OH Law Firm Asks FERC to Stop ET Rover Pipeline Eminent Domain
Columbus, OH law firm has filed a motion with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) challenging Energy Transfer Partners’ ET Rover application before FERC. The issue at the heart of the motion is to prevent ET Rover from invoking eminent domain and steamrollering over landowners, building the pipeline without an agreement in place with each individual landowner first. When pipeline companies have the power of eminent domain, they hold all the cards. They can say, “Here’s the offer–take it or leave it–and if you leave it, we’ll build the pipeline through your land anyway at the price we want.” We’ve never been fans of eminent domain for pipelines. Far better for pipeline companies to work it out with landowners and pay them–or reroute it through someone else’s property who will play ball. We acknowledge it’s a thorny issue and not completely black and white. ET Rover is an 830-mile, $4.4 billion pipeline that will flow Marcellus and Utica Shale gas from PA, WV and eastern OH through OH into Michigan and eventually into Canada (see ET Rover Pipeline’s 800-Mile Journey Begins with FERC Filing). The bulk of the pipeline will run diagonally from southeast to northwest across Ohio. Just yesterday we told you about ET Rover’s program to help landowners (see ET Rover Pipeline Hires Land Stewards to Protect the Land in OH). The motion filed with FERC, from what we can tell in reading the press release and the motion itself (embedded below) is not an attempt to stop ET Rover–it’s an attempt to give landowners more negotiating power and leave them firmly in control of whether, and how much, they will accept to allow the pipeline through their property…
Read More “OH Law Firm Asks FERC to Stop ET Rover Pipeline Eminent Domain”
On March 3, a federal judge awarded a Tyler County, WV mineral owner $4.8 million in present and future royalties (plus interest) as damages in a dispute involving the operator’s failure to follow through on some unusually generous lease terms. The operator, Cunningham Energy LLC of Charleston, WV, had promised to horizontally drill eight wells to and through the Marcellus Shale formation within three years, but was unable to do so–largely because the leaseholds were far too small to develop as stand-alone units, and the surrounding lands turned out to be already under lease to other drillers…
PennFuture, the anti-drilling organization that has produced three top lieutenants in the PA Gov. Tom Wolf administration (see Ripping the Face off PennFuture & It’s Former Employees), frequently uses the court system in its attempt to slow or stop the Marcellus industry. One such case was a lawsuit PennFuture filed against Ultra Resources in 2011. Ultra had eight compressor stations scattered across Tioga and Potter counties–all of them many miles apart from each other. PennFuture tried to make the legal argument that all of the compressor stations should be combined together and treated as a single entity for the purposes of the federal Clean Air Act, which would have resulted in either very expensive equipment to reduce each facility’s nitrgen oxide (NOx) output, or perhaps closed some of them down to make the combined total come in under a certain threshold. PennFuture tried to say the eight facilities are “adjacent” for the purpose of the Clean Air Act. Ultra argued adjacent means “next to,” as in sharing a border. It all boils down to what the definition of adjacent means. Earlier this week U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania’s Middle District ruled in favor of Ultra and against PennFuture…
There’s a stark difference between pro-drillers and anti-drillers. Take pro-drillers in New York State as an example. NY landowners have had their property rights stripped away by a lawless (and spineless) governor–Andy Cuomo. Yet NY landowners soldier on. When the state’s highest court handed them an unfair and crushing blow by allowing municipalities to ban drilling, they continued to make their case and use whatever means they can–within the law–to advance their cause. NY landowners hate the fact that Cuomo and the courts have bastardized the law in the Empire State, but they continue to recognize the rule of law and abide by it. They are good citizens. Let’s contrast that with anti-drillers–say those in Ohio. When a court decision goes against anti-drillers, like the recent OH Supreme Court ruling (see 
Along with acquiring Access Midstream (formerly Chesapeake Midstream), Williams has just acquired a brand new lawsuit. Two Bradford County, PA law firms along with a New Jersey law firm on Tuesday filed a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuit on behalf of 90 landowners in Bradford County against Chesapeake Energy and Williams Partners (because Williams is now the owner of what was Access Midstream) claiming Chessy and Williams/Access conspired to defraud landowners of royalty money by deducting post-production expenses they had no right to deduct…
Cases before the high courts of both New York and Pennsylvania in the past year have ruled that local municipalities can control oil and gas drilling within their borders–so-called “home rule” statutes. In the case of NY the high court went berserk and said towns can actually ban such drilling, which of course strips away private property rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. In PA it was a little better, but not much. PA’s high court gutted provisions in the state’s Act 13 law making for a crazy-quilt patchwork of local zoning regulations that PA’s drillers must now navigate through. One state’s high court, however, has gotten it right. Yesterday the Ohio Supreme Court issued its long awaited ruling in the Munroe Falls v Beck Energy case (for background, see