Remove 2001 Remove Education Remove Operator
article thumbnail

Oil Spill Liability: OPA 90 v. the IMO’S CLC

The Energy Law

The below table highlights the main differences between OPA 90 and the CLC: ISSUE OPA 90 CLC 92 Liable Parties Owner, operator, bareboat charterer, or a third party whose sole action caused the oil spill. Violation of a federal safety, construction, operation regulation; or 3. Gross negligence or willful misconduct; 2. Failure to a.

Oil 105
article thumbnail

2023 Begins With Increased (or Unlimited) Liability for Vessel Owners

The Energy Law

3] When the source of the discharge is a vessel, the “responsible party” is the owner, operator, or demise charterer of that vessel. [4] 438, 446 (2001). [14] 2001) (paragraph numbers omitted from quote) First, the Coast Guard announced [1] increases to the liability limits in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”). [2]

Oil 98
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Is the Frequency of Louisiana Environmental Quality Act Citizen Suit Litigation Increasing?

The Energy Law

Legacy litigation claims generally concern alleged contamination arising from historic oil and gas operations under theories of both breach of contract and tort. The Louisiana Environmental Quality Act, Louisiana Revised Statute §§ 30:2001 et seq. ,

E&A 52
article thumbnail

Is the Frequency of Louisiana Environmental Quality Act Citizen Suit Litigation Increasing?

The Energy Law

Legacy litigation claims generally concern alleged contamination arising from historic oil and gas operations under theories of both breach of contract and tort. The Louisiana Environmental Quality Act, Louisiana Revised Statute §§ 30:2001 et seq. ,

E&A 40
article thumbnail

The Dusky Gopher Frog Causes Big Problems for Industrial and Commercial Development in Parts of St. Tammany Parish

The Energy Law

Since its 2001 designation as an endangered species, an estimate of 100 adult frogs are known to only exist in Harrison County, Mississippi. The Landowners claimed that their property value decreased due to the designation and that they had future plans to develop Unit 1 for residential and commercial development and timber operations.

IT 40