Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation	Litigation Climate Change Governmental and other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions across the United States have brought lawsuits against fossil fuel producing companies, including Chevron entities, purporting to seek legal and equitable relief to address alleged impacts of climate change. Chevron entities are or were among the codefendants in 34 separate lawsuits filed by various U.S. cities and counties, seven U.S. states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, two Native American tribes, and a trade group in both federal and state courts.1 The lawsuits have asserted various causes of action, including public nuisance, private nuisance, failure to warn, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, design defect, product defect, trespass, negligence, impairment of public trust, equitable relief for pollution, impairment and destruction of natural resources, unjust enrichment, violations of consumer and environmental protection statutes, violations of unfair competition statutes, violations of a federal antitrust statute, and violations of federal and state RICO statutes, based upon, among other things, the company’s production of oil and gas products and alleged misrepresentations or omissions relating to climate change risks associated with those products. Further such lawsuits are likely to be brought by other parties. While defendants have sought to remove cases filed in state court to federal court, most of those cases have been remanded to state court and the U.S. Supreme Court has denied petitions for certiorari on the question of whether federal courts have jurisdiction over those cases. The U.S. Supreme Court has also denied certiorari to review a decision from the Hawaii Supreme Court allowing claims brought by the City and County of Honolulu to proceed past the pleadings. On February 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et. al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, et. al. (No. 25‑170), a case in which no Chevron entity is a party, to address the questions of whether federal law precludes state‑law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate and whether the U.S. Supreme Court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear that case. The unprecedented legal theories set forth in these climate lawsuits include claims for damages (both compensatory and punitive), injunctive and other forms of equitable relief, including without limitation abatement, contribution to abatement funds, disgorgement of profits and equitable relief for pollution, impairment and destruction of natural resources, civil penalties and liability for fees and costs of suits. Due to the unprecedented nature of the suits, the company is unable to estimate any range of possible liability, but given the uncertainty of litigation there can be no assurance that the cases will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s results of operations and financial condition. Management believes that these lawsuits are legally and factually meritless and detract from constructive efforts to address the important policy issues presented by climate change and will vigorously defend against such lawsuits. 1The cases are: City of Annapolis v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. C-02-CV-21-000250 (Md. Cir. Ct.) (dismissed on the merits; dismissal affirmed by the Supreme Court of Maryland); Anne Arundel County v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. C-02-CV-21-000565 (Md. Cir. Ct.) (dismissed on the merits; dismissal affirmed by the Supreme Court of Maryland); Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. 24-C-18-004219 (Md. Cir. Ct.) (dismissed on the merits; dismissal affirmed by the Supreme Court of Maryland); Municipality of Bayamon et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. 22-cv-1550 (D.P.R.) (dismissed on the merits; Plaintiffs’ appeal pending); People ex rel. Bonta v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. CGC-23-609134 (Cal. Super. Ct.); Bucks County v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. 2024-01836 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl.) (dismissed on the merits; Plaintiff’s appeal pending); City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co., et al., No. 2020-CP-10-3975 (S.C. Ct. of Com. Pl.) (dismissed on the merits and for lack of personal jurisdiction); City of Chicago v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. 2024CH01024 (Ill. Cir. Ct.); District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. 2020-CA-002892-B (D.C. Super. Ct.); Delaware ex rel. Jennings v. BP America Inc., et al., C.A. No. N20C-09-097 (Del. Super. Ct.) (dismissed on the merits in substantial part); State of Hawaii v. BP P.L.C., et al., 1CCV-25-0000717 (Haw. Cir. Ct.); City of Hoboken v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. HUD-L-003179-20 (N.J. Super. Ct.); City and County of Honolulu, et al. v. Sunoco LP, et al., No. 1CCV-20-0000380 (Haw. Cir. Ct.); City of Imperial Beach v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. C17-01227 (Cal. Super. Ct.); King County v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. 18-2-11859-0 (Wash. Super. Ct.) (voluntarily dismissed); Maine v. BP P.L.C. et al., No. PORSC-CV-24-442 (Me. Super. Ct.); Makah Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. 23-25216-1-SEA (Wash. Super. Ct.); County of Marin v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. 17-cv-02586 (Cal. Super. Ct.); County of Maui v. Sunoco LP, et al., No. 2CCV-20-0000283 (Haw. Cir. Ct.); The People of the State of Michigan v. BP p.l.c., et.al., Civ. No. 26-cv-00254 (W.D. Mich.); County of Multnomah v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. 23-cv-25164 (Or. Cir. Ct.); City of New York v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. 