Articles Posted in Pipelines

Published on:

The Texas Supreme Court denied the LaSalle Pipeline’s petition for review in LaSalle Pipeline v. Donnell Lands, leaving the San Antonio Court of Appeals’ original opinion intact. See my discussion of the case here. The trial court awarded $468 per rod $28.36/foot) for an easement for a 16-inch pipeline. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding sufficient evidence to support the award.

The Texas Railroad Commission denied the Texas Land and Mineral Owners’ Association’s petition for a rulemaking on the Commission’s policy regarding permits for “allocation wells.” See my prior posts here and here. In their discussion concerning the petition, the Commissioners agreed that allocation wells should be addressed by rule, but they concluded that there are presently too many pending rulemakings for the Commission staff to take on more at this time. The Klotzmans’ protest of EOG’s allocation well permit remains pending, awaiting a proposal for decision from the hearings examiners.

Published on:

This week, the Texas Supreme Court denied Denbury Green Pipeline’s motion for rehearing in Texas Rice Land Partners v. Denbury, leaving essentially untouched its conclusion that pipelines must prove that they serve the public in order to exercise eminent domain power.

I wrote about this case a couple of weeks ago. See my prior discussion here. Pipeline companies had deluged the Court with briefs after its initial opinion, claiming that the Court’s decision will halt pipeline construction across the state.

While denying Denbury’s motion for rehearing, the Court did issue a revised opinion that made some changes to its language. The Court’s opinion adds language responding to some of the arguments of the friend-of-the-court briefs filed by other pipeline companies; and the revised opinion changes the holding as follows:

Published on:

Because of the Texas Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Texas Rice Land Partners v. Denbury Pipeline, Texas landowners across the state are questioning the right of pipeline companies to exercise the right of eminent domain to condemn easements over their land, including the right of Keystone Pipeline to condemn easements for its pipeline from Canada and through East Texas to the Texas Gulf Coast.

In the Denbury case, the Supreme Court held that a pipeline does not acquire condemnation authority merely by obtaining a permit from the Railroad Commission and subjecting itself to that agency’s jurisdiction as a common carrier. The Commission makes no determination whether the intended use of the pipeline is in fact “public.” The court then held that in order for a pipeline to serve a public purpose and thus have condemnation power, “a reasonable probability must exist, at or before the time common-carrier status is challenged, that the pipeline will serve the public by transporting gas for customers who will either retain ownership of their gas or sell it to parties other than the carrier.” Once a landowner challenges its status as a common carrier, “the burden falls upon the pipeline company to establish its common-carrier bona fides if it wishes to exercise the power of eminent domain.”  The court also held that one affiliated company transporting gas solely for the benefit of another affiliate is not a public use of the pipeline. The court said that the question of whether the pipeline is dedicated to a “public use” is ultimately a judicial question.

The court’s opinion has caused a firestorm in the pipeline industry, which claims that the case will halt construction of pipelines across the state. Denbury has asked the court to re-hear the case, and at least sixteen amicus briefs have been filed. One of the most interesting is from ETC NGL Transport LLC, which is in the process of condemning a 125-mile pipeline route to transport natural gas liquids from the Eagle Ford shale to facilites in Mont Belvieu, Texas. ETC claims that a county court at law in Harris County has enjoined ETC from “taking possession of the easement [that ETC has condemned] based on an implied finding that ETC is not a common carrier.” ETC claims that, “due to this Court’s Denbury opinion, landowners were able to convince a county court at law that ETC, which is clearly a common carrier, is not a common carrier.”

Contact Information