Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- D.C. Circuit Issues Surprise Holding in NEPA Dispute: CEQ Regulations are Non-Binding
- New Mexico District Court Applies Pro-Rata Method to Settlement under CERCLA
- New Jersey Appellate Division Finds The New Jersey Constitution Does Not Provide A Fundamental Right To “A Stable Environment”
- Wisconsin District Court Allocates CERCLA Liability for Past and Future Response Costs
- Missouri Court Rejects "Bright-Line" Test for Determining Statute of Limitations Under CERCLA Section 107
Topics
- Agency Action
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Loper Bright
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Title VI
- Disparate Impact
- Environmental Justice
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- Georgia
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Martime
- Asbestos
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Gold King Mine
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Stigma
- Damages
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Natural Gas
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- EPA
- Consent Decree
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Standing
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Contamination
- CLE
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Real Estate
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Speaking Engagements
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Wetlands
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Mineral Rights
- Due Process
- Enforcement Action
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Although they’ve been around forever, oil and gas leases continue to provide fodder for the courts, as we’ve discussed before, especially in light of the boom (or temporary bust, as some might argue) of shale gas drilling. And it is exactly that boom (or bust) that brings us the decision in Beardslee v. Inflection Energy, LLC, No. 3:12-CV-00252 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 15, 2012).
Like many property owners in the Marcellus Shale region, the Plaintiffs entered into leases with the Defendant drilling companies which granted the Defendants to the right to explore for, drill and produce gas and oil on their lands. The terms of these leases were five years and thereafter for so long as there was production of gas or oil on the land, a typical formulation of such leases. In addition, the leases contained a “force majeure” clause that provided, in relevant part, that “[i]f and when drilling or other operations hereunder are delayed or interrupted . . . as a result of some order, rule, regulation, requisition or necessity of the government . . . the time of such delay or interruption shall not be counted against the Lessee . . .”
In 2008, the Governor of New York ordered the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) with respect to drilling for gas in the Marcellus Shale and, in particular, the practice of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Pending the completion of the EIS, which still has not been issued, NYDEC has placed a moratorium on the issuance of any permits for horizontal drilling in New York. In 2010, based upon this moratorium, the Defendants invoked the force majeure clause in the leases, purporting to extend their terms for the duration of the moratorium. The Plaintiffs then sued, seeking a declaration that the leases – which were signed between 2001 and 2006 – expired at the end of their terms and that the moratorium did not constitute a “force majeure” under the leases.
In a compact and direct decision, Judge Hurd granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. Relying on hornbook law that any ambiguity in a contract must be interpreted against the drafter, the Court held that because the moratorium only prevented horizontal drilling, while the leases permitted any kind of oil and gas development, the moratorium did not prevent the Defendants from performing under the terms of the leases. Given the Defendants’ sophistication with respect to oil and gas leases, drilling and production, if the Defendants had intended to limit the scope of the leases to production by means of horizontal wells, or to provide that the force majeure clause could be invoked if governmental actions made horizontal drilling impossible, they could have done so, Judge Hurd noted. And even though conventional drilling on the Plaintiffs’ property was commercially unviable, the Court held the mere impracticality[1] was not enough to excuse performance.
This case is an important one, with implications well beyond New York. A similar moratorium exists within the Delaware River Basin, an area encompassing large portions of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, and in those states, drillers have invoked force majeure clauses to extend their leases. While there are various formulations of these leases and each may require individual analysis, the underlying principles are the same. Further, while Judge Hurd relied on New York law, the principles he relied upon have general application. Thus, we can expect to see more of these cases in the near future, as landowners seek to either enforce the rent provisions contained in the leases or have the leases terminated.
[1] The Court also found that the leases were not extended by the equitable doctrines of either frustration of purpose or impossibility. Both of these doctrines, the Court noted, required unforseeability and the Court dismissed any notion that unconventional methods of drilling would not require environmental review.