By GARY REAVES - WFAA-TV - Wednesday, August 6, 2008
MCKINNEY — Almost three months after an explosion destroyed three McKinney homes and just nine days after Nancy Foster died from burns she endured in the blast, the Texas Railroad Commission announced they discovered numerous violations made by the gas line company and its contractor.
During their three-month probe, the commission said they discovered six rule violations made by Atmos and two more violations by its contractor, M. J. Sheridan.
The Foster family's lawyer, Frank Branson, said they are outraged.
"They ignored the rules before the explosion," he said. "They ignored the rules that caused the explosion and they ignored the rules on how you investigate and record the data."
The tragedy started when the gas company's approved contractor, M J Sheridan, punctured a three-inch gas line with a boring machine. Rules require that when they get within 12 inches of the line, they shut down the machine and dig by hand.
From there, the report stated the mistakes multiplied.
While the line was cut at 4:30 p.m., no one called 911 until 5:38 p.m., which was after the explosions began. In that crucial hour, the on-scene inspector failed to test sewer lines for gas and failed to order evacuations. Afterwards, Atmos failed to give drug and alcohol tests to the work crew.
The Foster family said they are suing for justice and answers.
"We supports our employees who we believe took appropriate actions at the time of the incident," read a statement released by Atmos. "We also have high standards for our contractors ... We continue to review our practices and protocols."
Read more on WFAA
The report is preliminary and Atmos and the contractor have 30 days to respond.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Fort Worth Residents Rally Support for Moratorium on Barnett Shale
While John McCain is trying to sell his energy policy of “Drill here. Drill now. Drill. Drill. Drill…” those affected by the devastation of the Domestic Drilling Agenda are calling for a moratorium.
Fort Worth woke up just in time to discover the free money promised to them by Chesapeake Energy landmen comes with a high price. Chesapeake Energy wants to run high pressure—100 psi minimum—gas pipelines through Fort Worth Neighborhoods. The highly corrosive, raw, wet gas can eat through a new pipeline in 3 or 4 years and is unodorized, invisible and extremely explosive.
Chesapeake, a private company, is using eminent domain to take yards and sometimes the entire home for their profit. Eminent domain should be used only for public gain with no private stakeholders.
If you are in the Barnett Shale area, you should try to attend this rally and learn from the mistakes made by Fort Worth residents.
Pipelines are dangerous:
In 1937, the New London School Explosion killed 300 – 400 children and teachers.
A Palo Pinto County gas well explosion in 2005 left a crater the size of a football field. The flash was seen 100 miles away.
An explosion in Forest Hill caused 500 homes to be evacuated in 2006.
Other unresolved issues of concern?
Bring a burger and spend your lunch hour with us!
Heed this warning Hanesville Shale and Marcellus Shale residents. Learn from the mistakes of Fort Worth.
This is also on Texas Kaos and Burnt Orange Report.
Fort Worth woke up just in time to discover the free money promised to them by Chesapeake Energy landmen comes with a high price. Chesapeake Energy wants to run high pressure—100 psi minimum—gas pipelines through Fort Worth Neighborhoods. The highly corrosive, raw, wet gas can eat through a new pipeline in 3 or 4 years and is unodorized, invisible and extremely explosive.
Chesapeake, a private company, is using eminent domain to take yards and sometimes the entire home for their profit. Eminent domain should be used only for public gain with no private stakeholders.
If you are in the Barnett Shale area, you should try to attend this rally and learn from the mistakes made by Fort Worth residents.
The Fort Worth Coalition for a Reformed Drilling Ordinance (CREDO) is made up of individuals and groups who are concerned that gas production in Fort Worth is proceeding without adequate consideration of long-term impacts
CREDO believes the City is obligated to assure the safety and well being of its citizens above all other considerations
CREDO calls for a City-imposed moratorium on gas well permitting until:
- Plans are in place to accomodate the total impact of urban gas production over the life of the activity
- Post-depletion planning is in place to protect future residents
- Planning for gas production is integrated with the city's Comprehensive Plan and other appropriate plans
- Regulations are in place to assure safe operation of the total gas production activity
Click Here for Details about the Call for a Moratorium
Pipelines are dangerous:
In 1937, the New London School Explosion killed 300 – 400 children and teachers.
A Palo Pinto County gas well explosion in 2005 left a crater the size of a football field. The flash was seen 100 miles away.
An explosion in Forest Hill caused 500 homes to be evacuated in 2006.
Other unresolved issues of concern?
- Infrastructure and quality of life impacts of drilling and fracking operations over the life of a well
- Pipeline routing and the questionable use of Eminent Domain
- Public safety, from drilling through production and long term degradation of the gas production infrastructure
- Water use, waste transport and disposal
- Effects of gas production on property values, insurance rates, future development, etc.
- Economic parity for those who signed leases early without organized efforts
- Air quality including release of hazardous compounds
- Impacts on public parks and loss of other important green space
Bring a burger and spend your lunch hour with us!
Heed this warning Hanesville Shale and Marcellus Shale residents. Learn from the mistakes of Fort Worth.
