re: Chevron gets hit with $745M judgement on legacy case

What's sad is that Louisiana has laws on the books, most notably a Civil Code prescription article concerning immovable property, which prohibit litigating ancient events. But the judiciary is in on the game too. There won't be any relief up the appellate ladder.

This whole thing is so backwards and embarrassing.

This is spot on. It was in fact the La SC that decided to change the La Land Act 312 I which does protect businesses from ancient bs lawsuits such as these. They ruled in favor of La Land Act II in 2013, which obviously attracted the bottom feeding lawyers to these bullshite lawsuits. Btw, the actual landowners nor taxpayers get Jack shite out of these.

quote:

---

I can only guess that those mad at the state are the same people playing golf instead of out there fishing - witnessing land disappear year to year.

But yeah y’all go ahead and be mad at the state.

---

Does your fishing on the weekend make you more noble than the golfers?


Nothing is going to save the coastline until you let sediment flow as it should. The oil companies exacerbated a problem, but they didn’t cause it. No amount of litigation is going to reverse the natural subsidence of the coast or replace what the Mississippi River deposits. If given the chance.

This suit is similar to reparations for slavery. The current defendant had nothing to do with the offenses, but they are having to pay. Will you be selling your fishing boat and offering the proceeds to some slave decedents?

quote:

---

Now we have saltwater intrusion through these canals that has long since destroyed our freshwater ecosystem, leading to exponential loss of coastal land. I can only guess that those mad at the state are the same people playing golf instead of out there fishing - witnessing land disappear year to year. But yeah y’all go ahead and be mad at the state.

---

Please explain how digging a canal introduced salt water.
The levees created salt water intrusion by cutting off the fresh water supply and containing sediment that would have replenished freshwater marsh.

Subsidence is the reason for the majority of coastal land loss.

quote:

---

Is there proof of this? Was this amended somewhere along the way?

---

Most leases required the leasing oil company to restore the property to the state it was in at the start of the lease.

Back in 2002 or so, LA Supreme Court issued its ruling in Corbello (forget the defendant name, may have been Texaco). Held they are contractually obligated to pay the plaintiff land owner however much it costs to put the land back to the way it was. They had indisputedly destroyed the land, leaving all sorts of toxic waste everywhere. The defendant made all sorts of dumb arguments like: costs exceeded value of land; owner wasn’t going to make the repairs/restoration, it wasn’t practical to restore it, etc

Court said that’s nice but tough shite. They drafted the contract, they’re sophisticated and if they wanted all these limitations, they could have written them into the contract that they the oil company drafted.

They shouldn’t be allowed to rape the land.

It won’t cover shite for anyone. Like mentioned earlier, they will throw 20-30MM worth of rock at it and the rest is for special interest. Nobody wins in these bullshite cases, except attorneys, especially not the tax payers or landowners.

MJ Farms settlement amount disclosure

quote:

---

They shouldn’t be allowed to rape the land.

---

It’s bullshite to have to pay damages and cost of remediation when the land won’t be remediated. MJ Farms got $60 million. Have they remediated?
Funny how there’s always an Exxon or chevron as defendant. Crock of shite per usual.

quote:

---

can St Bernard sue for more?

---

They can sue also. Look at cameron parish.

quote:

---

If you dig canals through dry land and connect the canal to the GOM you get salt water where there was previously dry land.

---

Not sure how much of SELA without levees is really dry land. There were places that were high land, but a majority of SELA has been coastal marsh. Much of the marsh was fresh or brackish in nature. The canals created an avenue of salt water to change the ecosystem into a salt water marsh environment. Also, I can remember watching a video 30 years ago about how some of these oil drilling canals were dug, the material was thrown on the banks of the canal that created an artificial levee that starved the marsh of water quality.

Now in some areas subsidence has played a part in coastal land loss. You take places like Leeville that had orange groves around it. Now much of it is open water. How much is due to oil and gas exploration when early wells pretty shallow or fault lines. Also how many salt domes could have been disturbed, that could have collapsed underground and accelerated subsidence.

In my opinion, the lawsuit should have never been about erosion or coastal land loss, but the lax nature in how these companies plugged and abandoned wells in the coastal marsh. Any monetary gain from the suit should be used to establish an abandoned well fund to clean up and plug wells across the state.