This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
On September 2, 2014, the Department of Justice announced a settlement in United States v. The Trans Energy settlement shows that exploration and production (E&P) companies need a rigorous compliance strategy for wetlands permit requirements. Trans Energy, Inc. , 14-117 (N.D.W.Va.),
On May 30, 2014, in an unanimous decision in National Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project v. May 30, 2014). Environmental Protection Agency , the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s policy limiting the reach of the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Summit Petroleum Corp.
The court interpreted the 2014 amendments to Act 312 (La. 1/30/13) (“ LL&E ”), that legacy plaintiffs are entitled to additional remediation damages in two circumstances: (1) if required by an express contractual provision, or (2) if the mineral lessee has acted unreasonably or excessively under the lease. Denbury , — F.3d
Anadarko E&P Onshore, No. 04-14-00903-CV , 2014 Tex. The Fourth Court of Appeals recently held that surface owners control the matrix of the underlying earth; thus, a surface owner can give permission to drill through the subsurface to an adjacent lease. In Lightning Oil Co. Lexis 8673 (Aug.
P N K (Lake Charles) L.L.C., 117 (2014). [4] Privacy Policy: By subscribing to Liskow & Lewis’ E-Communications, you will receive articles and blogs with insight and analysis of legal issues that may impact your industry. Can targeted advertising establish general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation? Brown , 564 U.S.
The path to this Proposed Rule has been long and winding, beginning in 2014 with BOEM resisting making changes through formal notice and comment rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, and instead continuing to regulate this issue through Notice to Lessee (“NTL”) guidance documents.
The path to this Proposed Rule has been long and winding, beginning in 2014 with BOEM resisting making changes through formal notice and comment rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, and instead continuing to regulate this issue through Notice to Lessee (“NTL”) guidance documents.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content