First Impressions of Oracle’s Project Jupiter Force Majeure Notice: What Sureties Should Watch
Oracle recently issued a force majeure notice tied to Project Jupiter, the massive data center campus under construction in New Mexico. The notice comes as portions of the project’s planned power infrastructure face permitting and regulatory hurdles. Oracle, however, maintains that Project Jupiter remains on its planned 2028 schedule. (ENR)
The notice appears to preserve Oracle’s contractual protections if the campus does not come online as planned. Public reporting indicates that those protections could allow Oracle to delay certain payments if the project misses its 2028 target, although the underlying agreement and notice are not public. (ENR)
For sureties, this raises a familiar question: If permitting problems eventually delay the schedule, who is responsible for the resulting delay damages?
A force majeure event and an excusable project delay are not necessarily the same thing. Even where an event qualifies as force majeure, a claimant may still need to establish that the event actually caused the delay for which relief is sought.
What Prior Cases Tell Us
Project Jupiter is worth watching because several different events are occurring at once.
- A natural-gas pipeline intended to support the project’s power infrastructure has encountered permitting issues, with its reported in-service date pushed back from August 2026 to February 2027.
- A separate microgrid awaits an air permit.
Oracle, meanwhile, says the data center and microgrid are separate facilities and that construction of the data center buildings is continuing under county permits. (ENR)
Three decisions involving force majeure claims for energy development and operations provide useful context for evaluating the issues raised by Oracle’s notice.
| Case | Result | Potential Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Maralex Resources v. Gilbreath (N.M. 2003) | FM defense rejected. The operators failed to present evidence that abnormally high pressure in the purchaser’s pipeline, rather than insufficient pressure within their own well, caused production to cease. (Case) | Causation matters. An external problem still must be connected to the claimed nonperformance. |
| URI Cogeneration Partners v. Board of Governors (D.R.I. 1996) | FM defense rejected as to financing obligations. The court held that foreseeable zoning denial fell outside the clause and that the developer bore the relevant approval risk. (Case) | Permitting problems are not automatically force majeure. The particular event and contractual allocation of risk matter. |
| Allegiance Hillview v. Range Texas Production (Tex. App. 2011) | FM finding upheld. The clause expressly covered failure to issue permits, subject to timely applications, diligent pursuit, and reasonable remedial action. Evidence supported relief where the city’s notification error postponed consideration beyond the drilling deadline. (Case) | Specific government-caused delay can produce a different result. Contract language, causation and diligence all matter. |
Together, the cases suggest a useful framework for evaluating the notice as events unfold:
Qualifying event, causation, mitigation, critical-path delay, effect on contractual performance.
For example, a permitting proceeding lasting six months does not necessarily produce six months of excusable project delay. The affected work may have float, work may be resequenced, or the activity may not yet control project completion.
That distinction is particularly relevant here because Oracle has issued a force majeure notice while continuing to say the project remains on schedule.
What to Watch Next
Does the project schedule actually move? For now, Oracle says it has not. If the expected 2028 delivery date changes, the causal relationship between the regulatory events and the schedule will become increasingly important.
What event is ultimately identified as causing any delay? Ordinary permit processing, community opposition, a permit denial, governmental action and a judicial stay may present different questions under the governing contract.
Does the power infrastructure reach the critical path? Oracle says construction of the data center is continuing. The issue to watch is whether unresolved power infrastructure eventually constrains commissioning or delivery. (Oracle)
What mitigation is available? Resequencing, alternative infrastructure or other mitigation could affect the amount of excusable delay even if a qualifying force majeure event exists.
For sureties, the key question is not simply whether Oracle can identify a force majeure event. It is whether the events identified in the notice ultimately cause a delay that matters under the governing contracts and, downstream, to potential bond exposure.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or investment advice.
Got a deal that needs collateral? Comity can help.
Comity supports a wide range of collateral posting needs in the power and digital infrastructure space. Emailing us or booking a 30-minute call is the fastest way to find out how we can help.