This is also on Texas Kaos and Burnt Orange Report.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
This Time, It's Different - Global Pressures Have Converged to Forge a New Oil Reality
By Steven Mufson - Washington Post Staff Writer - Sunday, July 27, 2008
The two events, half a world apart, went largely unheralded.
Early this month, Valero Energy in Texas got the unwelcome news that Mexico would be cutting supplies to one of the company's Gulf Coast refineries by up to 15 percent. Mexico's state-owned oil enterprise is one of Valero's main sources of crude, but oil output from Mexican fields, including the giant Cantarell field, is drying up. Mexican sales of crude oil to the United States have plunged to their lowest level in more than a dozen years.
The same week, India's Tata Motors announced it was expanding its plans to begin producing a new $2,500 "people's car" called the Nano in the fall. The company hopes that by making automobiles affordable for people in India and elsewhere, it could eventually sell 1 million of them a year.
Although neither development made headlines, together they were emblematic of the larger forces of supply and demand that have sent world oil prices bursting through one record level after another. And while the cost of crude has surged before, this oil shock is different. There is little prospect that drivers will ever again see gas prices retreat to the levels they enjoyed for much of the last generation.
Unlike the two short, sharp oil jolts of the 1970s, the latest run-up has been accelerating over several years as ample supplies of crude oil have proven elusive and the thirst for petroleum products has grown. The average price of a barrel of oil produced by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries doubled from 2001 to 2005, doubled again by March this year and jumped as much as 40 percent more after that.
For American motorists, a full tank of gas costs nearly twice what it did at the start of last year, racing past the $4-a-gallon mark, and has begun cutting into other household spending.
"What can you do? You need gas," said Barry Modeste, a construction worker who stopped his van at a Shell station in Takoma Park one recent morning to add $15 worth. It was enough, he said, to get him to a cheaper station in Rockville. "If you don't have gas, you can't get to work. And if you can't get to work, you don't get paid. And if you don't get paid, you can't buy food. We're at their mercy."
Last month, 51 percent of the respondents in a Washington Post poll said rising gas prices were causing a serious financial hardship for them or others in their household. It was the first time a majority had said that since the poll began posing that question eight years ago.
The rising prices are also adding to inflation, aggravating the U.S. trade deficit -- oil now accounts for about half of it -- and taking a toll on businesses already struggling with the economic slowdown caused by the housing and financial crises.
"I'm a very small businessman. If I get any smaller, I'll be out of business," said independent trucker Lee Klass, who was driving through the Texas Panhandle this month with a 33,000-pound load of plastic containers bound for Colorado. Klass had just paid $636 for fuel, enough for the trip but no more. Filling the tank would cost nearly twice that much.
Abroad, riots shook India after the government trimmed fuel subsidies. Truckers in Britain, France, Spain and South Korea have clogged the roads to protest rising fuel prices. In the Philippines, soaring prices for oil and petroleum-based fertilizer have derailed the economy and ignited calls for a cut in the tax on oil imports. With her popularity at a record low, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is expected to confront the issue in a nationally televised speech scheduled for tomorrow.
Even after oil prices have tumbled more than $24 in the past two weeks, largely as the result of easing tensions in the Middle East and slowing U.S. economic activity, crude is still trading near historic highs.
In a series of articles starting today, The Washington Post examines the economic forces that have unhinged oil prices from their longtime cyclical patterns, propelling fuel costs to once unimaginable levels that are now both fraying the lifestyles of our recent past and speeding the search for an energy source of the future.
Read the entire article and other parts of the series in the Washington Post.
The two events, half a world apart, went largely unheralded.
Early this month, Valero Energy in Texas got the unwelcome news that Mexico would be cutting supplies to one of the company's Gulf Coast refineries by up to 15 percent. Mexico's state-owned oil enterprise is one of Valero's main sources of crude, but oil output from Mexican fields, including the giant Cantarell field, is drying up. Mexican sales of crude oil to the United States have plunged to their lowest level in more than a dozen years.
The same week, India's Tata Motors announced it was expanding its plans to begin producing a new $2,500 "people's car" called the Nano in the fall. The company hopes that by making automobiles affordable for people in India and elsewhere, it could eventually sell 1 million of them a year.
Although neither development made headlines, together they were emblematic of the larger forces of supply and demand that have sent world oil prices bursting through one record level after another. And while the cost of crude has surged before, this oil shock is different. There is little prospect that drivers will ever again see gas prices retreat to the levels they enjoyed for much of the last generation.
Unlike the two short, sharp oil jolts of the 1970s, the latest run-up has been accelerating over several years as ample supplies of crude oil have proven elusive and the thirst for petroleum products has grown. The average price of a barrel of oil produced by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries doubled from 2001 to 2005, doubled again by March this year and jumped as much as 40 percent more after that.
For American motorists, a full tank of gas costs nearly twice what it did at the start of last year, racing past the $4-a-gallon mark, and has begun cutting into other household spending.
"What can you do? You need gas," said Barry Modeste, a construction worker who stopped his van at a Shell station in Takoma Park one recent morning to add $15 worth. It was enough, he said, to get him to a cheaper station in Rockville. "If you don't have gas, you can't get to work. And if you can't get to work, you don't get paid. And if you don't get paid, you can't buy food. We're at their mercy."
Last month, 51 percent of the respondents in a Washington Post poll said rising gas prices were causing a serious financial hardship for them or others in their household. It was the first time a majority had said that since the poll began posing that question eight years ago.
The rising prices are also adding to inflation, aggravating the U.S. trade deficit -- oil now accounts for about half of it -- and taking a toll on businesses already struggling with the economic slowdown caused by the housing and financial crises.
"I'm a very small businessman. If I get any smaller, I'll be out of business," said independent trucker Lee Klass, who was driving through the Texas Panhandle this month with a 33,000-pound load of plastic containers bound for Colorado. Klass had just paid $636 for fuel, enough for the trip but no more. Filling the tank would cost nearly twice that much.
Abroad, riots shook India after the government trimmed fuel subsidies. Truckers in Britain, France, Spain and South Korea have clogged the roads to protest rising fuel prices. In the Philippines, soaring prices for oil and petroleum-based fertilizer have derailed the economy and ignited calls for a cut in the tax on oil imports. With her popularity at a record low, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is expected to confront the issue in a nationally televised speech scheduled for tomorrow.
Even after oil prices have tumbled more than $24 in the past two weeks, largely as the result of easing tensions in the Middle East and slowing U.S. economic activity, crude is still trading near historic highs.
In a series of articles starting today, The Washington Post examines the economic forces that have unhinged oil prices from their longtime cyclical patterns, propelling fuel costs to once unimaginable levels that are now both fraying the lifestyles of our recent past and speeding the search for an energy source of the future.
Read the entire article and other parts of the series in the Washington Post.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Cheney's Staff Cut Testimony On Warming
Health Threats at Issue, Ex-EPA Official Says
By Juliet Eilperin - Washington Post Staff Writer - Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Members of Vice President Cheney's staff censored congressional testimony by a top federal official about health threats posed by global warming, a former Environmental Protection Agency official said yesterday.
In a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), former EPA deputy associate administrator Jason K. Burnett said an official from Cheney's office ordered last October that six pages be edited out of the testimony of Julie L. Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gerberding had planned to say that the "CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern."
Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the administration sought the changes for fear that Gerberding's testimony could trigger new controls under the Clean Air Act that would regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from burning fossil fuels. The White House has opposed mandatory limits and has insisted that voluntary measures and increased research are the best ways to address the issue.
"The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Office of the Vice President (OVP) were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony," Burnett, 31, a Stanford-trained economist and a Democrat, wrote in response to an inquiry from Boxer's committee. "CEQ requested that I work with CDC to remove from the testimony any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change."
Several media outlets, including The Washington Post, reported at the time of Gerberding's testimony that the administration had revised her proposed remarks. White House officials justified the changes by citing doubts about the scientific basis of her testimony.
Burnett -- a grandson of high-tech entrepreneur David Packard and a member of the Packard Foundation's board of trustees -- has given more than $129,000 to Democratic campaigns in recent years, including $3,600 to presidential candidate Barack Obama (Ill.). He did not identify who in the vice president's office had called him.
"I'm not interested in pointing fingers at any individual," he said at a news conference with Boxer, adding that he is focused on how the government will address climate change in response to a Supreme Court decision last year requiring the EPA to deal with rising carbon dioxide emissions. "I'm interested in helping inform the next administration to help make those decisions, while recognizing Congress could act to pass a better law."
Boxer demanded that, in light of Burnett's allegations, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson turn over "every document related to the agency's finding that global warming poses a danger to the public" -- a determination the EPA reached late last year in a document that has never been made public. On that basis, the senator said, the agency must issue regulations to limit the emissions.
The White House declined to open the EPA e-mail containing that finding, which Burnett sent on Dec. 5, leaving the recommendation in limbo. Burnett was responsible for climate change issues at EPA.
"I'm calling on Mr. Johnson to act now, and if he doesn't have the courage or the strength or determination to act, he should resign," Boxer said.
EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar said Johnson will not provide the documents, but added that Boxer and others will be able to read about the agency's findings in detail when it releases its proposed regulation of greenhouse gases, expected within days.
"The administrator is glad to see Senator Boxer agrees that we need a robust and complete advance notice of proposed rulemaking that will come out as soon as Friday," Shradar said, adding that "a lot of those documents" Boxer is seeking will be in the proposal. "I don't know if she's just now working on her summer reading list or what."
...
CDC spokesman Tom Skinner said that any changes to Gerberding's planned testimony were made "during the normal editing process" and that she "spoke openly and fully without constraint" while testifying before the Senate.
Frank O'Donnell, who heads the advocacy group Clean Air Watch, said the revelations confirmed that the vice president has been steering environmental policy during President Bush's tenure
"For years, we've suspected that Cheney was the puppeteer for administration policy on global warming," O'Donnell said. "This kiss-and-tell account appears to confirm the worst."
...
Read more in the Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin - Washington Post Staff Writer - Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Members of Vice President Cheney's staff censored congressional testimony by a top federal official about health threats posed by global warming, a former Environmental Protection Agency official said yesterday.
In a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), former EPA deputy associate administrator Jason K. Burnett said an official from Cheney's office ordered last October that six pages be edited out of the testimony of Julie L. Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gerberding had planned to say that the "CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern."
Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the administration sought the changes for fear that Gerberding's testimony could trigger new controls under the Clean Air Act that would regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from burning fossil fuels. The White House has opposed mandatory limits and has insisted that voluntary measures and increased research are the best ways to address the issue.
"The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Office of the Vice President (OVP) were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony," Burnett, 31, a Stanford-trained economist and a Democrat, wrote in response to an inquiry from Boxer's committee. "CEQ requested that I work with CDC to remove from the testimony any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change."
Several media outlets, including The Washington Post, reported at the time of Gerberding's testimony that the administration had revised her proposed remarks. White House officials justified the changes by citing doubts about the scientific basis of her testimony.
Burnett -- a grandson of high-tech entrepreneur David Packard and a member of the Packard Foundation's board of trustees -- has given more than $129,000 to Democratic campaigns in recent years, including $3,600 to presidential candidate Barack Obama (Ill.). He did not identify who in the vice president's office had called him.
"I'm not interested in pointing fingers at any individual," he said at a news conference with Boxer, adding that he is focused on how the government will address climate change in response to a Supreme Court decision last year requiring the EPA to deal with rising carbon dioxide emissions. "I'm interested in helping inform the next administration to help make those decisions, while recognizing Congress could act to pass a better law."
Boxer demanded that, in light of Burnett's allegations, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson turn over "every document related to the agency's finding that global warming poses a danger to the public" -- a determination the EPA reached late last year in a document that has never been made public. On that basis, the senator said, the agency must issue regulations to limit the emissions.
The White House declined to open the EPA e-mail containing that finding, which Burnett sent on Dec. 5, leaving the recommendation in limbo. Burnett was responsible for climate change issues at EPA.
"I'm calling on Mr. Johnson to act now, and if he doesn't have the courage or the strength or determination to act, he should resign," Boxer said.
EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar said Johnson will not provide the documents, but added that Boxer and others will be able to read about the agency's findings in detail when it releases its proposed regulation of greenhouse gases, expected within days.
"The administrator is glad to see Senator Boxer agrees that we need a robust and complete advance notice of proposed rulemaking that will come out as soon as Friday," Shradar said, adding that "a lot of those documents" Boxer is seeking will be in the proposal. "I don't know if she's just now working on her summer reading list or what."
...
CDC spokesman Tom Skinner said that any changes to Gerberding's planned testimony were made "during the normal editing process" and that she "spoke openly and fully without constraint" while testifying before the Senate.
Frank O'Donnell, who heads the advocacy group Clean Air Watch, said the revelations confirmed that the vice president has been steering environmental policy during President Bush's tenure
"For years, we've suspected that Cheney was the puppeteer for administration policy on global warming," O'Donnell said. "This kiss-and-tell account appears to confirm the worst."
...
Read more in the Washington Post
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Chesapeake may walk away from Fort Worth site
By JIM FUQUAY - Fort Worth Star Telegram - July 2, 2008
Chesapeake Energy on Tuesday asked the city of Fort Worth to postpone a hearing set for next week on its request for a high-impact drilling permit off Eighth Avenue, near the Berkeley Place and Ryan Place neighborhoods, and indicated that it could back away from the site.
The delay means Chesapeake could lose its lease on the site, which expires Aug. 10, unless it can obtain an extension from the landowner, Fort Worth & Western Railroad. It had intended to use the location, at 2520 Eighth Ave., to drill at least two wells under the railroad’s right-of-way, a nearby church and an apartment complex, according to filings with the Texas Railroad Commission.
The move follows a meeting Monday of Chesapeake officials, neighborhood leaders and railroad representatives. It was the latest in a series of meetings to discuss neighborhood concerns about safety and environmental issues.
Julie Wilson, Chesapeake’s top executive in the Barnett Shale, said Tuesday that the company is prepared to walk away from the lease if it cannot reach a consensus with neighborhood leaders on an acceptable drilling and development plan.
"That doesn’t mean we ever expect to get 100 percent support," Wilson said. "But we did say that, yes, we want the leadership of the neighborhoods to support this."
At the same time, she said, "we don’t want battles in city hall" over the granting of a high-impact drilling permit, which Chesapeake is required to obtain because homes are within the 600-foot buffer required by the city’s drilling ordinance. Chesapeake has been unable to obtain waivers from all property owners within that buffer, making a waiver from the City Council its only option.
The company has not withdrawn its application for a drilling permit at the site.
Council member Joel Burns, who represents the neighborhoods, said that although the issue is not yet resolved, he’s pleased with Chesapeake’s action to postpone what promised to be a contentious hearing.
"They have reached out aggressively in the last month. Unfortunately, a month was not nearly enough time to resolve all these issues," he said.
Neighborhood leaders said they were encouraged by Chesapeake’s approach to the controversy.
