Enforcing Legacy Environmental Liabilities for Offshore Oil and Gas Infrastructure

For more than a century, American fossil fuel companies have extended their operations offshore to exploit the vast oil and gas reserves that lie under the seafloor. Since 1953, the Department of the Interior (DOI) has operated a complex system of offshore leasing that allows private oil and gas companies to operate in federal waters. DOI’s leasing regime requires companies to plug wells, remove offshore platforms, and generally return their operation sites to a safe and stable condition when their leases end. This process, known as “decommissioning,” can cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for each offshore platform. If offshore oil and gas facilities are not promptly and properly decommissioned, they represent serious ongoing environmental risks—metal rusts, concrete decays, and storms and natural disasters threaten to release oil and natural gas into sensitive ocean environments. The long life and complex corporate structure of oil and gas assets can complicate the process of enforcing decommissioning obligations. Oil and gas production facilities may operate for many decades, changing hands between multiple owners along the way. However, DOI’s decommission regulations contain a broad set of liability rules that allow regulators to hold prior owners and operators of offshore leases responsible for decommissioning obligations. These rules, known as “joint and several trailing liability,” give regulators the authority to pursue predecessor companies for the costs of decommissioning if the current owner defaults on its obligations. This white paper examines these legacy decommissioning liabilities. Part I reviews the sources and scope of DOI’s authority to hold predecessor oil and gas companies liable for decommissioning obligations. Part II assesses the impact of these legacy liabilities on the parent companies of predecessor oil and gas operators, and identifies strategies to hold these companies liable for decommissioning obligations if their subsidiaries are unable to pay them. Part III concludes

Implementing the Inflation Reduction Act: Progress to Date and Risks from a Changing Administration

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (“IRA”) is the largest investment in climate change mitigation and adaptation in American history. The IRA appropriates more than $142 billion to carry out activities designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect against the impacts of climate change. This includes up to$37 billion in appropriations for federal loans and loan guarantees, and nearly $105 billion allocated for grants, awards, and other direct spending by federal agencies. In addition, the IRA creates and expands a number of tax credit programs designed to support a broad range of climate-related activities, including investments in clean and renewable energy, electric vehicles and vehicle charging infrastructure, and energy efficiency projects. The total value of these tax credits is hard to evaluate since many of the IRA’s credits are not capped, but recent studies estimate that Americans may claim between$780 billion and $1.2 trillion in tax credits over the IRA’s 10-year life. While the spending and tax credit provisions comprise the bulk of the IRA, the Act also makes important changes to existing federal land leasing programs, mandates updates to existing greenhouse gas reporting regulations, and requires the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to collect fees for certain methane emissions. The next Presidential election may jeopardize the IRA’s climate programs. Project 2025, a policy blueprint published by the Heritage Foundation, recommends that the next conservative administration should push for full repeal of the IRA. Perhaps recognizing that could be difficult to achieve, Project 2025 also outlines a suite of measures that a future conservative administration may take to undermine the IRA, should it remain in place. These include measures to redirect climate-related funds and, more broadly, roll back environmental protections. Such proposals threaten to thwart climate action in the United States, and undo hard-won gains in the global fight against climate change. This paper reviews the status of implementation of the IRA’s climate programs, and evaluates the vulnerability of those to unilateral executive branch action under a hostile presidential administration. For the purposes of our analysis, we assume that Congress will not repeal the IRA in whole or in part, but that a future administration may seek to limit its implementation through executive action. Our aim is to determine the legal vulnerability of IRA programs and identify legal constraints on a future administration’s ability to interfere with the programs’ implementation. We note that other factors, including political factors, may also constrain what a future administration can do, but that is not the focus of this paper

