Analysis: US federal leasing strategy will continue to evolve

Oct. 12, 2022
Despite passage of the IRA, several litigation cases are expected to continue into 2023.

Jason Hill, Ian Goldberg, Garrett Korbitz, Sami Khan, and Garrett Kral, with the law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

The landscape of federal leasing has been rapidly evolving on a monthly basis since January, when we discussed the Biden administration’s moratorium on the leasing of federal lands for oil and gas exploration and production operations.[1] We now update our prior discussion with recent developments that directly affect federal oil and gas leasing, the National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program (Program), the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and related litigation over the moratorium.

To recap, the Department of the Interior (DOI) issued Secretary’s Order (SO) 3395, limiting its own authority to “issue any onshore or offshore fossil fuel authorization, including but not limited to a lease, amendment to a lease, affirmative extension of a lease, contract, or other agreement, or permit to drill.”[2] Immediately following SO 3395, President Biden issued Executive Order (EO) 14008 establishing a moratorium, by ordering the Secretary of the Interior to “pause” new oil and gas leasing of federal lands and offshore waters pending the completion of a comprehensive review and reconsideration of federal oil and gas permitting and leasing practices.[3]

The regulated community and several states’ attorneys general immediately challenged these actions in federal district court, which in turn prompted litigation from environmental organizations. This litigation has persisted over the past eighteen months and, in large part, is expected to continue into 2023. As these cases have been navigating their way through the courts, several other developments have changed the discussion of leasing on federal public lands. One thing is certain at present, leasing on federal public lands remains an active area of disagreement. 

The Lay of the Land: Litigation Updates

Louisiana v. Biden

As previously reported, thirteen states brought suit against the Biden administration’s issuance of the federal leasing moratorium; the case became known as Louisiana v. Biden. Subsequently, the district court issued an injunction which paused that moratorium. The Justice Department appealed the district court’s injunction to the Fifth Circuit.[4] At that time, we had recently published our first article on this topic, and the parties were still briefing their appeal.

On August 17, 2022, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s injunction. Here, the Fifth Circuit stated that the lower court failed to define its terms with sufficient provision and therefore could not meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d).[5] In relevant part, Rule 65(d) states that an injunction must “describe in reasonable detail . . . the act or acts restrained.” The Fifth Circuit found that the district court judge’s order “defines the [p]ause without precision, leading the parties to differ in their interpretation of the [p]ause’s breadth.”[6] As such, the Fifth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its order.[7] 

The following day, on remand, the district court issued a new permanent injunction.[8] In addressing the Fifth Circuit’s statement that the original order—and the injunction therein—was impermissibly vague, the district court clarified that the “pause” at issue “referred to the temporary stop” required by executive order 14008.[9] The district court further stated that DOI advanced an “unwritten policy to ‘stop’ the onshore and offshore leasing process [under OCSLA and the MLA] by calling the stopping a ‘pause.’”[10] In sum, the district court rejected DOI’s assertion that it had not adopted a “blanket policy” pausing or stopping leasing, reasoning that the evidence did not support the statement.[11] The court concluded “[t]he Executive Branch does not have the authority to stop the process under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) or the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) while a review is taking place,”[12] finding that the “power to pause and/or stop the federal leasing process lies solely with Congress.”[13] Therefore, “Section 208 of EO 14008 is ultra vires . . . and in violation of the OCSLA and the MLA.”[14] 

The states also prevailed on their eight Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims for similar reasons. Specifically, while DOI enjoys some discretionary authority to cancel or suspend specific lease sales, it could not do so in order to comply with the comprehensive review laid forth in Executive Order 14008[15]— because any such action is an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power by the executive branch.[16] Moreover, the actions related to Lease Sales 257 and 258—as well as the onshore quarterly lease sales for March and April 2021—were arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed to provide a rational explanation.[17]

Ultimately, the court issued a new injunction limited to any lease sales canceled or postponed prior to March 24, 2021 (the date upon which the States filed their suit),[18] but denied any relief for sales thereafter. The deadline to appeal this matter will run next month; and as of today, no appeal has been filed.

