New Jersey Appeals Court Interprets Force Majeure Clause In NAESB

by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

In a ruling of significant importance for those confronting force majeure (“FM”) issues in natural gas trades, and a win for Hess Corporation (“Hess” or “Plaintiff”), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division ruled that Eni Petroleum US, LLC (“Eni” or “Defendant”) 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 as it concerns pool gas versus well-specific production in force majeure situations.  Whether this decision finally lays to rest disputes over FM remains to be seen.  We are optimistic that this decision brings useful clarity here.

Eni and the Pipelines

The facts of this case are important.  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 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 FM provision in Section 11 of the NAESB base contract, stated that “neither party shall be liable to the other for failure to perform a Firm obligation, to the extent such failure was caused by Force Majeure.  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 “Force Majeure shall include, but not be limited to . . . interruption and/or curtailment of Firm transportation and/or storage by Transporters. . . .”     

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 FM 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 [D]efendant’s failure to perform the clear terms of its agreement with [P]laintiff,”4 the court ruled.

Because there was nothing limiting [D]efendant’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          [D]efendant’s obligation.  Defendant was required to have gas available in the Tennessee 500 pool for          [P]laintiff, regardless of how it got there.  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 [P]laintiff.  Therefore, [D]efendant could not invoke force majeure as a defense to [P]laintiff’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 Corporation

The issue of whether the NAESB FM clause is properly invoked when a seller’s desired source for supplying the gas to the buyer stops performing has persisted a long time.  A Texas appeals court had previously ruled on a similar case where the seller, Apache Corporation (“Apache”), 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. 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 (“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.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.