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
In a recent blog post, we discussed a proposed ordinance before the Livingston Parish Council to ban injection and disposalwells in Livingston Parish. Yesterday, the council unanimously voted to pass the ordinance, which places a one-year moratorium on injection and disposalwells. To read more, click here.
Last week, the Livingston Parish Council introduced a proposed ordinance that would place a moratorium on “the construction of disposalwells and injection wells in the Parish of Livingston.” [1]
In this case, the court noted that the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (“OCC”) is vested with exclusive authority to regulate injection/disposalwells. In a nutshell, this doctrine allows for dismissal where the exercise of federal jurisdiction would interfere with the proceedings or orders of state administrative agencies.
As to the 1994 lease, the Court found that Unocal had an express duty to restore the property “to the same or similar condition existing at commencement of the lease as nearly as practicable” as well as a duty to comply with all applicable governmental regulations.
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