Legacy Liabilities for Oil and Gas Wells under the Mineral Leasing Act

The federal government is the largest landowner in the United States. The bulk of federal land is controlled by the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), an agency within the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) that manages more than 245 million acres or approximately 10% of the land in the United States. Below the ground, BLM’s authority reaches even further. In total, BLM controls around 700 million acres of minerals — 30% of the onshore mineral resources in the United States, spanning an area larger than Argentina. The enormous scale of oil and gas production on federal land has created a similarly enormous demand for environmental remediation. In the United States, the owners and operators of oil and gas infrastructure often have obligations “to clean up after themselves — to remove their installations at the end of their useful lives and make their abandoned sites safe.” Over the past century, Congress and DOI have established a complex set of environmental repair laws that govern oil and gas production on federal land. While these rules primarily target the current owners of oil and gas wells, they also allow BLM to pursue the former owners and operators of these assets for unpaid environmental repair costs. However, BLM has sometimes struggled to enforce these environmental repair laws, and thousands of abandoned, ownerless, and leaking oil and gas wells pollute federal lands. In recent years, as the federal government has dedicated hundreds of millions of dollars towards cleaning up these “orphaned” wells, BLM has increasingly needed to enforce its trailing liability standards. This report examines the laws and regulations that allow BLM to pursue the prior owners and operators of oil and gas wells on federal land for the costs of environmental repair, which the authors refer to as “legacy liabilities.” Section II provides an overview of oil and gas leasing on federal land, outlines the environmental hazards posed by idled, abandoned, and orphaned oil and gas wells, and briefly discusses the challenges well abandonment has posed to BLM. Section III outlines the statutes and regulations that create legacy liability for oil and gas well-plugging obligations, and discusses the way that BLM’s legacy liability laws have been addressed by the courts. Finally, Section IV highlights key gaps in the MLA’s legacy liability rules, and offers high-level suggestions to reform the environmental repair laws governing well-plugging on federal land

Decommissioning Offshore Oil and Gas Infrastructure: Report of Proceedings, May 2, 2025 Offshore Decommissioning Workshop

On May 2, 2025, Ocean Conservancy and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law organized a workshop at Columbia Law School on offshore oil and gas decommissioning in the United States. The overarching goal of the workshop was to bring together offshore law and policy experts to outline a research and policy agenda for offshore decommissioning. Within this broad goal, we sought to (1) identify key opportunities to reform offshore decommissioning law in the United States, both in the short term and over the next decade, (2) identify knowledge gaps and highlight areas for future research, and (3) begin to build interdisciplinary connections between those working on issues related to offshore decommissioning

Liability Considerations for Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal Projects in U.S. Waters

Scientists have identified a number of land- and ocean-based carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”) approaches. Ocean-based approaches, also known as marine CDR, hold great potential for uptake and sequestration of carbon dioxide. However, controlled field trials in the ocean are needed to better understand the efficacy and impacts of several marine CDR approaches. Legal considerations will have a major bearing on whether, when, where, and how such field research goes forward. Previous studies have analyzed the potential international and domestic legal framework applicable to marine CDR research and subsequent deployment (if that is ultimately deemed appropriate). However, relatively little research has analyzed the potential for this legal framework to impose liability on marine CDR project proponents (e.g., for environmental harms resulting from their activities). This report begins to fill that gap with regard to projects in U.S. ocean waters by analyzing potential liability for marine CDR project proponents under U.S. federal statute, and federal and state tort law. Application of statutory and tort liability to marine CDR project proponents is complex and uncertain. Further, the existing liability frameworks seek to restrict environmentally harmful activities, but do not promote potential environmental benefits. A different liability framework may better be able to balance these competing concerns. This paper concludes by analyzing three existing environmental liability regimes used in other sectors that may serve as models for a new liability regime to govern marine CDR

Removing Methane via Atmospheric Oxidation Enhancement: The Legal Framework

To achieve the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting the increase in global average temperatures to “well below 2 degrees Celsius,” and ideally 1.5 degrees Celsius, above pre-industrial levels, global greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions must reach net zero in the second half of the century. The global community is not currently on track to achieve net zero emissions. In fact, with the exception of a slight dip during the Covid-19 pandemic, emissions have risen steadily in recent years. This, together with the increasingly visible impacts of climate change, has prompted growing interest in the possibility of removing GHGs directly from the atmosphere. While GHG removal cannot substitute for rapid and deep emissions cuts, it could help to offset residual emissions from hard-to-abate sectors and potentially even reduce the total atmospheric GHG load by delivering net negative emissions. To date, efforts to advance GHG removal have primarily focused on developing carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”) techniques, but another GHG removal approach — atmospheric methane removal (“AMR”) — is now also beginning to receive attention. One AMR technique is atmospheric oxidation enhancement (“AOE”), which aims to accelerate the natural oxidation process whereby hydroxyl and chlorine radicals react with atmospheric methane, converting it into carbon dioxide and other by-products. This process could deliver significant climate benefits because methane is a particularly potent GHG, trapping 86 times more heat in the Earth’s atmosphere than carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after it is released and 34 times more heat than carbon dioxide over 100 years (on a ton-for-ton basis). However, AOE is still in the very early stages of development, and significantly more research is required to fully evaluate its efficacy and impacts (both positive and negative). This paper, Atmospheric Oxidation Enhancement: The Legal Framework, and the two accompanying case studies, explore the international and domestic (U.S.) laws governing methane removal via AOE. Parts 1 and 2 introduce the concept of AOE, explain proposed AOE techniques, and discuss the climate and non-climate benefits and risks that AOE may present. Part 3 then discusses key factors that will influence how AOE projects are regulated, both at the international level and domestically in the United States. With respect to the latter, Part 3 examines circumstances under which the United States may assert jurisdiction over AOE projects and introduces the different bodies of U.S. law — arising at the federal, tribal, state, and local levels — that might apply to such projects. The remainder of the paper then assesses the laws and regulations that might govern AOE projects: Part 4 identifies international agreements and rules of customary international law that might affect whether, when, where, and how AOE projects are conducted, and Part 5 explores applicable U.S. law that might apply to such projects, with a particular focus on federal environmental law. The paper is accompanied by two case studies that highlight permitting, reporting, and other legal requirements that could impact two hypothetical AOE projects: one involving the dispersal of AOE aerosol from onshore towers located in coastal areas, and another conducted by adding iron-bearing additives to marine fuels used in ocean-going vessels

Hospital discharge planning: a qualitative study of new-graduate physiotherapists' experiences

Purpose: Discharge planning constitutes a large part of a physiotherapist's role when working in hospital settings. The challenges of decision-making relating to discharge planning have been identified by experienced physiotherapists. Despite known challenges associated with the transition from student to clinician, the experiences of new-graduates undertaking discharge planning are largely unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to explore:1)    new-graduate physiotherapists' experiences of discharge planning in hospital settings, and2)    the influence of pre-professional training on their perceived preparedness for discharge planning.Design: A qualitative general inductive approach using semi-structured interviews. New-graduate physiotherapists (n = 14) working in hospital settings were recruited.Finding: Four themes were generated: 1) responding to the pressures associated with discharging patients, 2) complex decision-making, 3) the role of the interprofessional team, and 4) desiring additional context and complexity from pre-professional training.Practice Implications: The study has identified that new-graduates underestimate the extent to which discharge planning features in their roles within hospital settings, and are unaware of the interprofessional practice required. Whilst they felt that their pre-professional training provides the technical skills required for their roles, they felt that they were not prepared for their role within the broader healthcare system, nor the complexity of clinical practice. This study encourages education providers to emphasise the role of physiotherapists within the broader health care system, through highlighting contexts where physiotherapy knowledge can be applied (i.e., discharge planning) and understanding the role of the physiotherapist within the interprofessional team.Limitations: Important perspectives of mentors and other members of the interprofessional team involved in discharge planning have not been included in this study which may have impacted the interpretation of the results

Knowledge Levels, Attitude and Beliefs of Men towards the Digital Rectal Examinations (DRE): A study in Trinidad

Background: Trinidad and Tobago have been ranked as having one of the highest cancer mortality rates in the Caribbean. Prostate cancer was identified as the most common cancer in men, with a higher mortality than any other cancer. At least 1 in 9 men in Trinidad and Tobago will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during his lifetime. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine knowledge levels, attitudes, and beliefs of men aged 40 years and over regarding digital rectal examination (DRE). The investigators considered this crucial following the scourge of prostate cancer in Trinidad and Tobago and an apparent lack of the use of the DRE, a noted method of screening for the condition for early detection. Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was undertaken using 216 men who were at least 40 years old and who gave their informed consent; these men were attending a central mall in Trinidad in the month of April 2018 when the data was collected. Data was collected using the researchers’ designed, self-administered questionnaire and analysed using SPSS version 20. Result: Results indicate that most men (95.8%) are knowledgeable/very knowledgeable about DRE. Similarly, most (64.6%) of the men have favourable/very favourable attitudes towards DRE while 59.3% of them indicated that their beliefs have little or major influence regarding their participation in DRE. It also showed that the men’s beliefs are associated with their ethnicity (pDiscussion/Recommendation/Conclusion: The findings suggest that perhaps the attitudes and beliefs of men aged 40 years and over attending this mall are better predictors of intentions than their knowledge. This needs to be explored further given the need to curb the prevalence of prostate cancer amongst men in Trinidad and Tobago

ACTION:a randomized phase 3 study of ONC201 (dordaviprone) in patients with newly diagnosed H3 K27M-mutant diffuse glioma

BACKGROUND: H3 K27M-mutant diffuse glioma primarily affects children and young adults, is associated with a poor prognosis, and no effective systemic therapy is currently available. ONC201 (dordaviprone) has previously demonstrated efficacy in patients with recurrent disease. This phase 3 trial evaluates ONC201 in patients with newly diagnosed H3 K27M-mutant glioma.METHODS: ACTION (NCT05580562) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, international phase 3 study of ONC201 in newly diagnosed H3 K27M-mutant diffuse glioma. Patients who have completed standard frontline radiotherapy are randomized 1:1:1 to receive placebo, once-weekly dordaviprone, or twice-weekly dordaviprone on 2 consecutive days. Primary efficacy endpoints are overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); PFS is assessed by response assessment in neuro-oncology high-grade glioma criteria (RANO-HGG) by blind independent central review. Secondary objectives include safety, additional efficacy endpoints, clinical benefit, and quality of life. Eligible patients have histologically confirmed H3 K27M-mutant diffuse glioma, a Karnofsky/Lansky performance status ≥70, and completed first-line radiotherapy. Eligibility is not restricted by age; however, patients must be ≥10 kg at time of randomization. Patients with a primary spinal tumor, diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, leptomeningeal disease, or cerebrospinal fluid dissemination are not eligible. ACTION is currently enrolling in multiple international sites.</p

Geological Storage of CO\u3csub\u3e2\u3c/sub\u3e in Sub-Seafloor Basalt: The CarbonSAFE Pre-Feasibility Study Offshore Washington State and British Columbia

The CarbonSAFE Cascadia project team is conducting a pre-feasibility study to evaluate technical and nontechnical aspects of collecting and storing 50 MMT of CO2 in a safe, ocean basalt reservoir offshore from Washington State and British Columbia. Sub-seafloor basalts are very common on Earth and enable CO2 mineralization as a long-term storage mechanism, permanently sequestering the carbon in solid rock form. Our project goals include the evaluation of this reservoir as an industrial-scale CO2 storage complex, developing potential source/transport scenarios, conducting laboratory and modeling studies to determine the potential capacity of the reservoir, and completing an assessment of economic, regulatory and project management risks. Potential scenarios include sources and transport options in the USA and in Canada. The overall project network consists of a coordination team of researchers from collaborating academic institutions, subcontractors, and external participants. Lessons learned from this study at the Cascadia Basin location may be transferrable elsewhere around the globe