United States: The Latest On Natural Gas Force Majeure Provisions

Last Updated: June 5 2014
Article by Kenneth W. Irvin, Daryl L. Rice and Sohair A. Aguirre

Most Read Contributor in United States, October 2018

In a ruling of significant importance for those confronting force majeure issues in natural gas trades, and a win for Hess Corp., the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division ruled that Eni Petroleum US LLC cannot rely on a force majeure provision in its North American Energy Standards Board ("NAESB") base contract to excuse its obligation to deliver a certain quantity of natural gas at a specified delivery point where the:

  • Transaction confirmation did not specify a particular source for the gas that defendant would provide;
  • Transaction confirmation did not specify a particular transporter to be utilized for each delivery; and
  • Delivery point specified in the transaction confirmation, which was fed by a number of different sources, remained open and unaffected by the events that caused the alleged force majeure.1

This decision articulates a bright line concerning pool gas versus well-specific production in force majeure situations. Whether this decision finally lays to rest disputes over force majeure remains to be seen. We are optimistic that this decision brings useful clarity here.

Eni and the Pipelines

Eni is a producer of natural gas, including from wells located in the Gulf of Mexico. Its wells are connected through underwater pipelines to the Independent Hub ("I-Hub"), which is a floating platform in the Gulf of Mexico used by Eni and other producers. Gas in the I-Hub is aggregated, processed and transported to shore through other underwater pipelines. Here, the natural gas that Eni produced was transported through the Independence Trail Pipeline, owned and operated by Enterprise, which leads to another platform in the Gulf of Mexico called the West Delta 68. From the West Delta 68, gas is transported on-shore to the Tennessee Gas Pipeline on the 2i — Zone L — 500 Leg ("Tennessee 500") and placed into the pool.2

Relevant Terms of the NAESB Base Contract and Transaction Confirmation

Pursuant to a transaction confirmation under their NAESB agreement, Hess and Eni had agreed to the purchase and sale, on a firm basis, of 20,000 MMBtu of gas per day to be delivered at the Tennessee 500 delivery point from April 1, 2008, through April 30, 2008, at an index price. It is important to note the pool price used and not a well-specific price. On the transaction confirmation, Hess and Eni had left blank the "transporter" information and listed "None" under the "Special Conditions." The force majeure provision, which is the standard force majeure provision in Section 11 of the NAESB base contract, stated that "neither party shall be liable to the other for failure to perform a [f]irm obligation, to the extent such failure was caused by [f]orce [m]ajeure."

The term "force majeure, as employed herein, means any cause not reasonably within the control of the party claiming suspension ..." More specifically, Section 11.2 of the NAESB base contract states that "[f]orce [m]ajeure shall include, but not be limited to ... interruption and/or curtailment of [f]irm transportation and/or storage by [t]ransporters."

Events Underlying Eni's Claim of Force Majeure

On April 8, 2008, there was a leak in the Independence Trail Pipeline where it connected to the I-Hub. Thereafter, Enterprise stopped all gas transportation through the pipeline. As a result, Eni could not get gas from the I-Hub to the Tennessee 500. Eni notified Hess that it was declaring force majeure and would not be delivering any gas to the Tennessee 500. Hess, however, rejected Eni's force majeure claim arguing that the Tennessee 500 pool is fed by a number of sources and, therefore, "the leak in the Independence Trail Pipeline did not affect the availability of natural gas at the Tennessee 500 delivery point."3 In addition, Hess claimed that Eni's performance obligations were not excused by reasons of force majeure because the transaction confirmation did not specify Enterprise or the Independence Trail Pipeline as the specific transporter.

The Court's Decision

The court affirmed the lower court's finding that Eni had agreed to provide a specified quantity of gas at a specified delivery point and that nothing in the contract required Eni to provide such gas through a specific transporter or route. The court found:

"Gas remained available from other sources at the delivery point" and the "leak in the Independence Trail Pipeline" did not constitute a force majeure event under the contract and was not grounds for excusing defendant's failure to perform the clear terms of its agreement with [the] plaintiff,"4 the court ruled.

