MIECO LLC v. Pioneer Nat. Res. U.S.1

Pioneer had contracted to supply MIECO with 20,000 MMBTU of natural gas per day.2 Pioneer's gas came from its crude oil extraction operations in the Permian Basin in Texas. Those operations produced casinghead gas, which was processed by a third party into residue methane gas and natural gas liquids for Pioneer. That processed gas was Pioneer's gas supply for sale to its customers.

From February 14 to February 19, 2021, during Winter Storm Uri, Pioneer failed to deliver the full contractual volumes to MIECO under the parties' NAESB agreement. On February 16, 2021, Pioneer declared force majeure occurred because it was unable to deliver the full volumes of gas to MIECO. Pioneer did not attempt to purchase replacement gas from the spot market to cover the shortfall.3

MIECO sued Pioneer. The parties filed competing summary judgment motions on MIECO's claim and Pioneer's assertion of force majeure. The Northern District of Texas considered whether Pioneer's nonperformance from February 14 to February 19, 2021 was excusable under the contract's force majeure provisions due to Winter Storm Uri. The court's analysis applied New York law4 and focused on three documents forming the parties' contract: (i) the Base Contract, (ii) the Special Provisions, and (iii) the Transaction Confirmation. Section 11 of the parties' Base Contract defined force majeure:

"Section 11. Force Majeure

11.1. ...the term 'Force Majeure' as employed herein means any cause not reasonably within the control of the party claiming suspension, as further defined in Section 11.2.

11.2. Force Majeure shall include, but not be limited to, the following: ... (ii) weather-related events affecting an entire geographic region, such as low temperatures which cause freezing or failure of wells or lines...5

11.3. Neither party shall be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Force Majeure to the extent performance is affected by any or all of the following circumstances: ... (v) the loss or failure of Seller's gas supply or depletion of reserves, except, in either case, as provided in Section 11.2."

The court held that under the terms of the parties' contract, force majeure included a loss or failure of Pioneer's gas supply caused by low temperatures that affected an entire region causing freezing or failure of wells or lines of pipe.6 The court ruled the contractual language was unambiguous and that Pioneer was prevented from performing under the contract because it lost its gas supply ? i.e., the residue gas from the third party's processing plant ? due to low temperatures caused by Winter Storm Uri that affected an entire geographic region. Therefore, force majeure excused Pioneer's non delivery.7

The court also rejected MIECO's argument that to constitute force majeure, an event must render performance literally impossible. The court held that requiring a party to show true impossibility would render the force majeure provisions superfluous and also duplicative of the common law defense of impossibility.8 MIECO later moved for reconsideration of the court's ruling, which the court denied.

LNG Americas, Inc. v. Chevron Natural Gas, a division of Chevron U.S.A. Inc.9

Similar to the MIECO case,10 Chevron had contracted to deliver 90,000 MMBTU of natural gas per day to LNG Americas, Inc. (LNG).11 From February 14 to February 21, 2021, during Winter Storm Uri, Chevron delivered less than the contractual volumes to LNG. On February 15, 2021, Chevron declared force majeure due to unprecedented low temperatures causing freezing or failure of wells, plants, or lines of pipe.12

LNG sued Chevron. The parties filed competing summary judgment motions on LNG's claims. The Southern District of Texas' analysis centered on the effect of Special Conditions 2 and 3 of the parties' contract.

Special Condition 2

Special Condition 2 provided that delivery shall not be excused by a loss of, or fluctuations in, production from any particular seller's gas producing region or wellhead (underlining for emphasis).13 The court found that Special Condition 2 only excluded loss of production events confined to a single gas producing region, and thus force majeure would only not apply where there was loss of production from a single wellhead or region. And, although the court found the contract was unambiguous, the court noted that extrinsic evidence provided by Chevron showed Chevron had rejected terms proposed by LNG that would have explicitly prohibited any force majeure declaration based on loss of production.14

Special Condition 3

Special Condition 3 provided that an event could only be a force majeure to the extent it directly prevented or restricted delivery at the applicable delivery point. Based on the dictionary definition of "direct," Winter Storm Uri prevented or restricted delivery in that Chevron produced less gas to send on the specific pipeline and ultimately to deliver at the specified delivery point.15 The court further held that Special Condition 3 did not define force majeure to exclude loss of production events, but rather, excluded events with only an indirect or attenuated impact on delivery.

Special Condition 3 and replacement gas

LNG also alleged that Special Condition 3 prevented force majeure because Chevron was not prevented from purchasing and delivering replacement gas at the delivery point.16 The court, in agreeing with MIECO,17 found that to "prevent one party from performing" in this context did not require an impossibility because such reading would make several of the contract's force majeure provisions superfluous.18 Instead, Special Condition 3 turned on practicability rather than possibility. Notably, the court held it was impracticable for Chevron to buy gas at the spot price on February 14, 2021, as the price was 5,200% greater than the contract price and that by February 17, 2021, the spot price was nearly 12,800% greater than the contract price.19 Thus, the court concluded that at least as to February 14-19, 2021 ? when the spot price was "totally disproportionate to the contract price" ? Winter Storm Uri was unambiguously a force majeure event that prevented or restricted delivery, notwithstanding the availability of some spot market gas.20

Impact on natural gas markets

Force majeure continues to be an issue that bedevils parties to the NAESB. The Chevron and Mieco opinions clearly found that (i) wide-ranging weather events constitute force majeure, (ii) force majeure is interpreted using an impracticability standard and not an impossibility standard, and (iii) the supplier is not obligated to pull gas from storage at the delivery point before declaring force majeure based on disruption to its upstream supply.

Parties, therefore, must exercise great caution in drafting their force majeure provisions and exclusions ? while keeping an eye towards the contextual realities of their commercial operations ? because the exact contractual terms will be heavily scrutinized when a force majeure is asserted. Also, buyers of natural gas should insist on contractual language addressing when a seller is obligated to acquire replacement gas.

Footnotes

1. Civil Action 3:21-CV-1781-B (N.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2023).

2. Id. at *4.

3. Id. at *5-6.

4. Id. at *11.

5. Id. at *13.

6. Id. at *15-16.

7. Id.

8. Id. at *18.

9. Civil Action No. H-21-2226; 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63868.

10. Civil Action 3:21-CV-1781-B (N.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2023).

11. Civil Action No. H-21-2226; 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63868 at * 3.

12. Id. at *6.

13. Id. at *10 (emphasis added).

14. Id. at *12-13.

15. Id. at *15.

16. Id. at *17.

17. Civil Action 3:21-CV-1781-B (N.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2023).

18. Civil Action No. H-21-2226; 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63868 at *20 (emphasis added).

19. Id. at *22.

20. Id. at *24-25.

This article is presented for informational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice.