, David Rosner, Lindsay See and Judy Chang. In addition to their prepared remarks, the five commissioners answered questions on FERC’s mandate to provide affordable and reliable electricity and natural gas services nationwide, while also ensuring it fulfills its primary mission of maintaining just and reasonable rates.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 29, 2024

On July 9, 2024, the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) erred in ordering refunds for certain bilateral spot market transactions in the Western Energy Coordinating Council (WECC) region that exceeded the $1,000/megawatt-hour (MWh) “soft” price cap for such sales.1 Finding FERC failed to conduct a “Mobile-Sierra public-interest analysis” before “altering” those contracts by ordering refunds, the court vacated FERC’s orders and remanded the case to FERC for further proceedings.2

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2024

On June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which for 40 years required court deference to reasonable agency interpretations of federal statutes in certain circumstances, even when the reviewing court would read the statute differently. The Court ended “Chevron deference” and held that courts “must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” In doing so, the Court upended a longstanding principle of administrative law that is likely to make agency decisions more susceptible to challenge in the courts.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 3, 2024

We are pleased to share a recording of Akin and ICF’s recently presented “Powering Progress: Decoding FERC Order No. 1920” webinar, along with the program materials.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 12, 2024

Join projects & energy transition partner Ben Reiter at Infocast's Transmission & Interconnection Summit, where he will moderate the “Dealing with the Impacts of Increased Interconnection Request Requirements and Costs” panel.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 4, 2024

Join projects & energy transition partners Hayden Harms and Vanessa Wilson at Infocast's RNG & SAF Capital Markets Summit, where Hayden will moderate the "Investor Perspectives: Private Equity, Infrastructure Funds, & Strategies" panel, and Vanessa will moderate the "Opportunities in Other Biogas/Fuels Markets" panel.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.