Opinion ID: 622859
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the work was done on a well site

Text: The remaining question is whether TBS performed work on a well site. Id. § 9:4861(4)(a). LOWLA defines the term well site as the area covered by the operating interest, id. § 9:4861(12)(a), a term that denotes a mineral lease . . . or an interest in a lease . . . that gives the lessee, either singly or in association with others, the right to conduct the operations giving rise to the claimant's privilege, id. § 9:4861(5)(a). One commentator has observed that this definition provides broader coverage than the previous version of LOWLA, which tied the provision of services or equipment to the `well or wells' themselves. Chicoine, supra, at 1142. Under the now-applicable statute, the well site is not restricted to the exact physical location of a well. Id. In this case, the essential facts that are relevant to the question of whether TBS performed work on a well site are not in dispute. La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 9:4861(4)(a). The parties agree that Eni is the owner of 50 percent of the record title and operating rights in the lease that encompasses Vermilion Block 313, see Eni's Ex. 2 (Rec. Doc. No. 75-6); that Eni has thereby acquired the right to drill, produce, and abandon oil and gas wells in Block 313, see TBS's Ex. A (Rec. Doc. No. 83-3); and that the toppled platform that was removed, Platform 313-A, was located in the block encompassed by the lease, see id. The undisputed evidence also shows that under its subcontract, TBS conducted a sonar survey of the site prior to the removal of the toppled platform; assisted with the positioning of vessels, divers, and equipment during the removal operation; and conducted a post-salvage survey of the site. See TBS's Ex. D-A (Rec. Doc. No. 83-3); TBS's Ex. D-B (Rec. Doc. No. 83-3); Eni's Ex. 2 (Rec. Doc. No. 75-6). The performance of these tasks required TBS personnel to be in Vermilion Block 313. See TBS's Ex. D-A (Rec. Doc. No. 83-3); TBS's Ex. D-B (Rec. Doc. No. 83-3). Thus, TBS personnel was onboard the M/V OCEAN COMMANDER, which was used as a primary vessel for the removal project and deployed to Vermilion Block 313. See, e.g., Eni's Ex. 2 (Rec. Doc. No. 75-6); TBS's Ex. D-B (Rec. Doc. No. 83-3). In light of these undisputed facts, and given that the well site under LOWLA is not restricted to the exact physical location of a well, Chicoine, supra, at 1142, it is clear that TBS rendered services on a well site within the meaning of the statute. In its brief, Eni cites several cases for the contrary proposition, but all of these cases are distinguishable. In both Matte Services Corp. v. ONYX Consulting Engineers, LLC, No. 06-3020, 2007 WL 1087592 (E.D.La.2007), and J. Ray McDermott, Inc. v. Berry Contracting L.P., Nos. 03-2054 & 03-2099, 2004 WL 224583 (E.D.La.2004), the subcontractors were given contracts to construct decks that were to be subsequently installed on structures on the OCS. See Matte Servs., 2007 WL 1087592, at ; J. Ray McDermott, 2004 WL 224583, at . The subcontractors conceded that most, if not all, of the work that they performed was done onshore. See Matte Servs., 2007 WL 1087592, at ; J. Ray McDermott, 2004 WL 224583, at . Here in contrast, it is undisputed that TBS provides its labor and services in Vermilion Block 313 in the vicinity of Platform 313-A. The third and last case cited by Eni is also distinguishable. In Samedan Oil Corp. v. Ultra Fabricators, Inc., 737 So.2d 846 (3d Cir.1999), the court considered the application of the former version of LOWLA, see id. at 853. Given that the now-applicable version of LOWLA provides a broader conception of the term well site, Chicoine, supra, at 1142, the conclusion of the court in Samedan Oil that the lien holder did not perform work at the requisite location is of little significance. Furthermore, Samedan Oil is factually distinguishable because the party that asserted the lien in that case merely leased cranes for the construction of platforms and structures, id. at 848, and those cranes were placed at an onshore site, id. at 853. As noted above, TBS in this case provided labor and services offshore in Vermilion Block 313. In sum, the Court concludes that by providing survey and positioning services in Vermilion Block 313 in order to help remove a platform following well depletion, TBS performed operations under LOWLA. La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 9:4861(4)(a). The work that it did was both on a well site and involved abandoning a well within the meaning of the statute. Id. Accordingly, the lien that it has asserted is valid and enforceable. See id. § 9:4862(A)(1).