18-cv-00182 (S.D.N.Y.) (dismissed on the merits; dismissal affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit); City of Oakland v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. RG17875889 (Cal. Super. Ct.); Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Inc. v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. CGC-18-571285 (Cal. Super. Ct.) (voluntarily dismissed); Platkin, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. MER-L-001797-22 (N.J. Super. Ct.) (dismissed on the merits; Plaintiffs’ appeal pending); Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico [Commonwealth of Puerto Rico] v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. SJ2024CV06512 (Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Estado Libre Asociado de P.R.) [P.R. Ct. of First Instance, Commonwealth of P.R.] (voluntarily dismissed); State of Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp., et al., C.A. No. PC-2018-4716 (R.I. Super. Ct.); City of Richmond v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. C18-00055 (Cal. Super. Ct.); City of San Francisco v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. CGC-17-561370 (Cal. Super. Ct.); Municipality of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. 23-cv-01608 (D.P.R.) (dismissed on the merits; Plaintiff’s appeal pending); County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. 17-CIV-03222 (Cal. Super. Ct.); City of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. 17-CV-03243 (Cal. Super. Ct.); County of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. 17-CV-03242 (Cal. Super. Ct.); Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. 23-2-25215-2-SEA (Wash. Super. Ct.). Louisiana Seven coastal parishes and the State of Louisiana have filed lawsuits in Louisiana against numerous oil and gas companies seeking remediation damages for coastal erosion in or near oil fields located within Louisiana’s coastal zone under Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act (SLCRMA). Chevron entities are defendants in 35 of these cases.2 The lawsuits allege that the defendants’ historical operations were conducted without necessary permits or failed to comply with permits obtained and seek remediation damages and other relief, including the costs of restoring coastal wetlands allegedly impacted by oil field operations. Further such proceedings may be brought by other parties. Most of these cases have been remanded to Louisiana state court. In April 2025, a jury in a Louisiana state court awarded Plaquemines Parish $744.6 million in a trial against Chevron entities (i.e., Plaquemines Parish v. Rozel Operating Co., et al. (“Rozel”)). The state court judge continued a hearing on Plaquemines Parish’s motion for entry of judgment on the Rozel trial verdict and stayed that case pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court on whether certain cases belong in federal, rather than state, court. In April 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Plaquemines Parish coastal erosion lawsuit was related to actions taken under federal direction for purposes of the federal-officer removal statute and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Louisiana state-court verdict previously entered against the company in Rozel remains subject to further judicial proceedings regarding the effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling, including potential vacatur and further litigation in federal court. The company does not concede the viability of the Rozel jury verdict and plans to appeal any judgment based on that verdict. The jury’s decision was unique to the facts and circumstances of the case and may not be representative of future outcomes for other claims brought against Chevron entities under the SLCRMA. In accordance with guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the company has recorded an accrual of $131 million, which the company believes to be a reasonably estimable loss in light of the available defenses. It is reasonably possible that the estimate of the loss could change based on the progression of the case, including the appeals process. However, because of the uncertainties associated with ongoing litigation, we are unable to estimate the range of reasonably possible loss that may be attributable to liabilities, if any, in excess of the amount accrued. While the company believes the jury verdict is not legally or factually supported and intends to appeal and vigorously pursue post-judgment remedies, there can be no assurances that such defense efforts will be successful. To the extent the company is required to pay remediation damages in these cases, it may have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. Management believes that the claims in these lawsuits lack legal and factual merit and will continue to vigorously defend against such proceedings. 2 The cases are: Cameron Parish v. Alpine Exploration Companies, Inc., et al., No. 10-19580 (38th Jud. Dist. Ct., Cameron Par.); Cameron Parish v. Apache Corporation (of Delaware), et al., No. 10-19579 (38th Jud. Dist. Ct., Cameron Par.); Cameron Parish v. Ballard Exploration Company, Inc., et al., No. 10-19574 (38th Jud. Dist. Ct., Cameron Par.); Cameron Parish v. Bay Coquille, Inc., et al., No. 10-19581 (38th Jud. Dist. Ct., Cameron Par.); Cameron Parish v. BEPCO, LP, et al., No. 10-19572 (38th Jud. Dist. Ct., Cameron Par.); Cameron Parish v. BP America Production Company, et al., No. 10-19576 (38th Jud. Dist. Ct., Cameron Par.); Cameron Parish v. Brammer Engineering, Inc., et al., No. 10-19573 (38th Jud. Dist. Ct., Cameron Par.); Jefferson Parish v. Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC, et al., No. 732-772 (24th Jud. Dist. Ct., Jefferson Par.); Jefferson Parish v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al., No. 732-768 (24th Jud. Dist. Ct., Jefferson Par.); Jefferson Parish v. Canlan Oil Company, et al., No. 732-771 (24th Jud. Dist. Ct., Jefferson Par.); Jefferson Parish v. Chevron U.S.A. Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 732-769 (24th Jud. Dist. Ct., Jefferson Par.); Jefferson Parish v. Destin Operating Company, Inc., et al., No. 732-770 (24th Jud. Dist. Ct., Jefferson Par.); Jefferson Parish v. Equitable Petroleum Corporation, et al., No. 732-775 (24th Jud. Dist. Ct., Jefferson Par.); Jefferson Parish v. ExxonMobil Corporation, et al., No. 732-774 (24th Jud. Dist. Ct., Jefferson Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Apache Oil Corporation, et al., No. 61-000 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Campbell Energy Corporation, et al., No. 61-001 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. ConocoPhillips Co., et al., No. 60-982 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., et al., No. 60-995 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Equitable Petroleum Corporation, et al., No. 60-986 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Exchange Oil & Gas Corp., et al., No. 60-984 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Goodrich Petroleum Company, L.L.C., et al., No. 60-994 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Great Southern Oil & Gas Company, Inc., et al., No. 60-998 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Helis Oil & Gas Company, et al., No. 60-990 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. HHE Energy Co., et al., No. 60-983 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Hilcorp Energy Company, et al., No. 60-999 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. June Energy, et al., No. 60-987 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Linder Oil Company, et al., No. 60-988 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. LLOG Exploration & Production Co., et al., No. 60-985 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Northcoast Oil Company, et al., No. 60-992 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Palm Energy Offshore, L.L.C., et al., No. 60-997 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Riverwood Production Company, et al., No. 60-989 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Rozel Operating Co., et al., No. 60-996 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. TotalPetrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc., et al., No. 61-002 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); St. Bernard Parish v. Atlantic Richfield, et al., No. 16-1228 (34th Jud. Dist. Ct. St., Bernard Par.); Stutes v. Gulfport Energy Corporation, et al., No. 102,146 (15th Jud. Dist. Ct., Vermilion Par.).

Governmental and other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions across the United States have brought lawsuits against fossil fuel producing companies, including Chevron entities, purporting to seek legal and equitable relief to address alleged impacts of climate change. Chevron entities are or were among the codefendants in 34 separate lawsuits filed by various U.S. cities and counties, seven U.S. states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, two Native American tribes, and a trade group in both federal and state courts.1 The lawsuits have asserted various causes of action, including public nuisance, private nuisance, failure to warn, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, design defect, product defect, trespass, negligence, impairment of public trust, equitable relief for pollution, impairment and destruction of natural resources, unjust enrichment, violations of consumer and environmental protection statutes, violations of unfair competition statutes, violations of a federal antitrust statute, and violations of federal and state RICO statutes, based upon, among other things, the company’s production of oil and gas products and alleged misrepresentations or omissions relating to climate change risks associated with those products. Further such lawsuits are likely to be brought by other parties. While defendants have sought to remove cases filed in state court to federal court, most of those cases have been remanded to state court and the U.S. Supreme Court has denied petitions for certiorari on the question of whether federal courts have jurisdiction over those cases. The U.S. Supreme Court has also denied certiorari to review a decision from the Hawaii Supreme Court allowing claims brought by the City and County of Honolulu to proceed past the pleadings. On February 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc., et. al. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, et. al. (No. 25‑170), a case in which no Chevron entity is a party, to address the questions of whether federal law precludes state‑law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate and whether the U.S. Supreme Court has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear that case. The unprecedented legal theories set forth in these climate lawsuits include claims for damages (both compensatory and punitive), injunctive and other forms of equitable relief, including without limitation abatement, contribution to abatement funds, disgorgement of profits and equitable relief for pollution, impairment and destruction of natural resources, civil penalties and liability for fees and costs of suits. Due to the unprecedented nature of the suits, the company is unable to estimate any range of possible liability, but given the uncertainty of litigation there can be no assurance that the cases will not have a material adverse effect on the company’s results of operations and financial condition. Management believes that these lawsuits are legally and factually meritless and detract from constructive efforts to address the important policy issues presented by climate change and will vigorously defend against such lawsuits.

