Home Business State and Exxon reach an agreement over coastal damages

State and Exxon reach an agreement over coastal damages

(iStock)

Louisiana reached a deal with ExxonMobil over “coastal land disputes,” Gov. Jeff Landry announced on social media Thursday.

Landry said a large part of the agreement includes ExxonMobil partnering with the state to address coastal orphan wells.

“This is huge for Louisiana, our Coast, and our environment! ExxonMobil has been in Louisiana for 115 years and we want them to be here for another 115 years! Shout out to Office of the Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, her team and CEO Darren Woods!” Landry’s post on X reads.

Murrill confirmed the agreement but said there are documents that need to be drawn up and signed.

“Any settlements in the coastal cases are under seal by court order, but I am happy that we were able to find common ground with Exxon and look forward to a great future together, where we are committed to energy independence for our State and nation, as well as preserving our coast and coastal communities,” Murrill said in a social media post.

Landry’s post lacked details about the deal, but Louisiana parishes have filed several lawsuits against oil companies over coastal damage in Louisiana.

In April, the Supreme Court ruled that a lawsuit against Chevron over erosion in Plaquemines Parish had to be heard in federal courts. The April decision centered on whether companies like Chevron can shift cases tied to decades-old oil production into federal venues, which are often seen as more favorable to industry defendants. Justices found the lawsuits are sufficiently connected to companies’ federal wartime contracts, when oil production supported military fuel needs, clearing the way for removal.

More than 40 lawsuits filed by Louisiana parishes accuse oil and gas companies of contributing to coastal erosion through decades of drilling and dredging activity. The state has lost significant land over time, raising the stakes of the litigation.

Read a previous article on the Supreme Court decision.

Exit mobile version