Check Your Mail: BSEE Inviting All of Its Friends to Pay for GOM Decommissioning

May 15, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

While bankruptcies and the passage of time have dried up the well of operator resources available to pay for these decommissioning obligations,1 BSEE has begun to turn to less traditional responsible parties and others from the past.  Beginning at the end of last year and continuing today, the Bureau sent waves of Orders to Decommission to former operators, parties who assigned their interests years ago, and even lessees with no operating interest whatsoever, asserting that “as [a] former co-lessee [or operator, the party] is responsible for decommissioning all wells, pipelines, platforms, and other facilities for which it accrued decommissioning obligations under 30 CFR § 250.1702 for [the subject] lease.” 

In reaching out to these historical entities, BSEE argues that OCSLA regulations deem lessees and owners of operating rights jointly and severally liable “for meeting decommissioning obligations for facilities on leases, including the obligations related to lease-term pipelines. . . .” BSEE argues that the duty to decommission accrued (and continue to survive until satisfied) when a party does any one of the following:

  1. Drills a well;
  2. Installs a platform, pipeline or other facility;
  3. Creates an obstruction to other users of the outer continental shelf;
  4. 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 according to [this subpart,] a platform, a lease term pipeline, or other facility or an obstruction;
  5. Is or becomes the holder of a pipeline right-of-way on which there is a pipeline, platform, or other facility, or an obstruction; or
  6. Re-enters a well that was previously plugged according [to this subpart].2

Accordingly, BSEE now seeks to enforce decommissioning obligations against parties holding old and inactive interests in oil and gas assets in the Gulf of Mexico, particularly where a current lessee or operator is insolvent.  As this is becoming more common, parties with interests in the GOM should develop a contingency plan to respond to BSEE’s invitation.  In the least, and to evaluate the availability of certain defenses, interested parties should familiarize counsel with lease, assignment, and farmout records governing historical facilities, as these may prove helpful in any appeal based upon statute of limitations grounds or the divisibility of the obligations, as well as in interpreting BSEE guidance as to the appropriate order and priority of any payees.  The administrative appeal process is highly regulated, thus parties should immediately notify their legal counsel upon receipt of an Order to Decommission. 


1 The recent ATP Oil & Gas Corporation bankruptcy case is a prominent example of a court permitting an insolvent entity to abandon certain OCS properties, including the accompanying decommissioning obligations.  See In re ATP Oil & Gas Corp., 2013 WL 3157567, (Bankr. S.D. Tex. June 19, 2013); See also Dana E. Dupre and  Rick M. Shelby (2014, April). Trending Risks and Liabilities on the OCS. Paper presented at the 61st meeting of the Mineral Law Institute, Baton Rouge, LA.

2 30 C.F.R. § 250.1702.

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.