Western Energy Alliance v. Biden

In our prior article we also discussed Western Energy Alliance v. Biden.[19] However, at that time the district court had not decided the matter. That changed on September 2, 2022, when the district court issued a judgment finding that by pausing the 2021 first quarter lease sales, DOI did not violate the MLA.[20] Citing to Louisiana v. Biden, the Wyoming district court found the parties lacked standing to challenge any agency action that occurred after the lawsuit was filed.[21]

In this matter, industry plaintiffs filed suit on January 27, 2021, the day President Biden signed Executive Order 14008 into law, while Wyoming filed on March 24, 2021, after DOI had begun cancelling and postponing quarterly lease sales in response to the executive order. The difference in filing dates proved crucial, because the district court ruled that Wyoming has standing to challenge only the 2021 first-quarter lease sale postponements, while industry petitioners lack standing to challenge both the first and second-quarter lease sale postponements and cancellations.[22]

In turning to the sole remaining issue—Wyoming’s challenge to first-quarter lease sale postponements under the MLA—the court found that the administrative record supported postponing the lease sales to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Here, the court’s reasoning appears to have been guided by recent case law finding similar NEPA analysis for previous lease sales inadequate.[23] The court further reasoned that the postponements did not violate the MLA’s quarterly leasing requirement because the involved lands were not “available” due to the determination by the Assistant Secretary for Land and Mineral Management that additional environmental review, and possible revision of the environmental analysis, was necessary to ensure compliance with NEPA. Thus, “the federal lands tentatively set for lease through [the first quarter lease sales] had not satisfied all statutory requirements.”[24] 

Also, despite the court’s holding in Louisiana v. Biden, the Wyoming court found that the administrative record did not support the conclusion that the postponements resulted from a decision “to stop holding all quarterly lease sales pursuant to EO 14008,” or any sort of “blanket policy” to stop leasing.[25] Similarly, the court also found that DOI was within its discretion to postpone the lease sales so that it could ensure NEPA compliance, and that this stated reason proved sufficient to establish that DOI’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious or otherwise an abuse of discretion.[26] The court then rejected all remaining statutory challenges on similar grounds. The appeal deadline for this case will run in early-November; and as of today, no appeal has been filed.

Friends of the Earth v. Haaland

We also previously reported on the vacatur of Lease Sale 257, comprising 80.8 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico–the largest offshore oil and gas lease sale by area.[27] In this case, court found fault with the DOI’s analysis of the climate impacts under NEPA.[28] Lease Sale 257 resulted in 317 bids by 33 companies. In all, 308 tracts were leased for a total of $198,511,834.[29]

DOI did not appeal, but the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the State of Louisiana both appealed the decision in February 2022. On March 8, 2022, the D.C. Circuit denied API’s emergency motion to expedite the appeal because all parties agreed the DOI could still award leases pursuant to the lease sale if the circuit court reversed the district court’s vacatur of the lease sale.[30] The Circuit also referred to the merits panel a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction by the appellees.[31] On September 6, 2022, the circuit court was still accepting amicus briefs from interested parties. 

Then, after the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act—and to comply with provisions therein—on September 14, 2022, DOI accepted the highest bids from Lease Sale 257. Subsequently, DOI sent lease forms to the winning bidders so that the bidders could execute and return these forms, a common occurrence in this line of business.[32] The following day DOI notified the D.C. Circuit of the lease issuances pursuant to the IRA.

DOI then moved to dismiss the case on mootness grounds on September 16, 2022.[33] In moving to dismiss, DOI argued that Plaintiffs’ NEPA claim was mooted by the IRA, and that Congress did not intend for the agency to complete further NEPA analysis before issuing these leases. DOI further argued that vacatur of the district court’s judgment is the “established practice” when “congressional action rather than mere happenstance [alters] the posture of a case,” and requested that the district court’s judgment be vacated and remanded back with direction “to dismiss the complaint as moot.”[34] Alternatively, DOI argued that the circuit court dismiss these appeals as moot. Also on September 16, 2022, API and the State of Louisiana filed a similar motion to dismiss asserting only that the district court’s decision should be vacated, and remanded with instructions to the district court that it should dismiss this case. Environmental appellees also filed their merits brief on September 16, 2022.  Of note, they reference the parties’ disagreement on the impacts that the IRA has on this appeal. Their analysis leads them to conclude that DOI must still comply with the district court’s remand order to conduct additional NEPA analysis.

It remains to be seen how the appeal will be resolved in light of the DOI’s statutory obligations under the IRA, and the parties’ apparent disagreement over whether additional NEPA analysis remains necessary.

Gulf Restoration Network v. Haaland

Looming in the background of these cases is another case brought by environmentalists that sought to throw out 2018 Lease Sales 250 and 251, which encompassed more than 150 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico.[35] On August 30, 2022, the D.C. Circuit determined that DOI needs to more closely examine oil spills and other safety risks from auctioning off parts of the Gulf of Mexico for offshore drilling before doing so.[36]

However, the D.C. Circuit rejected environmentalists’ arguments that DOI failed to properly evaluate the potential benefits of postponing these auctions and unreasonably refused to consider possible future changes to safety regulations.[37] Overall, the court found that DOI’s mistaken NEPA analysis could be corrected, and that even partial injunctive relief would be disruptive as the lessees would risk forfeiting their leases if they cannot timely meet certain obligations. The D.C. Circuit, therefore, remanded the case to the district court with instructions to remand the decision back to DOI for further consideration.[38]

Leasing Updates

We previously reported that although DOI had cancelled Lease Sale 258 (Cook Inlet) in February 2021, it appeared to be making slow progress in light of the injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden. In addition, we noted that DOI continued to operate under the 2017-2022 Program with three remaining lease sales scheduled. However, in the wake of the Friends of the Earth decision, DOI cancelled the remaining lease sales under the 2017-2022 program on May 11, 2022, including Lease Sale 258 for a second time.[39]

Pursuant to the 1978 amendments of the OCSLA,[40] DOI must establish forward-looking programs scheduling proposed oil and gas lease sales for the OCS. In our last article we noted that the Biden administration had been remarkably silent in advancing a new five-year program, and that it was becoming increasingly likely that it would be unable to complete the process before the 2017-2022 program expired. The 2017-2022 program did, in fact, expire on June 30, 2022, without any replacement.[41] The lack of a program is an unprecedented occurrence and has not happened since the first program was implemented more than four decades ago.

Of the five steps required for establishing a new program, the Trump administration had completed two: the first step, a request for information (RFI), and the second step, a draft proposed program (DPP) and a notice of intent (NOI) for a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS).[42] The RFI published in July 2017 evaluated all 26 OCS planning areas. The DPP, released in January 2018, included 47 potential lease sales in 25 OCS planning areas—19 sales off the coast of Alaska, 7 in the Pacific Region, 12 in the Gulf of Mexico and 9 in the Atlantic Region. However, several of the potential lease sales relied upon EO 13795, which revoked prior OCSLA withdrawals from the Obama administration. In March 2019, the relevant portions of EO 13795 were held invalid and unlawful by the district court in Alaska.[43] On January 20, 2021, with that appeal pending in the Ninth Circuit, a new executive order, EO 13990, reinstated the prior withdrawals and revoked EO 13795. Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit vacated the underlying district court decision and remanded with instructions to dismiss based upon the mootness of the appeal.[44]  On May 19, 2022, while testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Secretary Haaland announced that DOI would take the third step for establishing a replacement by publishing a proposed program by June 30, 2022, but DOI did not actually release the 2023-2028 proposed program and draft PEIS until late on Friday, July 1, 2022.

The proposed program scaled back the number of suggested lease sales to a plan resembling the 2017-2022 program schedule with 10 sales in the Gulf of Mexico and one in Cook Inlet. In addition, DOI did not specify a preferred alternative and included a “no leasing” alternative, thereby retaining discretion at the proposed final program stage to determine that no OCS lease sales will be scheduled under the 2023-2028 program.[45] The proposed program is subject to a 90-day public comment period, which will run through October 6, 2022. DOI will then consider and respond to comments before releasing the proposed final program and Final PEIS (the fourth step in the offshore leasing process). This will, in turn, be followed by a 60-day waiting period before the DOI can approve the 2023-2028 program and publish the Record of Decision (the fifth and final step in the offshore leasing process).

The Inflation Reduction Act

On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed the IRA into law, and it enacted substantial changes for OCS leasing in the immediate future. First, the IRA undoes the vacatur of Lease Sale 257 by directing DOI to “accept the highest valid bid for each tract or bidding unit of Lease Sale 257 for which a valid bid was received on November 17, 2021,” and to “provide the appropriate lease forms to the winning bidder to execute and return.”[46] The IRA further requires DOI to “promptly” issue to the highest bidder “a fully executed lease in accordance with” the “terms and conditions” contained in the October 4, 2021, final notice of sale, once the lease form is returned.[47] As mentioned above, DOI took these steps on September 14, 2022.

Additionally, the IRA revoked DOI’s cancellation of the remaining lease sales under the 2017-2022 program. Despite the previous cancellations and the program’s expiration, the IRA requires DOI to conduct Alaska’s Cook Inlet Lease Sale 258 by December 31, 2022, and the Gulf of Mexico Lease Sales 259 and 261 by March, 31, 2023, and September 30, 2023, respectively.[48] Arguably, the IRA removes these lease sales from further NEPA analysis by removing DOI’s discretion as to whether to hold these lease sales.[49] However, DOI does not appear to be taking the same position towards completing NEPA analysis with respect to Lease Sales 258, 259 and 261 that it has in its motion to dismiss filed in the Friends of the Earth case regarding Lease Sale 257. On September 21, 2022, DOI announced that it would be putting out the Proposed Notice of Sale for Lease Sale 258 the following day and included a statement that a Final EIS and ROD would be published later this fall.[50] Based upon the Proposed Notice, DOI will hold Lease Sale 258 for Cook Inlet, Alaska, on December 30, 2022. While it notes the requirement to hold Lease Sale 258 by December 31, 2022, it also contains a statement that all leases are subject to OCSLA, its implementing regulations and other applicable statutes and regulations. On October 6, 2022, DOI then announced a draft Supplemental EIS for Gulf of Mexico Lease Sales 259 and 261.[51]

Our January article included a section on the Build Back Better (BBB) Bill, and how many of those provisions were in the substantive recommendations of DOI’s report generated last November in response to EO 14008, Sec. 208. We also noted the uncertainty of that legislation moving forward in January. The IRA picks up many of those recommendations and BBB provisions. The IRA amends OCSLA to increase the minimum royalty rate from 12½ % to 16⅔%.[52] In addition, royalties are now required on all produced methane.[53] 

Of note, the IRA ties offshore wind production to conventional leasing over the next 10 years.[54]  DOI can now only issue offshore wind leases if an offshore oil and gas lease sale has been held in the prior year, and the sum total of acres offered for lease during that year was at least 60 million acres.[55] The Biden administration has announced a goal of deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030 and has been aggressive in meeting this goal over the past year.[56] It will be interesting to watch how the Biden administration pursues its ambitious goal in light of this new provision in the IRA, and whether this provision impacts DOI’s selection of alternatives in the 2023-2028 program.

Onshore Leasing

The MLA sets out the process for selling and managing onshore leases of federally owned oil and gas.[57] Under the MLA, lease sales shall be held, at least quarterly, in each State where eligible lands are available.[58] However, all planned lease sales scheduled for 2021 were cancelled.[59] In an effort to comply with the injunction against the federal leasing moratorium in Louisiana v. Biden, DOI announced that BLM assessed 646 parcels comprising roughly 733,000 acres across several states for potential onshore lease sales. However, 473 parcels—totaling 589,000 acres—were ultimately eliminated, constituting an 80% reduction from the acreage originally nominated. Final sale notices were posted for 173 parcels covering 144,000 acres in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, North Dakota, Montana, Utah and Wyoming.[60]

Conservation groups filed suit in federal district court challenging these lease sales, Dakota Resource Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior, asserting NEPA claims based on potential climate change impacts, and seeking an injunction of the lease sales pending an assessment or additional NEPA analysis related to climate change. [61] On September 21, 2022 the parties filed a joint motion for extension of time to file a proposed briefing schedule.

On October 6, 2022, DOI announced it would begin scoping for the next onshore lease sales in Wyoming and New Mexico scheduled for the second quarter of 2023.[62] DOI also noted that scoping notices from other states would be posted in the coming weeks.[63] 

In the IRA, Congress reiterated the MLA’s quarterly lease sale requirement.[64] Similar to the offshore provisions mentioned above, onshore renewable energy development has now been tied to conventional leasing. In order for DOI to grant a right-of-way for wind or solar development on federal lands,[65] an onshore lease sale must have taken place within the preceding 120 days.[66] Additionally, DOI may not issue a right-of-way on federal lands for wind or solar energy development unless the number of acres offered for onshore oil and gas lease sales during the one year period prior to the date of issuance of the right-of-way for wind or solar energy development is not less than: (i) 2,000,000 acres or (ii) 50% of the acreage for which expressions of interest (EOI) have been submitted for lease sales during that period, whichever is less.[67]

Further, the IRA implements additional leasing reforms that align with the recommendations from DOI’s report generated last November in response to EO 14008, Sec. 208 and the BBB Bill.[68] These changes include:

1.    Raising the minimum royalty rate in OCSLA from 12½ % to 16⅔ %, but no greater than 18¾ %, for the 10 years following the IRA’s enactment.[69]

2.     Increasing the minimum royalty rate for the reinstatement of terminated leases from 16⅔% to 20% for future royalties on those reinstated leases.[70] 

3.     Assessing lease royalties on all gas extracted and produced, including gas lost by venting, flaring or negligent releases.[71] Gas vented or flared in emergency situations for less than two days, gas used within the lease area for the benefit of the lease or gas that is unavoidably lost are all exempt from assessment of royalty payments.[72]

4.     Increasing the minimum bid from $2 per acre to $10 per acre.[73]

5.     Increasing rental rates from $1.50 per acre per year to $3 per acre per year for the two year period beginning on the date the lease begins for new leases, $5 per acre per year for the six years that follow the initial two year period, and not less than $15 per acre per each year thereafter.

6.     Increasing the rental rate for reinstated leases from $10 per acre per year to $20 per acre per year.[74]

7.     Assessing a new, nonrefundable fee of $5 per acre of the area covered by the applicable expression of interest (EOI).[75] In addition, the fee will be adjusted for inflation at least every four years.[76] In the past, EOIs have been free—and this has led some to speculate that past EOIs were submitted for acreage even though there was no industry interest. Further, some have argued these practices have resulted in wasted agency time on lease sales for numerous parcels that received no bids. It remains to be seen whether this new fee will have any impact in addressing these concerns. 

8.     Eliminating non-competitive leasing under the MLA. Now BLM can only make land available for a new round of competitive bidding when: (i) no bid was accepted or received; and (ii) a previous lease was terminated, expired, cancelled or relinquished.[77]

Resurveying the Landscape

In the realm of federal lands, oil and gas leasing is hotly contested. Indeed this topic has caught Congress’ attention—as seen in those provisions of the IRA discussed above. Expect the cases discussed above to continue into 2023, perhaps with the notable exception of Friends of the Earth v. Haaland. Indeed, it is possible that any potential future action by DOI may result in additional litigation. As the fight over natural resource allocation continues, DOI will become an increasingly important agency.

References and footnotes


[2]; see also

[3]; see also

[4] Louisiana v. Biden, 2:21-CV-00778, 2021 WL 2446010 (W.D. La. June 15, 2021). In addition, on August 23, 2021, in North Dakota v. DOI, 1:21-cv-00148-DMT-CRH (D.N.D.), North Dakota filed a Motion for Immediate Mandamus Relief seeking an order compelling compliance with the preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, requiring DOI to resume previously cancelled onshore quarterly lease sales.

[5] Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d).

[6] Louisiana v. Biden, 45 F.4th 841, 845 (5th Cir. 2021).

[7] Id. at 7-8.

[8] See generally Louisiana v. Biden, No. 2:21-cv-00778, slip op. at 1 (W.D. La. Aug. 18, 2022).

[9] Id. at 14.

[10] Id. at 15.

[11] Id. at 22.

[12] Id.

[13] Id. at 24 (emphasis added).

[14] Id.

[15] Id. at 32.

[16] Id. at 34.

[17] Id. at 35.

[18] Id. at 19 (determining the court lacked jurisdiction over any agency actions that occurred after the plaintiffs filed suit on March 24, 2021).

[19] Western Energy Alliance v. Biden, et al., No 2:21-cv-00013-SWS (D. Wyo. Sept. 2, 2022).

[20] Id.

[21] Id. at 13.

[22] Id. at 16.

[23] Id. at 17.

[24] Id. at 19.

[25] Id. at 18.

[26] Id. at 21-22.


[28] No. 21-2317, (D.D.C. Jan. 27, 2022) at 2.

[29]; See also

[30] Friends of the Earth v. Haaland, No. 22-5036, (D.C. Cir. March 8, 2022).

[31] Id. at 1-2.

[32] See Inflation Reduction Act § 50264(b)(1).

[33] Friends of the Earth, et al. v. Haaland, et al., 583 F. Supp. 3d ---, (D.D.C. 2022), 2022 WL 254526 (See Doc. 86, Defendants’ notice regarding the issuance of leases) (This case is on appeal at the D.C. Circuit and may be found at USCA case number 22-5036, document number 1964417.).

[34] Brief for Respondent at 14, Friends of the Earth, et al. v. Haaland, et al., 583 F. Supp. 3d ---, (D.D.C. 2022), 2022 WL 254526.

[35] Gulf Restoration Network v. Haaland, --- F.4th ---, (D.C. Cir. 2022), 2022 WL 3722429.

[36] Id. at 1.

[37] Id. at 8-9.

[38] Id. at 17.


[40] 43 U.S.C. § §1331-1356b; see also §1344.



[43] League of Conservation Voters v. Trump, 363 F.Supp.3d 1013 (D. Alaska 2019).

[44] League of Conservation Voters v. Biden, No. 19-35460, (9th Cir. April 13, 2021).

[45] BOEM, 2023-2028 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing: Proposed Program, July 2022, at at 4.

[46] IRA § 50264(b)(1).

[47] Id. § 50264(b)(2).

[48] Id. § 50264.

[49] See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(q)(1)(ii); see also Dep’t of Transp. v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752 (2004) (an agency need not analyze environmental effects of an action it has no discretion to avoid).



[52] IRA § 50261.

[53] Id. § 50263.

[54] Id. § 50265(b)(2).

[55] Id. § 50265.     

[56] Power to Launch: Creation of Federal-State Offshore Wind Implementation Partnership | The Nickel Report (

[57] 30 U.S.C. 226(b)(1)(A).

[58] Id.


[60]; See also

[61] Dakota Resources Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:22-cv-01853, (D.D.C. June 28, 22).



[64] Inflation Reduction Act, § 50265.

[65] This definition of federal lands is synonymous with the definition of “public lands” found in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act – meaning it does not include the outer continental shelf or Indian trust lands; See 43 U.S.C. 1702.

[66] Inflation Reduction Act, § 50264(b)(1)(A).

[67] Id. at § 50264(b)(1)(A).

[68] Id. at §§ 50261 and 50262.

[69] Id. at § 50261(1)-(3).

[70] Id. at § 50262(a)(2).

[71] Id. at § 50263(a).

[72] Id. at § 50262(b).

[73] Id. at § 50262(b)-(c).

[74] Id. at § 50262(c)(1-2).

[75] Id. at § 50262(d)(q)(1).

[76] Id. at § 50262(d)(2).

[77] Id. at § 50262(e).

About the Author

Jason Hill | Counsel, Hunton Andrews Kurth, LLP

Jason Hill is a counsel with Hunton Andrews Kurth, LLP, where he leads the firm’s public lands practice. A former Chief Administrative Judge of the Interior Board of Land Appeals and Deputy Solicitor for Energy and Mineral Resources at the U.S. Department of the Interior, Jason has more than 20 years of experience counseling clients through complex natural resource litigation, compliance, and regulatory issues arising under a wide array of federal natural resource and energy statutes and regulations.

About the Author

Garrett Korbitz | Associate, Hunton Andrews Kurth, LLP

Garrett Korbitz is an associate with Hunton Andrews Kurth, LLP. Garrett focuses his practice on oil and gas transactions, including asset acquisitions and divestitures and other complex commercial contracts. Garrett also represents private equity investors and energy companies in mergers and acquisitions.

About the Author

Ian Goldberg

Ian Goldberg is a corporate partner in Hunton Andrews Kurth’s oil and gas practice group. Ian advises clients on a broad range of energy transactions, including upstream and midstream oil and gas mergers, acquisitions and divestitures, financial transactions, and out-of-court and bankruptcy court restructurings. He has extensive experience representing exploration and production companies and financial partners with respect to operations in the major U.S. conventional and unconventional onshore basins, as well as offshore in the Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, Ian is well versed in oil, gas and mineral law, and regularly assists clients with real estate transactions involving producing property, lease negotiations and mineral and royalty transactions.

About the Author

Sami Khan

Sami Khan is a corporate associate in Hunton Andrews Kurth’s oil and gas practice group. Sami focuses his practice on oil and gas transactions, including asset acquisitions and divestitures, product supply agreements and other complex commercial contracts. Sami also represents private equity investors and energy companies in mergers and acquisitions.

About the Author

Garrett Kral

Garrett Kral is a law clerk in Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Washington, D.C. office (not admitted to practice law in the District of Columbia).

Request More Information

By clicking above, I acknowledge and agree to Endeavor Business Media’s Terms of Service and to Endeavor Business Media's use of my contact information to communicate with me about offerings by Endeavor, its brands, affiliates and/or third-party partners, consistent with Endeavor's Privacy Policy. In addition, I understand that my personal information will be shared with any sponsor(s) of the resource, so they can contact me directly about their products or services. Please refer to the privacy policies of such sponsor(s) for more details on how your information will be used by them. You may unsubscribe at any time.