(a) Lessees, owners of operating rights, and their predecessors are jointly and severally liable for meeting decommissioning obligations for facilities on leases, including the obligations related to lease-term pipelines, as the obligations accrue and until each obligation is met.
(b) All holders of a right-of-way grant and their predecessors are jointly and severally liable for meeting decommissioning obligations for facilities on their right-of-way, including right-of-way pipelines, as the obligations accrue and until each obligation is met.
(c) All right-of-use and easement grant holders and prior lessees or owners of operating rights of the parcel on whose leases there existed facilities or obstructions that remain on the right-of-use and easement grant are jointly and severally liable for meeting decommissioning obligations, including obligations for any well, pipeline, platform or other facility, or an obstruction, on their right-of-use and easement, as the obligations accrue and until each obligation is met.
(d) In this subpart, the terms “you” or “I” refer to lessees and owners of operating rights as to facilities installed under the authority of a lease; to pipeline right-of-way grant holders as to facilities installed under the authority of a pipeline right-of-way grant; and to right-of-use and easement grant holders as to facilities constructed, modified, or maintained under the authority of the right-of-use and easement grant. Predecessors to any of these interest holders are also included within the scope of these terms as appropriate in the context of the particular regulation.
[88 FR 23580, Apr. 18, 2023]
Notes of Decisions
Apache Corp. v. W & T Offshore, Inc., 626 F.3d 789 (5th Cir. 2010).
“30 C.F.R. § 250.1701 (a) (“Lessees and owners of operating rights are jointly and severally responsible for meeting decommissioning obligations for facilities on leases, including the obligations related to lease-term pipelines, as the obligations accrue and until *798 each…”
Noble Energy, Inc. v. Salazar, 770 F. Supp. 2d 322 (D.D.C. 2011).
“” 30 C.F.R. § 250.1701 (c). The OCSLA regulations further define a “lessee” as "a person who has entered into a lease with the United States to explore for, develop, and produce the leased minerals.”
Total E&P USA, Inc. v. Marubeni Oil & Gas (USA), I, No. 19-20282 (5th Cir. Aug. 3, 2020).
· cites it 2× “” 30 C.F.R. §§ 250.1701 (c), 250.1702. Total asserts that the regulations do not control here because they “govern the parties’ joint and several liabilities vis-à-vis the Government, not amongst themselves.”
Ankor Energy, LLC v. Merit Mgmt. Partners I, L.P., No. 2:24-cv-01953 (E.D. La. Nov. 21, 2025).
“at 206 (citing 30 C.F.R. §§ 250.1701 (c), 250.1702). The Fifth Circuit thus found that the obligations arose not when the government ordered decommissioning but when the wells were drilled.”
Noble Energy, Inc. v. Salazar, No. 2009-2013 (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2011).
“” 30 C.F.R. § 250.1701 (c). The OCSLA regulations further define a “lessee” as “a person who has entered into a lease with the United States to explore for, develop, and produce the leased minerals.”
Noble Energy, Inc. v. Jewell, 110 F. Supp. 3d 5 (D.D.C. 2015).
“In short, the BSEE concluded that the regulatory obligations are independent of the contractual obligations because they apply to parties that are not bound by those contractual obligations.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.