1The cases are: City of Annapolis v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. C-02-CV-21-000250 (Md. Cir. Ct.) (dismissed on the merits; dismissal affirmed by the Supreme Court of Maryland); Anne Arundel County v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. C-02-CV-21-000565 (Md. Cir. Ct.) (dismissed on the merits; dismissal affirmed by the Supreme Court of Maryland); Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. 24-C-18-004219 (Md. Cir. Ct.) (dismissed on the merits; dismissal affirmed by the Supreme Court of Maryland); Municipality of Bayamon et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. 22-cv-1550 (D.P.R.) (dismissed on the merits; Plaintiffs’ appeal pending); People ex rel. Bonta v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. CGC-23-609134 (Cal. Super. Ct.); Bucks County v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. 2024-01836 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl.) (dismissed on the merits; Plaintiff’s appeal pending); City of Charleston v. Brabham Oil Co., et al., No. 2020-CP-10-3975 (S.C. Ct. of Com. Pl.) (dismissed on the merits and for lack of personal jurisdiction); City of Chicago v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. 2024CH01024 (Ill. Cir. Ct.); District of Columbia v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. 2020-CA-002892-B (D.C. Super. Ct.); Delaware ex rel. Jennings v. BP America Inc., et al., C.A. No. N20C-09-097 (Del. Super. Ct.) (dismissed on the merits in substantial part); State of Hawaii v. BP P.L.C., et al., 1CCV-25-0000717 (Haw. Cir. Ct.); City of Hoboken v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. HUD-L-003179-20 (N.J. Super. Ct.); City and County of Honolulu, et al. v. Sunoco LP, et al., No. 1CCV-20-0000380 (Haw. Cir. Ct.); City of Imperial Beach v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. C17-01227 (Cal. Super. Ct.); King County v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. 18-2-11859-0 (Wash. Super. Ct.) (voluntarily dismissed); Maine v. BP P.L.C. et al., No. PORSC-CV-24-442 (Me. Super. Ct.); Makah Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. 23-25216-1-SEA (Wash. Super. Ct.); County of Marin v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. 17-cv-02586 (Cal. Super. Ct.); County of Maui v. Sunoco LP, et al., No. 2CCV-20-0000283 (Haw. Cir. Ct.); The People of the State of Michigan v. BP p.l.c., et.al., Civ. No. 26-cv-00254 (W.D. Mich.); County of Multnomah v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. 23-cv-25164 (Or. Cir. Ct.); City of New York v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. 18-cv-00182 (S.D.N.Y.) (dismissed on the merits; dismissal affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit); City of Oakland v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. RG17875889 (Cal. Super. Ct.); Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, Inc. v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. CGC-18-571285 (Cal. Super. Ct.) (voluntarily dismissed); Platkin, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. MER-L-001797-22 (N.J. Super. Ct.) (dismissed on the merits; Plaintiffs’ appeal pending); Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico [Commonwealth of Puerto Rico] v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. SJ2024CV06512 (Tribunal de Primera Instancia, Estado Libre Asociado de P.R.) [P.R. Ct. of First Instance, Commonwealth of P.R.] (voluntarily dismissed); State of Rhode Island v. Chevron Corp., et al., C.A. No. PC-2018-4716 (R.I. Super. Ct.); City of Richmond v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. C18-00055 (Cal. Super. Ct.); City of San Francisco v. BP P.L.C., et al., No. CGC-17-561370 (Cal. Super. Ct.); Municipality of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. 23-cv-01608 (D.P.R.) (dismissed on the merits; Plaintiff’s appeal pending); County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. 17-CIV-03222 (Cal. Super. Ct.); City of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. 17-CV-03243 (Cal. Super. Ct.); County of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp., et al., No. 17-CV-03242 (Cal. Super. Ct.); Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., et al., No. 23-2-25215-2-SEA (Wash. Super. Ct.).

Seven coastal parishes and the State of Louisiana have filed lawsuits in Louisiana against numerous oil and gas companies seeking remediation damages for coastal erosion in or near oil fields located within Louisiana’s coastal zone under Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act (SLCRMA). Chevron entities are defendants in 35 of these cases.2 The lawsuits allege that the defendants’ historical operations were conducted without necessary permits or failed to comply with permits obtained and seek remediation damages and other relief, including the costs of restoring coastal wetlands allegedly impacted by oil field operations. Further such proceedings may be brought by other parties. Most of these cases have been remanded to Louisiana state court. In April 2025, a jury in a Louisiana state court awarded Plaquemines Parish $744.6 million in a trial against Chevron entities (i.e., Plaquemines Parish v. Rozel Operating Co., et al. (“Rozel”)). The state court judge continued a hearing on Plaquemines Parish’s motion for entry of judgment on the Rozel trial verdict and stayed that case pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court on whether certain cases belong in federal, rather than state, court. In April 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Plaquemines Parish coastal erosion lawsuit was related to actions taken under federal direction for purposes of the federal-officer removal statute and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Louisiana state-court verdict previously entered against the company in Rozel remains subject to further judicial proceedings regarding the effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling, including potential vacatur and further litigation in federal court.

