As Bankruptcy Bells Ring in the Outer Continental Shelf, BSEE May Toll for You

Sep 30, 2019

Reading Time : 4 min

Why Is This Happening?

In a perfect world, parties that own and operate offshore assets would be responsible to decommission them as the need arises. Increasingly, however, lessees and operators are finding themselves without the financial wherewithal to conduct the expensive decommissioning, and either declare bankruptcy or otherwise successfully abandon their interests in uneconomical wells and related infrastructure. BSEE then is left to find alternative funding, and looks to parties with less direct interests for decommissioning so taxpayers are not left footing the bill.

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) gives BSEE broad authority to administer offshore oil and gas leasing and production.3 Pursuant to OCSLA, BSEE regulations impose decommissioning obligations on any party that:

  • Drills a well.
  • Installs a platform, pipeline or other facility.
  • Creates an obstruction to other users of the outer continental shelf.
  • Is or becomes a lessee or the owner of operating rights of a lease on which there is a well that has not been permanently plugged[,] a platform, a lease term pipeline, or other facility or an obstruction.
  • Is or becomes the holder of a pipeline right-of-way on which there is a pipeline, platform, other facility or an obstruction.
  • Re-enters a well that was previously plugged.4

OK, But Why Is This Happening More?

In the most recent years for which data is available, BSEE has overseen the removal of, on average, more than 200 structures per year from the Gulf of Mexico alone.5 BSEE estimates that approximately 3,000 active platforms exist under its jurisdiction, 40 percent of which are over 25 years old and in line to be removed in the near future.6 As oil and gas production declines, the number of oil and gas infrastructure removals continues to rise.

Compounding the shear increase in numbers, oil and gas companies are declaring bankruptcy at rising rates with no apparent end in sight.7 Twenty-six North American exploration and production companies have filed for bankruptcy in 2019 to date, following two consecutive years of more than 20 bankruptcies.8 BSEE, meanwhile, responds to these bankruptcies by exerting its authority under OCSLA to hold non-bankrupt predecessor parties responsible for decommissioning costs, including those who operated the facilities but also those who merely held leasehold or right-of-way interests.9 Because the decommissioning regulations impose joint and several liability, all parties who accrue decommissioning obligations can be forced to pay these costs, regardless of the remoteness of their link to a given structure.10

So What Do I Do After (or Better Yet Before) BSEE Comes Knocking?

Although the current administration’s general deregulatory stance may suggest otherwise, BSEE has given no indication that it intends to curtail its recent trend of enforcement.11 If anything, it may expand its authority to new parties and maybe even new places, like the Pacific Ocean.12 As such, any party with offshore interests in those areas should begin planning now for how to both prepare for and respond to a future Order to Decommission.

First, parties with offshore interests likely to face Orders to Decommission should assess their available legal defenses, including those based on statutes of limitations, divisibility and BSEE policy setting forth the appropriate order and priority of payees. Then, if and when an Order comes in, the party should determine the costs and benefits of an appeal. Time is of the essence in negotiating with BSEE during the highly regulated administrative appeal process. And, given the difficulty in defending these suits because of advantages the law gives to BSEE, the party should assess the availability of alternative funding sources. This may mean asserting claims for decommissioning costs in bankruptcy proceedings involving parties who hold or previously held interests in the relevant assets.

In a world with dwindling oil and gas prices and rising numbers of bankruptcies, it is critical that parties with offshore interests take commonsense steps now to protect their interests and minimize their future exposure before—and after—BSEE comes knocking.


1 Akin Gump, Check Your Mail: BSEE Inviting All of Its Friends to Pay for GOM Decommissioning, Akin Gump Speaking Energy Blog (May 15, 2014), https://www.akingump.com/en/experience/industries/energy/speaking-energy/check-your-mail-bsee-inviting-all-of-its-friends-to-pay-for-gom.html.

2 Id.

3 43 U.S.C. § 1334(a).

4 30 C.F.R. § 250.1702.

5 Bur. of Safety and Envtl. Enforcement, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Statistics for Decommissioned Platforms on the OCS (Sept. 19, 2017), https://www.bsee.gov/what-we-do/environmental-focuses/decommissioning/decommissioning-statistics.

6 Bur. of Safety and Envtl. Enforcement, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Decommissioning, https://www.bsee.gov/what-we-do/research/tap-categories/decommissioning.

7 Jamison Cocklin, E&P Bankruptcies on the Rise as Operators Again Confront Low Oil, NatGas Prices, Natural Gas Intelligence (Aug. 15, 2019), https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/119296-ep-bankruptcies-on-the-rise-as-operators-again-confront-low-oil-natgas-prices.

8 Id.

9 30 C.F.R. § 250.1701.

10 Id.

11 Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf-Request for Information Regarding Potential Impacts of Decommissioning-in-Place of Pipeline-Related Infrastructure in Deepwater, 83 Fed. Reg. 67343 (Dec. 28, 2018).

12 Memorandum regarding The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement’s Decommissioning Program Assignment No. 2016-EAU-062, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Dept. of the Interior (March 26, 2019), https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/CloseoutMemo_BSEEDecomissioning_040119.pdf.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Energy

July 8, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE) directing ISO-NE and ISO-NE participating transmission owners to show cause as to why ISO-NE’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (ISO New England Inc., 195 FERC ¶ 61,215 (2026) (Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 7, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Leonard Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (Hoffmann), which presents the question whether section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requires pipeline companies using federal eminent domain authority to pay landowners’ attorney’s fees in states where landowners can recover those fees under state law. In the decision giving rise to the Supreme Court’s review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a group of ranchers were not entitled to recover their $383,300 in attorney’s fees incurred while negotiating their compensation—creating a circuit split with four other courts of appeals. Hoffmann will be heard during the Court’s October 2026 Term, and marks the second time in five years that the Court has agreed to interpret NGA section 7.

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

July 6, 2026

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued Trump v. Slaughter, fundamentally reshaping presidential removal authority over independent regulatory agencies. The decision overruled a 90-year-old precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the constitutionality of commissioner removal protections in the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). As written, the FTC Act permits a commissioner’s removal “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Slaughter, the Court was asked to reevaluate this standard following the President’s removal of a Democratic-appointed FTC commissioner from office in 2025 without cause. Finding for the President, the Court held that removal was permissible because the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections for commissioners violate the separation of powers, specifically, the President’s removal power under Article II. The Court explained that the FTC exercises executive power because it promulgates binding rules, investigates and enforces those rules through administrative adjudications, and brings civil enforcement actions in federal court. It found that because it exercises these executive powers, its commissioners “must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.” While previous recent cases addressing the scope of the Removal Power, Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins v. Yellen purported to preserve some kernel of Humphrey’s, the Court made clear that “[i]f anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

...

Read More

Speaking Energy

June 25, 2026

On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) issued an order to the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) directing CAISO and CAISO transmission owners to show cause as to why CAISO’s tariff should not be found to be unjust and unreasonable (California Indep. Sys. Operator Corp., 195 FERC ¶ 61,214 (2026) (the Order)) because it fails to sufficiently:

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.