"They have a totally new attitude in terms of working with the neighborhoods," said Bill Hall, who attended the meetings as an organizer of the Joint Neighborhood Committee, formed last year to deal with mineral-rights leasing concerns.
Dan Roberts, who attended the meeting as a representative of Ryan Place Improvement Association, said that although he’s not convinced that the company fully appreciates the depth of opposition to drilling at the site, "they’re miles from where they were."
Complicating the issue are comments by railroad representatives who said they will explore other, possibly more intensive, uses at the drill site if it is not used for a gas well. An attorney for the railroad declined to comment on possible plans. But people at the meetings said they include freight storage or rail-car loading.
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
Chesapeake Energy on Tuesday asked the city of Fort Worth to postpone a hearing set for next week on its request for a high-impact drilling permit off Eighth Avenue, near the Berkeley Place and Ryan Place neighborhoods, and indicated that it could back away from the site.
The delay means Chesapeake could lose its lease on the site, which expires Aug. 10, unless it can obtain an extension from the landowner, Fort Worth & Western Railroad. It had intended to use the location, at 2520 Eighth Ave., to drill at least two wells under the railroad’s right-of-way, a nearby church and an apartment complex, according to filings with the Texas Railroad Commission.
The move follows a meeting Monday of Chesapeake officials, neighborhood leaders and railroad representatives. It was the latest in a series of meetings to discuss neighborhood concerns about safety and environmental issues.
Julie Wilson, Chesapeake’s top executive in the Barnett Shale, said Tuesday that the company is prepared to walk away from the lease if it cannot reach a consensus with neighborhood leaders on an acceptable drilling and development plan.
"That doesn’t mean we ever expect to get 100 percent support," Wilson said. "But we did say that, yes, we want the leadership of the neighborhoods to support this."
At the same time, she said, "we don’t want battles in city hall" over the granting of a high-impact drilling permit, which Chesapeake is required to obtain because homes are within the 600-foot buffer required by the city’s drilling ordinance. Chesapeake has been unable to obtain waivers from all property owners within that buffer, making a waiver from the City Council its only option.
The company has not withdrawn its application for a drilling permit at the site.
Council member Joel Burns, who represents the neighborhoods, said that although the issue is not yet resolved, he’s pleased with Chesapeake’s action to postpone what promised to be a contentious hearing.
"They have reached out aggressively in the last month. Unfortunately, a month was not nearly enough time to resolve all these issues," he said.
Neighborhood leaders said they were encouraged by Chesapeake’s approach to the controversy.
"They have a totally new attitude in terms of working with the neighborhoods," said Bill Hall, who attended the meetings as an organizer of the Joint Neighborhood Committee, formed last year to deal with mineral-rights leasing concerns.
Dan Roberts, who attended the meeting as a representative of Ryan Place Improvement Association, said that although he’s not convinced that the company fully appreciates the depth of opposition to drilling at the site, "they’re miles from where they were."
Complicating the issue are comments by railroad representatives who said they will explore other, possibly more intensive, uses at the drill site if it is not used for a gas well. An attorney for the railroad declined to comment on possible plans. But people at the meetings said they include freight storage or rail-car loading.
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Pipeline companies’ right to condemn land may be questioned
By MIKE LEE - The Fort Worth Star Telegram - June 22, 2008
When a gas drilling company wants a piece of land for a pipeline, its representative usually shows up at the owner’s door with a letter from the Texas Railroad Commission, stating that the company has a right to take the land.
Pipeline companies can condemn land because they’re considered either utility companies, which serve the public the same as Atmos or TXU, or "common carriers," a legal term that means they carry oil or gas for anyone.
Major gas companies have formed their own pipeline divisions as they seek routes for gathering pipelines to serve the Barnett Shale. These divisions have the power to condemn land.
However, several local lawyers specializing in pipeline and condemnation matters question whether these divisions should have that power because these pipelines typically serve only one company.
"In order to determine the ultimate answer to that question, somebody’s going to have to get some of these landowners together and challenge this," said Jim Bradbury, a pipeline lawyer who serves on Fort Worth’s gas drilling task force.
Captive utilities
The laws that allow pipeline companies to condemn land were written decades ago, when there was a greater division between the oil business and the pipeline business, said Glenn Sodd, a Corsicana lawyer who specializes in condemnation cases.
Chesapeake Energy’s pipeline division, Texas Midstream Gas Services, was created in 2006 and got its permit from the Railroad Commission in 2007, records show.
XTO Energy acquired its pipeline division, Barnett Gathering, from Antero Resources in 2005 and got a permit from the Railroad Commission in 2006, records show.
The commission issues permits, known as T-4s, that designate a company as a gas utility or common carrier. But commission officials say it isn’t responsible for deciding who gets the power to condemn land.
Spokeswoman Ramona Nye said that the commission has never denied a permit and that the agency gives them out only for administrative purposes.
"A pipeline is a common carrier or gas utility by virtue of their business organization, business activities, and they way they hold themselves out as conducting their business under Texas statutes," she said in an e-mail.
The question is whether "captive utilities" fit the traditional definition of a common carrier, since they carry gas for only one company.
