The past few years have seen some very visible and well publicized protests of pipelines, like the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines.  In one of these protests, demonstrators in North Dakota chained themselves to construction equipment and pitched tents along the pipeline route.  The intent of these actions was obvious—to physically disrupt and delay

In January, the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal reinstated a permit issued by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) back in April 3, 2017 to allow a new pipeline, reversing the district court that ordered the DNR to reevaluate the possible environmental effects.  Joseph v. Sec’y, La. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 18-414 (La.

Although Louisiana courts routinely decline to find oil and gas defendants strictly liable under the pre-1996 version of Louisiana Civil Code article 667, plaintiffs continue to plead a cause of action under article 667 for alleged property damage caused by oil and gas exploration and production.  Like many other landowners in legacy lawsuits, the plaintiffs

The Louisiana Court of Appeal for the First Circuit in Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. Welsh, 2016-0906 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/14/17); 224 So. 3d 383, recently ruled that an order issued by the Commissioner of Conservation was overly broad, arbitrary and capricious.  Reversing the lower court’s ruling upholding the Commissioner’s order allowing construction

On May 30, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed a lawsuit brought by an environmental group accusing the U.S. Forest Service of ignoring the environmental impact of natural gas drilling in the Ozark National Forest that was approximately 860% above what its prior analysis assumed.  Without addressing the merits

It was only a matter of time before the suits based on alleged violations of the Coastal Zone Management Act made their way to Louisiana’s largest, but most desolate parish: Cameron Parish. Earlier this year, about 11 suits were filed against a number of oil, gas and pipeline companies that largely mirrored those pending in

So you have complied with your environmental management order, sampled in accordance with your coastal use permit, and think you’re done.  But you’re not.  The coastal use permit – regardless of whether general or site specific – requires that you revisit the site and provide photographs and other documentation of the site one year after

On December 23, 2014, the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion that may signal a trend towards a more interventionist court.  This opinion could have far-reaching implications for the Environmental Protections Agency (EPA) and its ability to modify compliance standards based on practical considerations, as well as for

Since my June 11th post addressing coastal use permits (CUPs) in the context of environmental management orders (EMOs), I’ve learned another lesson in accounting for the timing of when a CUP will be issued and the effect the timing may have on the parties.  Even though parties have generally sought general permits, there are times