Oil-Polluted Lots: Who Is Liable For The Cleanup?

The liability for oil pollution damage falls on different parties depending on the situation. For instance, under the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC), the liability falls on the owner of the ship from which the polluting oil escaped. In the case of landowners, liability depends on the specific circumstances, such as whether they occupied the property, purchased polluted property, or were aware of the pollution and its migration. In Texas, surface owners often have limited rights when it comes to oil and gas exploration, and courts have generally refused to find negligence on the part of oil companies for damage caused to the surface owner. However, there are avenues for legal recourse, such as property damage, nuisance claims, environmental violations, and breach of contract.

Oil companies can be liable for negligence, pollution, subsidence, and improper disposal of saltwater

Oil companies can be held liable for negligence, pollution, subsidence, and the improper disposal of saltwater. In the United States, there have been numerous lawsuits against oil companies for environmental damage and pollution. For example, HVI Cat Canyon Inc., formerly known as Greka Oil & Gas Inc., was found guilty of gross negligence and ordered to pay $65 million in civil penalties, cleanup costs, and natural resource damages to the United States and the State of California. The company was responsible for multiple oil spills, violating federal regulations, and causing environmental harm.

Oil companies are responsible for ensuring proper oil spill prevention and facility maintenance to avoid negligence claims. In the case of HVI Cat Canyon, the court found a "pattern of reckless disregard" for good industry practices, resulting in significant environmental damage. Oil companies can also be held liable for pollution under the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC). This convention holds shipowners accountable for oil pollution damage resulting from maritime casualties involving oil-carrying ships.

The CLC ensures that adequate compensation is provided to those affected by oil pollution and holds shipowners liable for the damage, except in specific circumstances. The 1992 protocol to the convention widened its scope to include pollution damage caused in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of a State Party and allowed for the recovery of expenses incurred for preventive measures, even if no spill occurred. This protocol also extended the convention to cover spills from sea-going vessels constructed or adapted to carry oil in bulk, including bunker oil spills.

In addition to negligence and pollution, oil companies can be held liable for subsidence and the improper disposal of saltwater. In Texas, for example, there are concerns about the link between saltwater disposal and seismic activity. The Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) regulates the state's oil and natural gas industry and has developed plans to prevent earthquakes in the Stanton Seismic Response Area (SRA) by restricting saltwater disposal methods. Oil companies must therefore ensure they adhere to these regulations and properly dispose of saltwater, a natural byproduct of oil and gas production, to avoid liability for any environmental or geological damage caused by improper disposal practices.

Landowners can be held liable for contamination caused by tenants or previous owners

In the United States, landowners have been held liable for environmental contamination caused by tenants or previous owners in certain cases. This liability can arise even if the landowner did not directly contribute to the pollution, as highlighted in the case of JDN Properties, LLC v. VanMeter Enterprises, Inc.

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund, the owner of a contaminated property can be held responsible for its cleanup based solely on their current ownership. While the 2002 amendments to CERCLA provided new landowner liability protections, there are still situations where landowners may be held responsible for contamination they did not cause.

For example, in the Indiana Court of Appeals case mentioned earlier, the court ruled that a landlord who knows about a tenant's environmental contamination and fails to take action or disclose the issue before selling the property may be considered to "share responsibility" for the contamination." This decision has implications for both commercial and residential landlords, particularly those with tenants engaged in activities that involve hazardous substances, such as dry-cleaning or manufacturing.

In Texas, surface owners often encounter situations where oil companies have the right to use the surface of their land without their consent due to the severance of mineral and surface estates. While the oil company is generally not liable for damages unless it exceeds what is "reasonably necessary" for exploration and production, there have been cases where negligence has been established, such as polluting groundwater or improper disposal of saltwater.

To protect themselves, landowners should be aware of the environmental activities on their property and understand their legal rights and responsibilities. While each case is unique and subject to specific state laws and interpretations, landowners can be held liable for contamination caused by tenants or previous owners in certain circumstances.

International conventions hold shipowners liable for oil pollution damage

The International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, often referred to as the CLC Convention, was first adopted in 1969 and renewed in 1992. It is an international maritime treaty administered by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The CLC Convention was established to ensure that adequate compensation is available to those who suffer oil pollution damage caused by ships carrying oil as cargo.