"It’s uncharted territory, as far as I know," said Rick Disney, a Fort Worth lawyer who has handled pipeline cases.
Julie Wilson, vice president of Barnett Shale operations for Chesapeake Energy, said there’s no question that the company’s pipeline division is a gas utility, which gives it the right to condemn land.
"Ownership is irrelevant to a gas utility, so long as you receive the designation of a gas utility company," she said.
Charles Fiscus, a Dallas attorney who also works on condemnation issues, agreed with Wilson. Even if a pipeline serves only one company, it might still be a common carrier, the same way a trucking company might still be a common carrier even though all its trucks are leased to one customer, he said.
"Until there is a determination that a common carrier means you must offer your services to the public and you cannot contract your services to one person, I think there’s an ability to do that," he said.
Wilson said Chesapeake could probably ship other producers’ gas, "provided there’s capacity."
Pipeline power
Pipeline companies have wider condemnation power than a city or an electric company.
When a city wants to condemn land, it is required to have the property appraised.
When an electric company wants to condemn land, it has to file its route with the Public Utility Commission and submit alternate routes, Sodd said.
A pipeline company can condemn land without taking either of those steps, Sodd said.
The Legislature passed a law in 2007 that would have given landowners more rights in all types of condemnation, but Gov. Rick Perry vetoed it. The law would have required companies or governments to make a "bona fide offer" — an offer close to fair market value — for the land before beginning condemnation proceedings.
Matt Miller, executive director of the Institute for Justice-Texas, which advocates for landowner rights, said the Barnett Shale drilling boom might affect enough people to force the Legislature to act again.
"That has to be a legislative fix," he said. "They’re using the fact that we’re facing an energy crisis to push the issue."
City regulation
In the meantime, Fort Worth’s task force is discussing what, if anything, the city can do to regulate pipelines and possibly give homeowners a recourse.
In an April letter to the Mayor and City Council, Assistant City Attorney Sarah Fullenwider wrote that the city can do little about pipelines because they’re already regulated by state and federal agencies.
Southlake and Flower Mound have passed ordinances that require pipeline companies to file detailed maps of their routes.
Southlake requires pipeline companies to get a permit before they begin work. And there are additional requirements for pipelines that aren’t covered by the state and federal government, including "a description of the consideration given to matters of public safety and the avoidance, as far as possible, of existing habitable structures."
Fort Worth’s gas task force is scheduled to discuss the Southlake ordinance when it begins considering pipeline regulations in the next few weeks.
Sodd said the city should use its zoning authority to require pipelines to steer clear of neighborhoods.
"If I tried to build a business in a residential neighborhood, you would see the Planning and Zoning Commission of the city come down on me," he said.
Fullenwider said it’s not clear whether Fort Worth can adopt regulations similar to Southlake’s without getting sued.
"The issue is going to be what happens if the pipeline company refuses to get a permit — cities are going to be in an interesting position," she said.
And the city can’t curtail the pipeline company’s power to condemn land.
Wilson, of Chesapeake, said she thinks Southlake’s ordinance is "in direct violation of state and federal laws and regulations." She said the same would apply if Fort Worth tried to adopt similar regulations.
Even revealing pipeline routes the way Southlake and Flower Mound require would be problematic, Wilson said. The company would lose its flexibility in selecting routes and might be forced to condemn more property, she said. Also, just as it’s common for land speculators to buy property in the path of a proposed highway, the same thing could happen if pipeline companies publicized their routes.
One situation in which the city has some control is when a pipeline company needs to cross a city street. Utilities can’t condemn streets, and city officials have used that advantage to negotiate the routes of a few pipelines.
But, Wilson said, "the city is not allowed to unreasonably withhold approval, either."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eminent domain
Eminent domain is the legal term for the process that governments and private companies such as utilities use to acquire land. Pipeline companies and government agencies are required to pay for land they take. Here’s a look at how it works.
Informal negotiation The process differs depending on whether the government or a company is taking a piece of land. Government agencies typically must have the land appraised and show the appraisal to the landowner. When a pipeline company wants a piece of land, a right-of-way agent typically approaches landowners and makes an initial offer, but there’s not always a formal appraisal.
The company is not condemning the land at this point, even though the company typically shows landowners a letter stating that it has the power of eminent domain. A spokeswoman for Chesapeake said the company typically acquires 80 percent of its land at this phase, before any court action.
Condemnation suit If the two sides can’t agree on a value, the company or government that wants the land can file a condemnation suit in a county court at law.
At that point, the judge appoints a group of "special commissioners," who are usually real estate agents or lawyers with real estate experience. The commissioners listen to testimony and determine the value of the land. They can also determine if a landowner should be compensated for other damages, such as the decrease in value to the rest of his or her property.
A landowner is restricted in the evidence he or she can present at this phase. For instance, landowners can’t challenge the government’s or a company’s right to take their land, or complain about quality-of-life issues, said Glenn Sodd, a lawyer who specializes in condemnations.
But they can present appraisals and expert testimony that show how much the land is worth.
Landowners can have their case heard by a jury if they aren’t happy with the value set by the commissioners.
