US Shale Producers Lose Bid to Toss Oil Price Antitrust Case

US District Judge Matthew Garcia in New Mexico ruled that plaintiffs had alleged enough facts for their central federal antitrust claims to proceed, according to Reuters. The lawsuits contend that producers conspired to restrain shale-oil output and thereby increased prices for crude and petroleum products including gasoline, diesel and home-heating fuel.

The ruling represents a setback for some of the biggest companies in the US shale industry, including Diamondback Energy Inc. and Occidental Petroleum Corp., which have denied wrongdoing. Garcia did dismiss some claims brought under state law, giving the defendants a partial victory, Reuters reported.

At this stage of the litigation, the judge isn’t deciding whether an illegal agreement actually existed. Instead, his decision allows the plaintiffs to continue trying to prove their allegations as the cases move forward.

Garcia found that the plaintiffs had plausibly described conduct from which coordination could potentially be inferred, including market circumstances, production choices, communications among industry participants and public statements. The judge also said some of the alleged interactions went beyond ordinary exchanges of industry information and could support an inference of an agreement.

We’d love to be your preferred source for news.

Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!

Add as Preferred Source

Read more: DOJ, FTC Encourage States to Probe High Gasoline Prices

The litigation combines cases filed beginning in 2024 by commercial plaintiffs and government-related consumer plaintiffs. Those cases were consolidated before Garcia in federal court in New Mexico, according to Reuters.

The allegations focus on shale oil, a major component of US crude production that is commonly extracted using hydraulic fracturing. Plaintiffs contend that restraints on shale output ultimately translated into higher prices for fuels purchased by consumers and businesses.

The producers had urged the court to dismiss the cases, arguing that the complaints failed to establish direct or circumstantial evidence of an unlawful conspiracy. They also disputed the idea that their production behavior showed coordinated action, noting that some companies expanded output during the period in which the alleged scheme was said to have operated, according to Reuters.

The defendants additionally argued that adjudicating the claims risked drawing the judiciary into political and foreign-policy matters more appropriately handled elsewhere in government. Garcia rejected that argument, finding that the essential issue was whether US companies and individuals had illegally coordinated production and that established antitrust law supplied standards for addressing the dispute, Reuters reported.

The decision doesn’t establish liability or determine whether consumers actually paid more because of coordinated production cuts. It instead keeps the core allegations alive, setting the stage for further litigation over one of the more consequential antitrust challenges confronting the US shale sector.

Source: Reuters