Energy

From its inception, a substantial part of the firm's practice has addressed public policy issues arising from the activities of the energy industry, primarily petroleum and natural gas, although the firm also has been involved in issues of nuclear power, electric distribution and geothermal energy.  The firm's clients in these areas come from a broad spectrum of consumers, public interest organizations, State and local governments, and independent companies; the firm's adversaries are almost inevitably either major oil companies or federal agencies.

Our practice has involved virtually every aspect of the petroleum business: leasing, production, transportation, refining, distribution, and marketing, and has included issues of royalties, imports, exports, crude oil pricing and allocation, pipeline regulation, refined products pricing, supply contracts and taxation, to mention only a selected few of the many economic consequences of petroleum activity affecting the firm's clients.  Much of this practice involves work in locations outside of the District of Columbia, primarily in the Rocky Mountains and on the West Coast, and attorneys from the firm have traveled on energy-related business as far as the North Slope of Alaska, the South Pacific, and Europe.

Among the litigated matters handled by the firm in this area are:

Arkla Exploration Co. v. Watt, 548 F.Supp. 466, 76 Oil & Gas Rep. 1 (1982)(preliminary); 562 F.Supp. 1214, 78 Oil & Gas Rep. 235 (W.D. Ark. 1983), aff'd, 734 F.2d 347, 81 Oil & Gas Rep. 486 (8th Cir. 1984), cert. denied sub nom. Texas Oil & Gas Corp. v. Arkla Exploration Co., 469 U.S. 1158 (1985).  This was the first reported case in which a successful challenge was made under the Mineral Leasing Act to a decision of the Secretary of the Interior awarding oil and gas leases.

Consumers Union of United States, Inc., Washington, D.C., 6 DOE ¶82,555 (1980)

Anderson v. Dunlop, 485 F.2d 666, CCH Econ. Controls Para. 9838 (TECA 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1131 (1974), reversing CCH Econ. Controls Para. 9843 (D.D.C. 1973).

Atlantic Richfield Co. v. U.S. Department of Energy, 618 F. Supp. 1199 (D.Del. 1985)

Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Edwards, 669 F.2d 717 (TECA 1982)

Department of Energy v. Hunt, 798 F.2d 1421 (TECA 1986)

In re Dept. of Energy Stripper Well Exemption Lit., 578 F. Supp. 586  (D.Kan. 1983), on certification sub nom. Exxon Corp. v. United States Dept. of Energy, 744 F.2d 98 (TECA), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1077 (1984)

Standard Oil Co. v. Federal Energy Administration, 440 F.Supp. 328 (N.D. Ohio 1977); also 453 F.Supp. 203 (N.D. Ohio 1978).

Texas Oil & Gas Corp. v. Hodel, 654 F.Supp. 319 (D.D.C. 1987).

Texas Oil and Gas Corp. v. Watt, 683 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir 1982).

United States v. Arizona Fuels Corp., 638 F.2d 239 (TECA, 1980) cert. denied, 451 U.S. 985 (1981); also 681 F.2d 797 (1982).

United States v. Exxon Corp., 561 F.Supp. 816 (D.D.C. 1983) aff'd 773 F.2d 1240 (TECA 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1105 (1986)

Oklahoma v. Ratex, No. C87-58 (D.Ct. Okla.) (filed July 1, 1987), was the first case in which a State asserted that the traditional obligations of oil and gas lessee prudence and diligence extended to administrative price control action to maximize royalties.