Because there was nothing limiting the defendant's performance to only gas it produced through the I-Hub, an interruption in the Independence Trail Pipeline bringing that gas to the Tennessee 500 was irrelevant to defendant's obligation. The defendant was required to have gas available in the Tennessee 500 pool for the plaintiff, regardless of how it got there. The defendant was free to use its other sources of gas to fill part of the contract or to purchase gas from the pool or the spot-market to meet its contractual obligation to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant could not invoke force majeure as a defense to the plaintiff's breach of contract claim.5

In addition, the court rejected Eni's argument that its performance was excused by the language in the NAESB force majeure provision in Section 11.2 that a force majeure event specifically includes interruption and/or curtailment of firm transportation by the transporter. In this case, Eni argued, Enterprise could not make its deliveries to Eni, which excused Eni's performance. Again, the court held that the parties had not identified Enterprise as a transporter or the Independence Trail Pipeline as the sole source of gas. Instead, the relevant provision refers to "transporters," which according to the court, indicates that gas could be transported from other sources.6

The court affirmed the lower court's award of judgment in the amount of $317,000 in damages, $81,476.87 in prejudgment interest and $263,024.15 in legal fees.7

How Hess Compares to Virginia Power Energy Marketing Inc. v. Apache Corp.

The issue of whether the NAESB force majeure clause is properly invoked when a seller's desired source for supplying the gas to the buyer stops performing and has persisted for a long time. A Texas appeals court previously ruled on a similar case where the seller, Apache Corp., failed to deliver natural gas to Virginia Power Energy Marketing ("VPEM") at two specific locations due to what Apache claimed to be events of force majeure.

The contract at issue in Apache was also the NAESB base contract, including identical force majeure provisions as in Hess. VPEM, however, claimed that Apache was obligated to use "reasonable efforts" to deliver the specified natural gas at a different delivery location. The court in Apache ruled that because the delivery location specified in the transaction confirmation was damaged such that no delivery could be made there, Apache could rely on a claim of force majeure and was not obligated to use reasonable efforts to find an alternative delivery point, the court stated.

The parties expressly agreed that Apache was to deliver 610,000 MMBtu of natural gas to a specific delivery point: the Tennessee L-500 pooling area. The parties also agreed, through the base contract, to relieve Apache from performing if a force majeure event were to prevent delivery. However, both of these contract provisions would be rendered meaningless under VPEM's interpretation of the "reasonable efforts" clause, which would force Apache to deliver gas, notwithstanding an acknowledged force majeure event, to a location other than that to which the parties expressly agreed.8

With respect to a second delivery point — Transco-65, where Apache had delivered half of its obligations under the contract — however, the court ruled that summary judgment was not appropriate regarding Apache's force majeure claim. The court reasoned that because delivery was possible at that location, the force majeure clause would apply only if it determined that Apache's "gas supply" was affected by the force majeure event such that it could not deliver the agreed quantity. Apache argued that its "gas supply" was determined by an internal plan to fulfill its obligations to VPEM from specific oil and gas platforms that were affected by force majeure. The court rejected this argument and remanded the case to trial to determine whether the hurricanes caused a loss of "gas supply" that prevented delivery of the full contract quantity.9 Further discourse on the Apache VPEM dispute never occurred in court filings because those parties apparently settled their dispute.

In Hess, the court cites this second part of the Virginia Power opinion and stated that the Texas court also found that the "gas supply" was not limited to a specific supply source.

Practical Impact

This latest interpretation of the force majeure provision of the NAESB in Hess marks an important development for all natural gas transactions. One market participant hailed this decision as "hopefully putting to rest a contentious issue about how force majeure applies to the gas market." We agree.

The reason is that the price of pool gas reflects the firmness of supply from the liquid pool, whereas pricing well-specific gas tends to reflect the interruptible nature of that supply. Market participants should take care to ensure that, when entering into gas transactions, any intentions to allow the seller to use specific sources of supply should be explicitly disclosed.

Likewise, any limitations on transportation facilities and delivery points to be used should be expressly agreed at the time the transaction is entered into and reflected in the transaction confirmation. Transactions with more contingencies (i.e., "outs") are less valuable than transactions with fewer contingencies.

Although the Hess court did not say so in its opinion, the court may have been influenced by the notion that if a buyer is receiving a product that is more contingent — and therefore less valuable — than what it thought it paid for, those contingencies had better be reflected clearly in the documentation.


1 Hess Corp. v. Eni Petroleum US LLC, 2014 N.J. Super. LEXIS 40 (App. Div. 2014).

2 Id. at *3.

3 Id. at *7.

4 Id. at *9.

5 Id. at *12.

6 Id. at *25.

7 Defendant purchased natural gas on the spot market to fulfill its own obligations at a cost of $300,000 more than what it would have paid under the contract.

8 Virginia Power Energy Mktg. v. Apache Corp., 297 S.W.3d 397, 403 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. 2009) (citing Tex. Workers' Comp. Ins. Facility v. State Bd. of Ins., 894 S.W.2d 49, 54 (Tex. App.- Austin 1995, no writ) ("[O]ne party cannot unilaterally modify the terms of the original contract.")).

9 Va. Power Energy Mktg. at 400.

Originally published Law360, New York (May 20, 2014, 6:08 PM ET) --

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions