3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGP23015-URC001 

Claimant: State of Louisiana 

Type of Claimant: State

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $12,807.20 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $12,715.44 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On April 3, 2018, the National Response Center (NRC) notified United States Coast Guard 

(USCG) Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Houma regarding three barrels of crude oil that was released 

from a leaking and unsecured crude oil storage tank at the Bay Jaques Offshore Facility located 

in Bay Jacques, a tributary of Bayou LaFourche, in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.2

 In its role as 

Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC), MSU conducted a phone investigation with a 

representative from Bayou Gauging & Services, to confirm the details of the report and 

discovered that the cause of the discharge was a steel tank that contained a 1.5 inch hole located 

on the bottom, caused by corrosion. The leak could not be secured due to the location of the 

pilings underneath the tank and as a result, 108 barrels of crude oil discharged into the water.3 

The crude oil entered Bay Jacques and threatened Bayou LaFourche, ultimately threatening the 

Gulf of Mexico, a navigable waterway of the United States.4 

On April 3, 2018, State of Louisiana, (“State” or “Claimant”) was notified via NRC Incident 

Report # 1208362 which initiated the State’s Case # LA2018 0403 1105 and generated the 

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) Incident Report ID # 183946.5

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA),6 Summit Oil and Gas LLC is the 

operator of Bay Jacque Field LL&E Tank Battery7 and has been identified as the Responsible 

Party (“RP” or Summit).8

1 This determination is written for the sole purpose of adjudicating a claim against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

(OSLTF). This determination adjudicates whether the claimant is entitled to OSLTF reimbursement of claimed 

removal costs or damages under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This determination does not adjudicate any rights or 

defenses any Responsible Party or Guarantor may have or may otherwise be able to raise in any future litigation or 

administrative actions, to include a lawsuit or other action initiated by the United States to recover the costs 

associated with this incident. After a claim has been paid, the OSLTF becomes subrogated to all of the claimant’s 

rights under 33 U.S.C. § 2715. When seeking to recover from a Responsible Party or a Guarantor any amounts paid 

to reimburse a claim, the OSLTF relies on the claimant’s rights to establish liability. If a Respnsible Party or 

Guarantor has any right to a defense to liability, those rights can be asserted against the OSLTF. Thus this 

determination does not affect any rights held by a Respnsible Party or a Guarantor.

2 NRC Incident Report # 1208362 dated April 3, 2018. 3 USCG MSU Pollution Responder Statement dated April 3, 2018. 4 NRC Incident Report # 1208362 dated April 3, 2018. 5 See, Department of Public Safety Invoice # LA2018_0403_1105_1, dated May 10, 2023 p. 12/55 of claim 

submission and Louisiana DEQ Incident Report ID # 183946, pgs. 21 – 24/55 of claim submission. 6 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32).

7 See, Proof of Ownership Letter to the Honorable dated April 26, 2018. 8 See, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) dated April 3, 2018.

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

5

On May 24, 2023, Mr. J otified the NPFC that Summit Oil & Gas, LLC.,

wells in Bay Jaque have been included in the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Office 

of Conservation’s Orphan Well Program via a letter dated March 8, 2019.18 Mr letter 

also served to advise the NPFC that Summit Oil & Gas, LLC is completely insolvent and has 

sought measures to file for bankruptcy. Further, Summit Oil & Gas, LLC., plans to list the 

Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast Guard, and the State of Louisiana as 

creditors.

19

Recovery Operations

At 11:34 on April 3, 2018, an employee from Flash Gas & Oil S.W. Inc., reported the oil 

spill to the National Response Center via Report # 1208362.20

 At 1650 On April 3, 2018, USCG MSU IMD arrived on scene and observed 

approximately 15 barrels of crude oil had discharged into the water and impacted the vegetation 

surrounding the area within a half mile in either direction of the waterway. The total amount 

discharged was 108 barrels and the total amount recovered was 104 barrels via absorbent boom 

and skimmers. MSU directed the response and cleanup activities and generated MISLE 

Case History Report # 1121166.21

 On April 3, 2018, LDEQ Emergency State Responder resoponded by phone. However, the 

next day, LDEQ was informed that the release was approximately 100 barrels. Therefore, 

LDEQ, LOSCO, USCG, and Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries all arrived onscene on April 4, 2018.22

On April 3, 2018, Summit Oil implemented their Facility Response Plan (FRP), alleviating 

the need for federal funding. OMI was hired as the Oil Spill Removal Organization (OSRO) to 

contain and recover the oil. At the time of the initial oil spill incident report, Summit Oil 

reported an incorrect amount of oil that had been discharged into the water. Therefore, the 

OSRO initially arrived on-scene without enough personnel and equipment. The FOSC

determined that additional resources and personnel were required and made arrangements with 

the OSRO to dispatch additional personnel and equipment.23

 On April 4, 2018, the OSRO arrived at 0630 with 14 personnel, two 26-foot response boats, 

one 16-foot utility boat, and 1000 feet of 18-inch boom. USCG Pollution Responders provided 

oversight of the OSRO’s response actions. The source of the oil spill was secured after all of the 

product had been removed and relocated to a different tank.24 

18 See, State of Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Office of Conservation letter dated March 8, 2019; P. 3 

– 4/4 of the Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, L.L.C. letter to the NPFC dated May 24, 2023. 19 Geiger, Laborde & Laperouse, L.L.C. letter to NPFC dated May 24, 2023. 20 See, NRC Case # 1208362 dated April 3, 2018. 21 USCG MISLE Case History Report Id: 1121166. 22 Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Incident Report, Incident ID: 183946. P. 21-24/55 of claim 

submission..

23 USCG Pollution Responder Statement dated April 3, 2018. 24 Id.

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
6

 The total amount discharged was estimated to be 108 barrels of crude oil and the total 

amount recovered was 104 barrels via sorbent boom and skimmers. There were no additional 

visible signs of pollution from the facility. Therefore, facility operations were suspended 

pending inspections and repairs. The FOSC determined the company’s response actions were 

adequate. 

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

Absent limited circumstances, the federal regulations implementing the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 (OPA)25 require all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented to the 

responsible party before seeking compensation from the NPFC.26 

On April 16, 2019, the State of Louisiana submitted its claim to Summit Oil and Gas, LLC., 

via a letter and invoice # LA2018_0403_1105_1. The invoice was inclusive of LA State Agency 

Response and Natural Resource Damage Assessment Expenditures for $23,537.83.27

 On November 19, 2019, the State of LA received a letter from Mr. of 

Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, L.L.C., that stated Summit Oil & Gas, LLC. wells in Bay Jaque 

were included in the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Office of Conservation’s 

Orphan Well Program.28 The letter also advised the State that Summit Oil & Gas, LLC is 

completely insolvent and has sought measures to file for bankruptcy. 

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

When an RP denies a claim or has not settled a claim after 90 days of receipt, a claimant may 

elect to present its claim to the NPFC.29 On April 28, 2023, the NPFC received State of 

Louisiana’s claim submission for $23,537.83 in uncompensated removal and natural resource 

damages.

30 On May 4, 2023, the State withdrew the NRD portion of its claim, leaving only the 

uncomensated removal costs portion of the claim in the amount of $12,807.20.31 

On May 10, 2023, the State resubmitted their claim package consisting of their 

uncompensated removal costs in the amount of $12, 807.20. The claim included an OSLTF 

Claim Form, NRC Incident Report # 1208362, LSP Hazardous Material Incident Report # 18-

01565, U.S. Coast Guard 8th District Heartland News Release, State of Louisiana Letter to 

Summit Oil and Gas, LLC, State Invoice # LA2018_0403_1105_1 for $12,807.20, LDEQ 

Request for Reimbursement # JAQE-001, State Labor and Equipment Records, Response Work 

Descriptions, LDEQ Incident ID: # 183946, LDEQ Photographs of the oil incident, 

LDW&F/Office of Wildlife Request for Reimbursement # 18-01565, State Labor and Equipment 

25 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 26 33 CFR 136.103. 27 See, State Letter to Summit Oil and Gas, LLC., dated April 16, 2019. P 11/55 of claim submission to the NPFC. 

Also see, Department of Public Safety LOSCO Invoice # LA2018_0403_1105_1, dated March 1, 2019. P. 12/55 of 

claim submission.

28 See, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, L.L.C. letter to Louisiana Oil Spill coordinator, Mr. dated November 

19, 2023. Pgs. 78 and 79/79 of claim submission to the NPFC. 29 33 CFR 136.103. 30 State of Louisiana’s Optional OSLTF Claim Form received April 28, 2023. P. 1-2/79 of the original claim 

submission. 31 See, Email between Mr. and NPFC dated May 4, 2023, removing the NRD portion of its claim.

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
7

Records, Response Work Descriptions, LA DNR – Office Coast Management Request for 

Reimbursement # 001, Labor and Equipment records, Response Work Description, DPS/LOSCO 

Oil Spill Expense Report #18-01565, Operating Costs Summary Record, Equipment Record, 

DPS/LOSCO Vehicle Usage for Bay Jaque Incident, Labor Record, Response Work 

Descriptions, State’s Indirect Rate, and the Denial Letter from Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, 

L.L.C. to the State.32

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

The NPFC utilizes an informal process when adjudicating claims against the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).33 As a result, 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) requires the NPFC to provide a 

brief statement explaining its decision. This determination is issued to satisfy that requirement.