The company does not concede the viability of the Rozel jury verdict and plans to appeal any judgment based on that verdict. The jury’s decision was unique to the facts and circumstances of the case and may not be representative of future outcomes for other claims brought against Chevron entities under the SLCRMA. In accordance with guidance on the evaluation of loss contingencies, the company has recorded an accrual of $131 million, which the company believes to be a reasonably estimable loss in light of the available defenses. It is reasonably possible that the estimate of the loss could change based on the progression of the case, including the appeals process. However, because of the uncertainties associated with ongoing litigation, we are unable to estimate the range of reasonably possible loss that may be attributable to liabilities, if any, in excess of the amount accrued. While the company believes the jury verdict is not legally or factually supported and intends to appeal and vigorously pursue post-judgment remedies, there can be no assurances that such defense efforts will be successful. To the extent the company is required to pay remediation damages in these cases, it may have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations. Management believes that the claims in these lawsuits lack legal and factual merit and will continue to vigorously defend against such proceedings.

2 The cases are: Cameron Parish v. Alpine Exploration Companies, Inc., et al., No. 10-19580 (38th Jud. Dist. Ct., Cameron Par.); Cameron Parish v. Apache Corporation (of Delaware), et al., No. 10-19579 (38th Jud. Dist. Ct., Cameron Par.); Cameron Parish v. Ballard Exploration Company, Inc., et al., No. 10-19574 (38th Jud. Dist. Ct., Cameron Par.); Cameron Parish v. Bay Coquille, Inc., et al., No. 10-19581 (38th Jud. Dist. Ct., Cameron Par.); Cameron Parish v. BEPCO, LP, et al., No. 10-19572 (38th Jud. Dist. Ct., Cameron Par.); Cameron Parish v. BP America Production Company, et al., No. 10-19576 (38th Jud. Dist. Ct., Cameron Par.); Cameron Parish v. Brammer Engineering, Inc., et al., No. 10-19573 (38th Jud. Dist. Ct., Cameron Par.); Jefferson Parish v. Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC, et al., No. 732-772 (24th Jud. Dist. Ct., Jefferson Par.); Jefferson Parish v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al., No. 732-768 (24th Jud. Dist. Ct., Jefferson Par.); Jefferson Parish v. Canlan Oil Company, et al., No. 732-771 (24th Jud. Dist. Ct., Jefferson Par.); Jefferson Parish v. Chevron U.S.A. Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 732-769 (24th Jud. Dist. Ct., Jefferson Par.); Jefferson Parish v. Destin Operating Company, Inc., et al., No. 732-770 (24th Jud. Dist. Ct., Jefferson Par.); Jefferson Parish v. Equitable Petroleum Corporation, et al., No. 732-775 (24th Jud. Dist. Ct., Jefferson Par.); Jefferson Parish v. ExxonMobil Corporation, et al., No. 732-774 (24th Jud. Dist. Ct., Jefferson Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Apache Oil Corporation, et al., No. 61-000 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Campbell Energy Corporation, et al., No. 61-001 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. ConocoPhillips Co., et al., No. 60-982 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., et al., No. 60-995 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Equitable Petroleum Corporation, et al., No. 60-986 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Exchange Oil & Gas Corp., et al., No. 60-984 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Goodrich Petroleum Company, L.L.C., et al., No. 60-994 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Great Southern Oil & Gas Company, Inc., et al., No. 60-998 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Helis Oil & Gas Company, et al., No. 60-990 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. HHE Energy Co., et al., No. 60-983 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Hilcorp Energy Company, et al., No. 60-999 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. June Energy, et al., No. 60-987 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Linder Oil Company, et al., No. 60-988 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. LLOG Exploration & Production Co., et al., No. 60-985 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Northcoast Oil Company, et al., No. 60-992 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Palm Energy Offshore, L.L.C., et al., No. 60-997 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Riverwood Production Company, et al., No. 60-989 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. Rozel Operating Co., et al., No. 60-996 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); Plaquemines Parish v. TotalPetrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc., et al., No. 61-002 (25th Jud. Dist. Ct., Plaquemines Par.); St. Bernard Parish v. Atlantic Richfield, et al., No. 16-1228 (34th Jud. Dist. Ct. St., Bernard Par.); Stutes v. Gulfport Energy Corporation, et al., No. 102,146 (15th Jud. Dist. Ct., Vermilion Par.).