The convention introduces strict liability for shipowners, meaning they are held financially accountable for pollution caused by oil spills from their vessels. This liability is not capped if the shipowner is deemed at fault for the oil pollution. When the shipowner is not at fault, the convention caps liability at between 3 million Special Drawing Rights (SDR) for a ship of 5,000 GT and 59.7 million SDR for ships over 140,000 GT. As of the 1992 Protocol, a shipowner cannot limit liability if it is proven that the pollution damage resulted from the owner's personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly with the knowledge that such damage would probably occur.

The CLC sets out a two-tier liability system: one for shipowners and one through a supplementary fund, the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPC Fund). This fund provides additional compensation when the shipowner's liability limit is insufficient. The convention also requires ships covered by it to maintain insurance or other financial security equivalent to the owner's total liability for one incident. Only ships carrying more than 2,000 tons of oil are required to maintain insurance regarding oil pollution damage.

The CLC Convention serves three core objectives: establishing strict liability for shipowners, ensuring compensation for pollution damage to people, property, and the environment, and mandating insurance coverage to guarantee that compensation is available. Prior to the CLC, victims of oil pollution often faced legal obstacles in claiming compensation, and shipowners could evade liability through jurisdictional gaps or inadequate insurance. The convention aims to address these issues and balance environmental protection with commercial shipping, ensuring legal clarity, financial responsibility, and victim compensation.

Mineral lessees have extensive rights to use the surface of the land without the owner's consent

Under Texas law, a mineral estate and a surface estate are two separate legal interests that may be severed, meaning one person may own the surface estate, and another may own the mineral estate underlying the land. This occurs most frequently when a landowner sells the surface estate to another but reserves the mineral estate. The mineral estate is the dominant estate, meaning the surface estate exists for the benefit of the mineral owner and grants them various rights.

When an oil or gas company leases the mineral rights from a mineral owner, that company essentially stands in the shoes of the mineral owner. This right is implied in the mineral lease and requires no permission or consent from the surface owner. The company has the right to use as much of the surface estate as is "'reasonably necessary' for mineral exploration and production.

The rights of mineral lessees include the right to conduct seismic testing, drill wells at locations they select, enter and exit well sites and other facilities, build, maintain and use roads for access to and from well sites and facilities, build and use pipelines to serve wells and facilities on the property, use surface and subsurface water on the leased premises for drilling and production operations, and drill and operate injection wells to enhance lease recovery and dispose of lease-produced water.

The accommodation doctrine requires the mineral lessee to accommodate the surface uses of the property where reasonably possible. This may include situations where the mineral owner's actions "preclude or substantially impair" the existing use, and there are no reasonable alternative methods available to the surface owner to continue the existing use.

It is important for surface owners to be involved in the negotiations of the mineral lease to protect their interests. Purchasing all or a portion of the mineral estate underlying the land can also give surface owners some input into the negotiation of mineral leases.

Landowners can protect themselves by negotiating mineral lease terms and purchasing mineral rights

Landowners can protect themselves by being involved in the negotiations of mineral lease terms and purchasing mineral rights. When the surface owner and mineral owner are the same person, it is easier to ensure that these terms are raised with the oil company.

In the context of solar leases, landowners should understand the difference between mineral rights and surface rights, as these can significantly influence the overall value and use of the property. It is essential to engage legal counsel to navigate the complexities of the lease agreement and ensure that the rights to mineral extraction are not unintentionally compromised. Legal professionals can also assist in negotiating terms that protect the landowner's rights to royalties or compensation if mineral extraction occurs after the solar lease is established.

In the case of oil and gas leases, landowners should be aware of bonus payments, which are made to compensate landowners for their time and entice them to sign the lease agreement. However, it is crucial to hire an attorney to negotiate the lease terms and avoid unfavorable clauses, such as those authorizing the operator to use natural gas for free.

Additionally, when purchasing mineral rights, it is important to conduct extensive due diligence to verify ownership and avoid buying minerals from someone who does not actually own them or only owns a small fraction. This is especially crucial when buying non-producing mineral rights, as there is a risk of never drilling a successful well, resulting in no royalty checks.

By negotiating mineral lease terms and purchasing mineral rights with a strong understanding of their rights and the potential risks involved, landowners can better protect themselves and ensure that their interests are adequately represented.

Frequently asked questions