Oil & Gas Litigation

From straightforward claims to the most complicated issues of first impression in oil and gas law, Alston & Bird’s Oil & Gas Litigation Team has the right experience and comprehensive knowledge to handle virtually any size or kind of oil and gas dispute. We represent upstream oil and gas companies in contract disputes, royalty litigation, lease termination and title suits, surface disputes, and other complex regulatory litigation. And we represent midstream oil and gas companies in environmental litigation and enforcement cases and land use disputes.

We know the ins and outs of oil and gas leases and industry contracts. With price uncertainty and instability reaching levels not seen since the 1980s, claims for failure to produce in paying quantities (PPQ), total cessations in production, and failure to comply with continuous drilling/continuous development obligations will put many billions of dollars in leasehold at risk over the next few years. We are entrenched in PPQ doctrine and how the law has evolved so that we can appropriately bring, defend, litigate, and resolve all manner of lease disputes for you.

For upstream and midstream clients facing environmental litigation, we have defended cases at both the trial and appellate levels involving property damage and personal injury and toxic tort claims across the country. Our team has handled precedent-setting cases across the oil and gas supply chain, including serving as lead trial counsel in a lawsuit challenging the regulation of hydraulic fracturing, and we have defended clients facing enforcement actions from environmental agencies and citizen suits from well-funded and well-organized NGOs.

Beyond active litigation, we advise clients on often-complicated contract and title questions and provide candid advice about the strength of potential claims and how to best defend or advance your claim should you end up in an oil and gas dispute.

Please follow the links provided for our representative experience in:

Lease Disputes
Mineral and Royalty Suits
Oilfield Services and Operations Litigation
Surface Disputes
Environmental Litigation

Environmental Litigation

• Representing oil companies, mineral rights owners, and trade organizations in a challenge to adoption of a general plan update by Ventura County, CA, that would impose significant restrictions on oil and gas operations, including unreasonable setback distances, and prohibitions on the use of trucking or flaring.
• Representing oil companies in seeking drilling, injection, and well stimulation permits in light of de facto moratoriums and permitting backlogs by the state oil and gas regulator.
• Representing a large oil company in response to investigative orders by the Regional Water Quality Control Board concerning the potential migration of produced water.
• Representing Sentinel Peak Resources in a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles involving one of its oil and gas production sites in the city that was recently dismissed as part of a re-permitting of the site. Also advising Sentinel on its oilfield operations in Culver City, CA, and defending against efforts by the city to eliminate oil operations. Sentinel Peak Resources California LLC v. City of Los Angeles, No. BS 173410 (L.A. Superior Court).
• Representing E&B Natural Resources on several matters involving its oil and gas facilities in California, including regulatory issues with regulating programs by the city of Los Angeles and the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), as well as the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
• Represented Aera Energy LLC in a lawsuit brought by environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity, in a case challenging the failure of DOGGR to prepare environmental impact reports (EIRs) for new oil well permits in the South Belridge Oil Field. The court of appeal held that issuance of these permits was a ministerial action, not subject to environmental review. AIR v. California Department of Conservation.
• Represented three petroleum industry groups as lead trial counsel in a lawsuit initiated by nongovernment environmental organizations against DOGGR challenging DOGGR’s regulation of hydraulic fracturing. The Alameda County Superior Court dismissed the case without leave to amend based on recent legislation regulating hydraulic fracturing in California. This lawsuit sought an injunction to halt all hydraulic fracturing in California, which would have had serious financial consequences for the oil and gas industry. Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Conservation.
• Represented real party in interest Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) in a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) matter related to Los Angeles County’s adoption of a community standards district, essentially a zoning overlay for the Inglewood Oil Field. The case was settled on terms very favorable to PXP. Community Health Councils, et al. v. County of Los Angeles.
• Represented six oil companies (which make up more than 90% of production within California) as interveners in opposition to a lawsuit initiated by environmental organizations against DOGGR. The petitioners challenged DOGGR’s regulation of underground injection and sought the immediate prohibition of injection activities for thousands of wells, alleging violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. After a trial on the merits, the court denied the petitioners’ claims for a writ of mandate in their entirety. The case was affirmed in full by the court of appeal. Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. California Department of Conservation, et al.
• Represented Chevron U.S.A. Inc., along with certain impacted business partners and royalty owners, in a challenge to a countywide ballot initiative that would immediately prohibit well stimulation and the drilling of new wells, and would impose a sunset date for the injection or impoundment of produced water. If implemented, the ballot initiative would shut down all operations at the eighth-largest oil field in the state. Secured a victory in the Court of Appeal. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., et al. v. County of Monterey, et al.
• Represented California Resources Corporation in a lawsuit challenging the issuance of drilling approvals for five exploratory wells. The Sierra Club alleged that the drilling approvals were issued in violation of CEQA. After a hearing, the court dismissed the claim without leave to amend in response to California Resources Corporation’s demurrer. Sierra Club v. California Department of Conservation, et al.
• Represented Carbon California Company LLC as the real party in interest against a lawsuit challenging the issuance of a renewed conditional use permit, allowing the continued operation of an established oil lease. The trial court denied the claims in their entirety, which was affirmed by the court of appeal. The California Supreme Court denied review. Los Padres Forestwatch, et al. v. County of Ventura, et al.
• Represented Sentinel Peak Resources in a lawsuit challenging the submission of an aquifer exemption application for the Arroyo Grande Oil Field. The petitioners are alleging that DOGGR and the State Water Resources Control Board were required to comply with CEQA before submitting the exemption application to the U.S. EPA. The case went to trial, and Sentinel Peak won a complete defense judgment. Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. California Department of Conservation, et al.
• Represented the California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA) as intervenor in a lawsuit challenging Los Angeles’ CEQA review of oil and gas drilling approvals. After the petitioners and city entered into a settlement agreement that resulted in the issuance of a guidance memo that drastically changed how the city viewed drilling approvals under CEQA, CIPA filed a cross-complaint arguing that these actions violated CIPA’s rights to due process and an opportunity to be heard. Youth for Environmental Justice, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.
• Lead trial and appellate counsel for Transco in the prosecution of numerous federal court condemnation actions against approximately 100 properties in Georgia in order to construct a 115-mile, $472 million natural gas pipeline in Georgia. In a 90-page published opinion, an Eleventh Circuit panel unanimously affirmed a contentious lower court ruling granting the company immediate possession of private properties to construct the pipeline.
• Lead environmental counsel for America’s largest refined oil products pipeline in environmental compliance matters and lead trial and appellate counsel for the company in litigation filed by property owners in Alabama, North Carolina, and Tennessee. The various matters arise from spills and releases from the company’s interstate pipeline that allegedly diminished the value of and caused other injuries to the plaintiff property owners.
• Representing America’s largest refined oil products pipeline in a lawsuit filed by property owners living near the company’s Lexington Booster Station in Lexington, NC. At the pleadings stage, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for “wanton and willful conduct”/gross negligence, strict liability-ultrahazardous activity, and punitive damages. The court also granted the company’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims to the extent they are based on releases from the booster station before June 20, 2004 because such claims are barred by North Carolina’s statute of repose. As a result of the court’s order, the plaintiffs may now pursue only their state oil pollution act claim and negligence, trespass, nuisance, and injunctive relief claims and must prove that their claims and damages result from releases that occurred after June 20, 2004. Braswell v. Colonial Pipeline Company, No. 1:18-cv-00580 (M.D.N.C.).
• Representing America’s largest refined oil products pipeline in a lawsuit filed by the owner of property affected by a release in Shelby County, AL. At the pleadings stage, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint as prudentially unripe. The property owner has appealed the district court decision to the Eleventh Circuit.
• Represented BP Products North America and TransMontaigne Partners in toxic tort litigation arising from company’s historic operations of a petroleum storage terminal in Athens, GA. The plaintiff, a mother on behalf of her son, alleged that historic leaks and spills at the terminal contaminated the groundwater at the adjacent mobile home park where they resided and that ingestion and inhalation of the groundwater caused personal injuries to the son. The case was resolved through settlement following a court order largely in the defendants’ favor on several discovery and privilege issues. McElheney v. BP Products North America, No. SU-11-CV-1692 (Superior Court of Athens-Clarke County, Georgia)

Back to top