Remediation Damages after State v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Company

Ross Roubion, J.D./C.L. 2014, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University. Production Editor of the LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources, Volume II.

Introduction

In January, the Louisiana Supreme Court held in State v. Louisiana Land & Exploration Company that the plain language of Louisiana Revised Statute 30:29 allows a landowner to recover damages in excess of those contemplated by regulatory standards.[1] This article examines that decision in the context of recent legacy litigation, and investigates to what extent to which this decision affects causes of action grounded in the Louisiana Mineral Code. Continue reading

Posted in Casenotes | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Chinese Patent Innovation and Competition Under the America Invents Act—A Whole New World of Prior Art

Jessica C. Engler, J.D./C.L. 2013, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University. Managing Editor of the LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources. 

When it comes to foreign manufacturing and development, American consumers and producers are very familiar with a certain phrase—“Made in China.” However, recent efforts by the Chinese government to increase innovation and intellectual property development are working to change the phrase “Made in China” to “Invented in China.”[1] China’s “12th Five Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development,” released in 2010, strategizes China’s transformation into an innovation economy, plans for further development in China’s intellectual property rights system, and provides funds for investments in science and technology education and research and design.[2] More specifically, China has allocated funds for further development in seven identified “emerging industries” including: new energy—particularly nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar power; energy conservation and environmental protection; biotechnology;[3] new materials;[4] new generation information technology;[5] high-end equipment manufacturing;[6] and clean energy vehicles.[7] The Chinese government planned to spend over 4 trillion Yuan, approximately $643.936 trillion, on developing these industries.[8] Continue reading

Posted in Blog | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Legacy Reform Limits Liability

Jessica Allain, J.D./C.L. 2013, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University. Jessica will join the firm of Allen & Gooch in the fall of 2013.

With a history of extensive claims and monetary awards never being used to actually remediate property, the state has struggled with how to handle the environmental damage in legacy cases. New legislation hopes to ease the burden, particularly on business.

The Louisiana Legislature added two new articles to the Code of Civil Procedure to encourage the remediation of environmental damage and to expedite the procedural process: Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure articles 1552 and 1563.[1] Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1552 authorizes the courts to develop environmental management orders that allow all parties access to the allegedly impacted property to perform inspections and environmental testing.[2] This legislation is highly beneficial in that it prevents a party from prohibiting access to the property for in question for testing.[3]

Continue reading

Posted in Blog | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Remedies Of Unleased Mineral Owners For Nonperformance Of Obligations By Unit Operators

Andrew Heacock, J.D./C.L. 2014, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University

In the ongoing case of Adams v. Chesapeake Operating[1], the United States Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted a partial motion for summary judgment in favor of Chesapeake on the issue of whether Louisiana Mineral Code articles 212.21–23 apply to unleased mineral owners pooled within a producing conservation unit.[2] The court ruled that the statutes, which authorize courts to award double damages and attorney’s fees when an operator of a well fails to timely pay pro-rata shares of well proceeds due, do not apply to unleased mineral owners.[3] In arriving at this conclusion, the court adopted an unjustifiably contrived reading of the statutes while overlooking the obvious purpose of the statutes themselves.

Adams is the owner of unleased mineral rights inside a drilling and production unit formed by the Louisiana Commission of Conservation for production of natural gas from the Haynesville Shale formation in DeSoto Parish.[4] Despite being pooled in the unit, Adams did not have a contract of lease for his minerals with any party.[5] On October 25, 2010, Chesapeake Operating completed a gas well inside Adams’s unit.[6] Chesapeake failed to send reports or information to Adams as required by statute.[7] After multiple written requests by Adams for reports and information on the well in his unit, he filed suit for his share of the production from the well, as well as attorney’s fees and double damages for Chesapeake’s failure to respond to his timely requests. [8] Continue reading

Posted in Blog, Casenotes | Leave a comment

Indiana’s Mandatory Disclosure Rule

-Professor Keith B. Hall, B.S. in Chemical Engineering, Louisiana State University; J.D., Loyola University School of Law. Professor Hall was a member of the firm Stone Pigman Walther Wittmann before joining the LSU Law Faculty as Assistant Professor and Director of the Mineral Law Institute.

Earlier this Summer, Indiana joined the growing list of states that have enacted legislation or regulations to require the disclosure of the additives used in hydraulic fracturing fluids on a well-by-well basis.  Specifically, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources adopted an emergency rule, effective July 1, 2012, that directs DNR’s Division of Oil & Gas to create a form on which operators will be required to report certain information regarding hydraulic fracturing operations.[i]

The form, which is now available from DNR’s website, requires the operator to report: the volume and source of base fluid; the type and amount of proppant; the trade name of each additive; the function of each additive (such as biocide, corrosion inhibitor, friction reducer, etc.); the maximum concentration of each additive in the fracturing fluid; and the maximum injection pressure.  The operator also must provide a copy of the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for each additive and a copy of any pressure recording charts or graphs used during the hydraulic fracturing operation.  Copies of each MSDS will be posted on-line.

Unlike some states, Indiana does not explicitly require that companies provide the CAS (Chemical Abstracts Service) number for each compound used in the fracturing fluid, and thus does not explicitly require that operators identify the specific compounds in the fracturing fluid.  As a practical matter, though, this might not represent a difference from other states’ rules.  Compounds that are not trade secrets often are identified on the MSDS sheets.  Because Indiana requires operators to provide MSDS sheets, compounds that are not trade secrets generally will be identified under Indiana’s rules.

If a compound is a trade secret, it probably will not be identified on an MSDS and the disclosure of such a compound generally will not be required under Indiana law.  But this does not mean that other states will be requiring public disclosure in circumstances in which Indiana does not.  The states that generally require operators to provide CAS numbers for compounds in fracturing fluid make exceptions for compounds that qualify as trade secrets and do not require that companies provide the CAS numbers for those compounds.  Thus, those other states come to the same result as Indiana — compounds that constitute trade secrets generally do not have to be publicly disclosed.  Accordingly, the practical effect of Indiana’s disclosure rules might be very similar to the disclosure rules in other states than might appear at first.

Indiana DNR’s website has a page that includes a listing of all additives (by trade name), along with a link to the MSDS for that additive.[ii]

Other states that require disclosure of the composition of fracturing fluid include Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, Michigan, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wyoming.  Some states have established disclosure databases on their own websites, and the information companies submit is made available to the public on those websites (states differ on whether the identity of compounds that qualify as trade secrets have to be disclosed to regulators, while being exempted from public disclosure, or whether such compounds also are generally are exempted from disclosure to regulators).  Other states have directed that operators post the information on the FracFocus website, which similarly is accessible by the public.


[i] Available at: http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/20120627-IR-312120292ERA.xml.pdf.

[ii] See http://www.in.gov/dnr/dnroil/6599.htm.

Posted in Blog | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment