Noble Energy, Inc. v. Jewell, 650 F. App'x 9

Noble Energy acquired an offshore lease (Well OCS-P320, No.2) in 1979 and discovered hydrocarbons, then temporarily plugged the well.
The lease received multiple suspensions; the final suspension (1999) was revoked by a federal district court for failing to address consistency with California’s coastal management plan; the government did not complete a consistency determination.
The Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit held the government breached the lease; the breach discharged Noble from contractual lease obligations under the takings/contract findings.
In 2009 the agency (MMS, predecessor to BSEE) ordered Noble to permanently plug and abandon Well 320-2; Noble sued, arguing the government’s prior breach relieved it of any obligation to plug.
On remand the BSEE concluded regulatory decommissioning obligations exist independently of lease obligations and therefore survive the government’s breach; the district court granted summary judgment for the agency and the D.C. Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plugging regulations impose obligations independent of lease contract	Noble: government breach discharged contractual and regulatory obligations to plug	BSEE: regulations create standalone decommissioning duties that survive breach	Regulations impose independent duty; Noble must plug
Proper standard and scope of review for agency action	Noble: agency interpretation should not impose obligations post-breach	BSEE: agency interpretation controls unless plainly erroneous	Court reviews agency action under APA without deference to district court; defers to agency under Auer standard here
Whether Auer deference applies to BSEE’s interpretation of its regulations	Noble: agency’s reading shouldn’t displace common-law discharge effects	BSEE: its interpretation of regulation is controlling absent plain error	Court applied Auer and found BSEE’s interpretation reasonable and not plainly erroneous
Whether United States v. Texas prevents regulation-based obligations after discharge	Noble: common-law discharge principles (as in Texas) should bar obligations post-breach	Government: no conflict between regulations and common-law discharge because duties are regulatory	Texas does not apply; no conflict; obligations remain

Holland v. Nat’l Mining Ass’n, 309 F.3d 808 (2002) (standard for reviewing agency action under APA in D.C. Circuit)
Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (agency interpretation of its own regulations controlling unless plainly erroneous)
United States v. Texas, 507 U.S. 529 (1993) (common-law discharge principles discussed)
Amber Res. Co. v. United States, 538 F.3d 1358 (2008) (Court of Federal Claims/Federal Circuit decisions on government breach of offshore leases)
Noble Energy, Inc. v. Salazar, 671 F.3d 1241 (2012) (prior D.C. Circuit opinion remanding to agency to interpret plugging regulations)
Calif. ex rel. Calif. Coastal Comm’n v. Norton, 150 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (2001) (district court revoking lease suspension for failure to comply with coastal consistency)
Calif. ex rel. Calif. Coastal Comm’n v. Norton, 311 F.3d 1162 (2002) (Ninth Circuit affirming aspects of district court decision)