When adjudicating claims against the OSLTF, the NPFC acts as the finder of fact. In this 

role, the NPFC considers all relevant evidence, including evidence provided by claimants and 

evidence obtained independently by the NPFC, and weighs its probative value when determining 

the facts of the claim.34 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.35 If there is conflicting evidence in the record, the 

NPFC makes a determination as to what evidence is more credible or deserves greater weight, 

and makes its determination based on the preponderance of the credible evidence. 

V. DISCUSSION: 

Under OPA, an RP is liable for all removal costs and damages resulting from either an oil 

discharge or a substantial threat of oil discharge into a navigable water of the United States.36 An 

RP’s liability is strict, joint, and several.37 When enacting OPA, Congress “explicitly recognized 

that the existing federal and states laws provided inadequate cleanup and damage remedies, 

required large taxpayer subsidies for costly cleanup activities and presented substantial burdens 

to victim’s recoveries such as legal defenses, corporate forms, and burdens of proof unfairly 

favoring those responsible for the spills.”38 OPA was intended to cure these deficiencies in the 

law. 

OPA provides a mechanism for compensating parties who have incurred removal costs where 

the responsible party has failed to do so. Removal costs are defined as “the costs of removal that 

are incurred after a discharge of oil has occurred or, in any case in which there is a substantial 

32 See, State of Louisiana (LDEQ, LDWF, LDNR, CPRA, LOSCO) claim submission – Response Only received on 

May 10, 2023.

33 33 CFR Part 136. 34 See, e.g., Boquet Oyster House, Inc. v. United States, 74 ERC 2004, 2011 WL 5187292, (E.D. La. 2011), “[T]he 

Fifth Circuit specifically recognized that an agency has discretion to credit one expert's report over another when 

experts express conflicting views.” (Citing, Medina County v. Surface Transp. Bd., 602 F.3d 687, 699 (5th Cir. 

2010)). 35 See, e.g., Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds Center, 71 Fed. Reg. 

60553 (October 13, 2006) and Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds 

Center 72 Fed. Reg. 17574 (concluding that NPFC may consider marine casualty reports but is not bound by them). 36 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 37 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 38 Apex Oil Co., Inc. v United States, 208 F. Supp. 2d 642, 651-52 (E.D. La. 2002) (citing S. Rep. No. 101-94 

(1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 722).
8

threat of a discharge of oil, the costs to prevent, minimize, or mitigate oil pollution from an 

incident.”39 The term “remove” or “removal” means “containment and removal of oil [...] from 

water and shorelines or the taking of other actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate 

damage to the public health or welfare, including, but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and 

public and private property, shorelines, and beaches.”40 

The NPFC is authorized to pay claims for uncompensated removal costs that are consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).41 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

of regulations governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such 

claims.42 The claimant bears the burden of providing all evidence, information, and 

documentation deemed relevant and necessary by the Director of the NPFC, to support and 

properly process the claim.43

Before reimbursement can be authorized for uncompensated removal costs, the claimant 

must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence: 

(a) The actions taken were necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the 

incidents; 

(b) The removal costs were uncured as a result of these actions;

(c) The actions taken were directed by the FOSC or determined by the FOSC to be consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan; and

(d) The removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.44

The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined that the majority of costs incurred 

and submitted by the State of LA herein are compensable removal costs based on the supporting 

documentation provided. All costs approved for payment were verified as being invoiced at the 

appropriate rate sheet pricing and all costs were supported by adequate documentation which 

included invoices and/or proof of payment where applicable. 

Upon adjudication of the costs, the NPFC has determined that the amount of compensable 

removal costs is $12,715.44 while $91.76 is deemed non-compensable for the following 

reasons:

45

1. LA Department of Environmental Quality (LA DEQ) requested mileage for 

on 4/4/2018 in the amount of $10.00. This line item is denied because according to the 

Response Work Description stated on page 20/55 of the claim submission, this person 

only “prepared” for the site visit to take place the next day. The record does not provide 

evidence of this person driving to the site this day. Therefore, this line item is denied46

The NPFC also denied $0.02 as an unsubstantiated cost.

47

39 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 40 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 41 See generally, 33 U.S.C. §2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 42 33 CFR Part 136. 43 33 CFR 136.105. 44 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 45 Enclosure 3 to this determination provides a detailed analysis of the amounts approved and denied by the NPFC. 46 Id. 47 Id.

(b) (6)