Appeal to District Court Landowners can challenge a county court at law verdict in state District Court.
At this level, a landowner can challenge the government’s or company’s right to take land. An owner can also argue that the seizure is "arbitrary and capricious."
But "that is a very, very tough burden," said Charles Fiscus, a Dallas attorney who handles condemnation cases.
Sources: Star-Telegram research, Texas attorney general’s office
The issue is going to be what happens if the pipeline company refuses to get a permit.
Sarah Fullenwider,
assistant Fort Worth city attorney
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
When a gas drilling company wants a piece of land for a pipeline, its representative usually shows up at the owner’s door with a letter from the Texas Railroad Commission, stating that the company has a right to take the land.
Pipeline companies can condemn land because they’re considered either utility companies, which serve the public the same as Atmos or TXU, or "common carriers," a legal term that means they carry oil or gas for anyone.
Major gas companies have formed their own pipeline divisions as they seek routes for gathering pipelines to serve the Barnett Shale. These divisions have the power to condemn land.
However, several local lawyers specializing in pipeline and condemnation matters question whether these divisions should have that power because these pipelines typically serve only one company.
"In order to determine the ultimate answer to that question, somebody’s going to have to get some of these landowners together and challenge this," said Jim Bradbury, a pipeline lawyer who serves on Fort Worth’s gas drilling task force.
Captive utilities
The laws that allow pipeline companies to condemn land were written decades ago, when there was a greater division between the oil business and the pipeline business, said Glenn Sodd, a Corsicana lawyer who specializes in condemnation cases.
Chesapeake Energy’s pipeline division, Texas Midstream Gas Services, was created in 2006 and got its permit from the Railroad Commission in 2007, records show.
XTO Energy acquired its pipeline division, Barnett Gathering, from Antero Resources in 2005 and got a permit from the Railroad Commission in 2006, records show.
The commission issues permits, known as T-4s, that designate a company as a gas utility or common carrier. But commission officials say it isn’t responsible for deciding who gets the power to condemn land.
Spokeswoman Ramona Nye said that the commission has never denied a permit and that the agency gives them out only for administrative purposes.
"A pipeline is a common carrier or gas utility by virtue of their business organization, business activities, and they way they hold themselves out as conducting their business under Texas statutes," she said in an e-mail.
The question is whether "captive utilities" fit the traditional definition of a common carrier, since they carry gas for only one company.
"It’s uncharted territory, as far as I know," said Rick Disney, a Fort Worth lawyer who has handled pipeline cases.
Julie Wilson, vice president of Barnett Shale operations for Chesapeake Energy, said there’s no question that the company’s pipeline division is a gas utility, which gives it the right to condemn land.
"Ownership is irrelevant to a gas utility, so long as you receive the designation of a gas utility company," she said.
Charles Fiscus, a Dallas attorney who also works on condemnation issues, agreed with Wilson. Even if a pipeline serves only one company, it might still be a common carrier, the same way a trucking company might still be a common carrier even though all its trucks are leased to one customer, he said.
"Until there is a determination that a common carrier means you must offer your services to the public and you cannot contract your services to one person, I think there’s an ability to do that," he said.
Wilson said Chesapeake could probably ship other producers’ gas, "provided there’s capacity."
Pipeline power
Pipeline companies have wider condemnation power than a city or an electric company.
When a city wants to condemn land, it is required to have the property appraised.
When an electric company wants to condemn land, it has to file its route with the Public Utility Commission and submit alternate routes, Sodd said.
A pipeline company can condemn land without taking either of those steps, Sodd said.
The Legislature passed a law in 2007 that would have given landowners more rights in all types of condemnation, but Gov. Rick Perry vetoed it. The law would have required companies or governments to make a "bona fide offer" — an offer close to fair market value — for the land before beginning condemnation proceedings.
Matt Miller, executive director of the Institute for Justice-Texas, which advocates for landowner rights, said the Barnett Shale drilling boom might affect enough people to force the Legislature to act again.
"That has to be a legislative fix," he said. "They’re using the fact that we’re facing an energy crisis to push the issue."
City regulation
In the meantime, Fort Worth’s task force is discussing what, if anything, the city can do to regulate pipelines and possibly give homeowners a recourse.
In an April letter to the Mayor and City Council, Assistant City Attorney Sarah Fullenwider wrote that the city can do little about pipelines because they’re already regulated by state and federal agencies.
Southlake and Flower Mound have passed ordinances that require pipeline companies to file detailed maps of their routes.
Southlake requires pipeline companies to get a permit before they begin work. And there are additional requirements for pipelines that aren’t covered by the state and federal government, including "a description of the consideration given to matters of public safety and the avoidance, as far as possible, of existing habitable structures."
Fort Worth’s gas task force is scheduled to discuss the Southlake ordinance when it begins considering pipeline regulations in the next few weeks.
Sodd said the city should use its zoning authority to require pipelines to steer clear of neighborhoods.
"If I tried to build a business in a residential neighborhood, you would see the Planning and Zoning Commission of the city come down on me," he said.
Fullenwider said it’s not clear whether Fort Worth can adopt regulations similar to Southlake’s without getting sued.
"The issue is going to be what happens if the pipeline company refuses to get a permit — cities are going to be in an interesting position," she said.
And the city can’t curtail the pipeline company’s power to condemn land.
Wilson, of Chesapeake, said she thinks Southlake’s ordinance is "in direct violation of state and federal laws and regulations." She said the same would apply if Fort Worth tried to adopt similar regulations.
Even revealing pipeline routes the way Southlake and Flower Mound require would be problematic, Wilson said. The company would lose its flexibility in selecting routes and might be forced to condemn more property, she said. Also, just as it’s common for land speculators to buy property in the path of a proposed highway, the same thing could happen if pipeline companies publicized their routes.
One situation in which the city has some control is when a pipeline company needs to cross a city street. Utilities can’t condemn streets, and city officials have used that advantage to negotiate the routes of a few pipelines.
But, Wilson said, "the city is not allowed to unreasonably withhold approval, either."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eminent domain
Eminent domain is the legal term for the process that governments and private companies such as utilities use to acquire land. Pipeline companies and government agencies are required to pay for land they take. Here’s a look at how it works.
Informal negotiation The process differs depending on whether the government or a company is taking a piece of land. Government agencies typically must have the land appraised and show the appraisal to the landowner. When a pipeline company wants a piece of land, a right-of-way agent typically approaches landowners and makes an initial offer, but there’s not always a formal appraisal.
The company is not condemning the land at this point, even though the company typically shows landowners a letter stating that it has the power of eminent domain. A spokeswoman for Chesapeake said the company typically acquires 80 percent of its land at this phase, before any court action.
Condemnation suit If the two sides can’t agree on a value, the company or government that wants the land can file a condemnation suit in a county court at law.
At that point, the judge appoints a group of "special commissioners," who are usually real estate agents or lawyers with real estate experience. The commissioners listen to testimony and determine the value of the land. They can also determine if a landowner should be compensated for other damages, such as the decrease in value to the rest of his or her property.
A landowner is restricted in the evidence he or she can present at this phase. For instance, landowners can’t challenge the government’s or a company’s right to take their land, or complain about quality-of-life issues, said Glenn Sodd, a lawyer who specializes in condemnations.
But they can present appraisals and expert testimony that show how much the land is worth.
Landowners can have their case heard by a jury if they aren’t happy with the value set by the commissioners.
Appeal to District Court Landowners can challenge a county court at law verdict in state District Court.
At this level, a landowner can challenge the government’s or company’s right to take land. An owner can also argue that the seizure is "arbitrary and capricious."
But "that is a very, very tough burden," said Charles Fiscus, a Dallas attorney who handles condemnation cases.
Sources: Star-Telegram research, Texas attorney general’s office
The issue is going to be what happens if the pipeline company refuses to get a permit.
Sarah Fullenwider,
assistant Fort Worth city attorney
Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Pre-Buy Electric customers are switched to other providers after firm defaults
By ELIZABETH SOUDER - The Dallas Morning News - Monday, May 19, 2008
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas is switching customers of Pre-Buy Electric LLC to other retail electricity providers after the company defaulted on some payments to the state’s grid operator.
It’s the first time ERCOT has used its automated switching process for a mass customer transition.
ERCOT said in a statement Monday that Pre-Buy, based in Bridgeport, Texas, defaulted on payments on Friday.
ERCOT began switching the company’s 8,430 customers to default providers on Saturday, and expects to finish the switches Monday.
The customer count includes 8,394 residential customers, ERCOT said.
Pre-Buy officials didn’t answer calls to the customer service line or respond to an e-mail on Monday.
Customers who are switched to the default provider, known as the provider of last resort, may face higher electricity prices. The default provider system is designed to ensure customers don’t lost electricity service while they search for a new provider.
ERCOT said that both Pre-Buy and the default electricity providers must notify customers of the switch.
Customers may contact the Public Utility Commission consumer hotline, 1-888-782-8477, or go to the PUC website: www.puc.state.tx.us/ocp/index.cfm.
Read more in the Dallas Morning News
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas is switching customers of Pre-Buy Electric LLC to other retail electricity providers after the company defaulted on some payments to the state’s grid operator.
It’s the first time ERCOT has used its automated switching process for a mass customer transition.
ERCOT said in a statement Monday that Pre-Buy, based in Bridgeport, Texas, defaulted on payments on Friday.
ERCOT began switching the company’s 8,430 customers to default providers on Saturday, and expects to finish the switches Monday.
The customer count includes 8,394 residential customers, ERCOT said.
Pre-Buy officials didn’t answer calls to the customer service line or respond to an e-mail on Monday.
Customers who are switched to the default provider, known as the provider of last resort, may face higher electricity prices. The default provider system is designed to ensure customers don’t lost electricity service while they search for a new provider.
ERCOT said that both Pre-Buy and the default electricity providers must notify customers of the switch.
Customers may contact the Public Utility Commission consumer hotline, 1-888-782-8477, or go to the PUC website: www.puc.state.tx.us/ocp/index.cfm.
Read more in the Dallas Morning News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
