Bankrupt Driller Not Required to Plug Abandoned Well
When an oil and gas driller enters bankruptcy, a host of unique issues often arise, inclu ding how to close abandoned wells in a responsible manner. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently confronted this problem in the case of an energy exploration and production company liquidating through Chapter 11, as in City of Beverly Hills v. Venoco (In re Venoco) 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 1457 (Bankr. D. Del. May 31, 2017).
June 15, 2017 at 05:22 PM
13 minute read
When an oil and gas driller enters bankruptcy, a host of unique issues often arise, inclu ding how to close abandoned wells in a responsible manner. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently confronted this problem in the case of an energy exploration and production company liquidating through Chapter 11, as in City of Beverly Hills v. Venoco (In re Venoco) 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 1457 (Bankr. D. Del. May 31, 2017). In Venoco, the city of Beverly Hills, California and its school district sought a preliminary injunction requiring the debtor to monitor and maintain an oil and gas drilling site and create a separate reserve to fund those obligations. In ruling for the debtor, the court found that the problem created by the wind-down at the site, although a serious one, could be addressed through the claims process rather than the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction.
Venoco operated an oil and gas well located on the grounds of a Beverly Hills high school, which it acquired in 1995 by transfer from a prior operator. The underlying lease, which it also assumed, was subject to various contractual as well as statutory and regulatory restrictions. First, the lease itself terminated the right to extract oil and gas from the site automatically on Dec. 31, 2016. It further provided that within 90 days thereafter, all oil and gas operations at the site were to be discontinued in compliance with applicable laws and the site restored to its original condition. Similarly, the California regulatory agency responsible for oversight, known as DOGGR, expressly required cessation of oil and gas production by Dec. 31, 2016, and the wells properly “abandoned” in accordance with applicable law. Furthermore, the original site construction permits granted by the city of Beverly Hills called for the issuance of an Environmental Impact Report concurrent with production termination by Dec. 31, 2016, as well as restoration of the property to its original condition.
As of Dec. 31, 2016, Venoco ceased operations at the site. It did not, however, plug the wells or remove its equipment, tank and derricks. Venoco instead announced its intention to vacate by May 31, after which it would have no employees or contractors in Beverly Hills to monitor or maintain safety and security. On May 15, DOGGR issued an ex parte order, directing Venoco to plug and abandon the wells, decommission the production facilities, and restore the property. On May 16, Beverly Hills issued a compliance order, charging that Venoco had been in violation of the conditions of its permit and the city's municipal code since April 1 (i.e., 90 days after terminating operations at the site). The compliance order imposed various requirements on Venoco related to abandoning and restoring the site.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![White and Williams Bankruptcy Co-Chair Joins Stradley Ronon White and Williams Bankruptcy Co-Chair Joins Stradley Ronon](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/1a/06/2f601c67496b9af7557a771f9a7b/amy-vulpio-767x633-1.jpg)
!['In Re King': One Is Definitely the Loneliest Number When Filing an Involuntary Petition 'In Re King': One Is Definitely the Loneliest Number When Filing an Involuntary Petition](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2023/03/Heaton-Kotler-767x633.jpg)
'In Re King': One Is Definitely the Loneliest Number When Filing an Involuntary Petition
7 minute read![Delaying Rent Payment by Assisted Living and Skilled Nursing Facilities in Chapter 11 Delaying Rent Payment by Assisted Living and Skilled Nursing Facilities in Chapter 11](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/5c/14/746f9a1b49e4b7c832f42bc6fdc7/lawall-donofrio-767x633.jpg)
Delaying Rent Payment by Assisted Living and Skilled Nursing Facilities in Chapter 11
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1ACC CLO Survey Waves Warning Flags for Boards
- 2States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 3Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 4Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 5Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250