Unitex WI LLC v. CT Land and Cattle Company LLC rejected the surface owner’s effort to force the mineral lessee to bury a pipeline below plow depth. Surface owner CT’s claim was based on a mineral lease signed by former owner Fuller in 1948. CT had acquired the surface from Senns, who acquired it
Litigation practice tip before we dive into Right-Way Sand Co. v. South Texas Pipelines LLC (STX). Waiting 27 months after being sued and after the offending activity has occurred before asking for an injunction to “protect the status quo” is probably a loser.
STX sued landowners Right-Way and others to exercise the power of eminent
What to do with a Texas pipeline easement that doesn’t define the width? In Premcor Pipeline Company v. Wingate they fought about it.
The dispute began when Premcor wanted to run a pig through one of two pipelines on Premcor’s 1954 pipeline easement. In doing so it would need access across the property of Wingate
In ETC Tiger Pipeline LLC v. DT Midstream Inc. et al. it was not as exclusive as the servitude owner wanted it to be.
Pursuant to a Servitude Of Use For Pipeline, ETC operates a 42-inch, high pressure, high volume natural gas pipeline in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana, that runs from Panola County, Texas
Securities and Exchange Commission v. The Heartland Group Ventures LLC et al. explains what a receiver under federal law has the right to do. Much like Nick Saban’s offense against a certain team, she can do just about anything she wants.
The SEC applied for appointment of a receiver for a group of
A pipeline company condemning property of a governmental entity? That’s something you don’t see every day. Score a win for “big pipe” against “big government”. In Harris County Fresh Water Supply District No. 61 v. Magellan Pipeline Company, LP and V-Tex Logistics, LLC, a special purpose district unsuccessfully argued that it
The baseball season might be in jeopardy, but litigants are swinging for the fences. In Mary v. QEP Energy, the parties entered into a Pipeline Servitude Agreement over Ms. Mary’s 160 acres. One of QEP’s pipelines extended beyond the servitude by 31 feet and another by 15 feet.
Ms. Mary sued claiming the pipeline was
In Emerald Land Corp. v. Trimont Energy (BL) LLC, a Louisiana federal court considered whether a lessee was required to remove flowlines buried beneath the surface and canal bottoms of property subject to mineral leases.
What the leases said
Each of three leases granted to lessee Chevron the exclusive right to construct lines, tanks, storage facilities, and other structures necessary “to produce, save, take, care of treat and transport” oil and gas products. All three had identical damages provisions: “Lessee shall pay all damages caused by its operations hereunder to the land, buildings and improvements presently existing… [.]” Chevron contended that the granting language included the express right to install buried flowlines in connection with its activities. No provision expressly required restoration of the land by removing buried flowlines or paying the cost of removal.
Addressing lease terms and Castex
Relying on the lease terms and Terrebonne Parish School Board v. Castex Energy, Inc., Chevron differentiated between buried flowlines (buried below “plow depth”, which here was at least three feet) from surface flowlines, alleging that buried lines did not cause damage to the land. Chevron admitted it had to remove the surface lines.
Emerald distinguished Castex arguing that, unlike the canals dredged on the property in that case, these flowlines were foreign equipment attached and buried on the property. Therefore, Chevron was obligated to remove the lines as part of its obligation to restore the land to its original condition minus normal “wear and tear.” Emerald also pointed to evidence showing that buried flowlines were exposed at the surface of the property and, presumably, created a hazard.
Continue Reading Louisiana Court Considers Buried and Surface Flowlines
The battle lines between pipeline companies and landowners are still being drawn. In Bayou Bridge Pipeline v. 38.00 acres nobody had a gun, nobody got taken away, and one side was right and one side was wrong.
There were two survivors:
Note to non-Louisiana lawyers: Unlike Texas at least, a Louisiana pipeline must obtain a judgment of expropriation before going on the property.
Continue Reading Louisiana Oil Pipeline Expropriation System is Constitutional
Co-author Rusty TuckerIn Hlavinka v. HSC Pipeline P’ship, LLC, a Texas court denied a pipeline company’s claim that it is a common carrier with the power of eminent domain.
The Hlavinkas own 15,000+acres in Brazoria County. HSC owns pipeline systems in Texas. HSC’s manager Enterprise Products applied to the Railroad Commission for a permit to operate a new 44-mile long pipeline for the transportation of products including polymer grade propylene. The parties were unable to agree on terms for an easement across four tracts of land.
HSC filed a condemnation suit. The Hlavinkas challenged HSC’s eminent domain power asserting that the pipeline was not for public use and propylene is not crude oil. As a result, they alleged, HSC is not a common carrier and thus does not have authority to condemn private property. HSC filed a motion for partial summary judgment to establish its right to condemn as a matter of law.
Continue Reading Status as a Common Carrier Denied by a Texas Court