This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Fifth Circuit held that a landowner is not entitled to a pipeline company’s profits as a consequence of a portion of a pipeline being located partially outside of a servitude. The court also rejected Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, finding no basis in the Civil Code articles on contracts for a disgorgement of profits.
Fifth Circuit held that a landowner is not entitled to a pipeline company’s profits as a consequence of a portion of a pipeline being located partially outside of a servitude. The court also rejected Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, finding no basis in the Civil Code articles on contracts for a disgorgement of profits.
QEP was the lessee of a mineral lease covering Plaintiffs’ property, but because it wanted to transport off-site gas across their property, QEP also obtained a pipeline servitude across Plaintiffs’ land. The gas extracted from the wells is not a “fruit” under Louisiana law. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
QEP was the lessee of a mineral lease covering Plaintiffs’ property, but because it wanted to transport off-site gas across their property, QEP also obtained a pipeline servitude across Plaintiffs’ land. The gas extracted from the wells is not a “fruit” under Louisiana law. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
At the Fourth Annual Liskow & Lewis Energy Law Lecture, Professor Jim Rossi of Vanderbilt Law delivered a presentation entitled “Federalism Battles in Energy Transportation.” Despite these differences, both means of transportation face legal hurdles that require consideration of federalism principles.
sued the unit operator for breach of contract to recover transportation costs incurred as a result of alleged regulatory violations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC”) Shipper-Must-Have-Title policy. As part of that regulatory authority, the FERC “establishes policies that govern interstate pipelinetransportation.”
In addition to wetlands impacts, the groups allege that the LNG terminal and an associated pipeline would have a “staggering” impact on the climate in the form of greenhouse gas emissions. million tonnes/year of LNG that would be available for export, and the creation of 7,000 jobs. 1] [link]. [2] 1451 et seq.). [3] 3] 15 U.S.C.
On June 29, 2021, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, held that a natural gas company’s right to condemn property for a pipeline under the Natural Gas Act includes the right to condemn state-owned property. In PennEast Pipeline Co. 2] PennEast Pipeline, PennEast Pipeline Statement on Favorable U.S.
The substation’s maiden voyage marks a major milestone in the development of Jones Act compliant offshore wind vessels necessary to bring the large amount of federal utility-scale projects in the pipeline to fruition. The Jones Act requires that the transport of “merchandise” between U.S. 1331 et seq. back in 2021.
On October 20, 2017, Bouchard Transportation’s ATB BUSTER BOUCHARD/B. 255 suffered an explosion and fire while transporting roughly 2,000 barrels of oil off Port Aransas, Texas. Two crewmembers perished as a result of the casualty. 2114) (the “SPA”). 272 Corp; Morton S. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
Background The Jones Act, in general terms, prohibits non-coastwise endorsed vessels from engaging in the “transportation” of “passengers or merchandise” between “coastwise points”. The key inquiries in a Jones Act analysis, therefore, are: (i) passengers/merchandise, (ii) transportation, and (iii) coastwise points.
This case began in 2011 when ETP and Enterprise explored the possibility of partnering to modify and extend, or construct anew, a pipeline to transport oil southbound from Cushing, Oklahoma. Enterprise Products Partners, L.P., a case previously featured on the Blog. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
In fact, if the lessees’ gross proceeds were reduced when purchased by third-party processors at the tailgate of a processing plant to account for the cost of transportation and processing said production, the lessees would add those deducted costs to the stated sales price before computing the lessor’s royalties.
Ordinarily, royalties are free of production expenses for bringing the minerals to the surface but “usually subject to post-production costs, including taxes, treatment costs to render it marketable, and transportation costs.” Heritage Res., NationsBank , 939 S.W.2d 2d 118, 120-21 (Tex. Crude Energy, LLC , 573 S.W.3d 3d 198, 203 (Tex.
Second, Louisiana already has a developed pipeline infrastructure that is necessary to transport carbon dioxide to where it can be utilized and stored. Privacy Policy: By subscribing to Liskow & Lewis’ E-Communications, you will receive articles and blogs with insight and analysis of legal issues that may impact your industry.
This action proposes the state continue to work with federal and state partners and industry to determine potential sites for storage, to identify a regulatory and legal framework that supports CCUS, and to determine impacts of capture and transport infrastructure buildout. Associated Submitted Action Proposals: N/A).
Second, Louisiana already has a developed pipeline infrastructure that is necessary to transport carbon dioxide to where it can be utilized and stored. Privacy Policy: By subscribing to Liskow & Lewis’ E-Communications, you will receive articles and blogs with insight and analysis of legal issues that may impact your industry.
Finally, the regulations will likely address other key issues including transportationpipelines, spacing between lease areas, environmental monitoring requirements, and use of legacy OCS infrastructure for CCS purposes. total CO 2 emissions. Communications include firm news, insights, and events.
Section 6 of the Order revoked TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P.’s s March 2019 permit to construct and operate cross-border pipeline facilities at the U.S.-Canada Critical to the success of this project is TC’s attainment of a Presidential Permit allowing the company to construct a pipeline that crosses the border between the U.S.
Section 6 of the Order revoked TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P.’s s March 2019 permit to construct and operate cross-border pipeline facilities at the U.S.-Canada The Keystone Pipeline is a system of petroleum pipelines designed to transport crude oil from fields in Alberta, Canada and ultimately terminating at refineries on the U.S
Biden’s “energy” plan focuses largely on historic levels of public investment in clean and renewable energy sources and infrastructure ( e.g. , solar, wind, electric vehicles), reducing greenhouse gas emissions (primarily from the transportation, electricity and other industrial sectors), and curbing the effects of climate change.
Biden’s “energy” plan focuses largely on historic levels of public investment in clean and renewable energy sources and infrastructure ( e.g. , solar, wind, electric vehicles), reducing greenhouse gas emissions (primarily from the transportation, electricity and other industrial sectors), and curbing the effects of climate change.
Biden’s “energy” plan focuses largely on historic levels of public investment in clean and renewable energy sources and infrastructure ( e.g. , solar, wind, electric vehicles), reducing greenhouse gas emissions (primarily from the transportation, electricity and other industrial sectors), and curbing the effects of climate change.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content