LNG - Why are we talking about LNG here in Oregon?

Basic Economics A Citizen's Guide to the Economy
By Thomas Sowell
ISBN 0-465-08145-2

Investment and Speculation
Page 203

...Conversely, if the city announces that it is going to begin building a sewage treatment plant next year, on a piece of land next to your home, the value of your home will decline immediately, before the adjoining land has been touched.  The present value of an asset reflects its future benefits or detriments, so that anything which is expected to enhance or reduce those benefits or detriments will immediately affect the price at which the asset can be sold today.

Should hard working Oregonians be subject to Seizure of their private property and forced to subsidize GIANT for profit energy corporations to supply California with foreign gas?

Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA)

Description

The Natural Gas Act (NGA) of 1938 was the first instance of direct Federal regulation of the natural gas industry. Concern about the exercise of market power by interstate pipeline companies prompted the NGA, which gave the Federal Power Commission (FPC) (subsequently the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)) the authority to set "just and reasonable rates" for the transmission or sale of natural gas in interstate commerce. It also gave FPC the authority to grant certificates allowing construction and operation of facilities used in interstate gas transmission and authorizing the provision of services. A "certificate of public convenience and necessity" is issued under Section 7 of the NGA, and permits pipeline companies to charge customers for some of the expenses incurred in pipeline construction and operation. The NGA also requires Commission approval prior to abandonment of any pipeline facility or services.

Section 3 of the NGA requires Federal approval by the Department of Energy for the import and export of natural gas, including liquefied natural gas (LNG), and approval by FERC for the siting, construction, and operation of onshore LNG import and export facilities.

Regulatory functions under the NGA were originally delegated to the Federal Power Commission, and subsequently transferred to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and to the Department of Energy in 1977, by the Department of Energy Organization Act.

The NGA does not apply to the production, gathering, or local distribution of natural gas.

Impact

The Natural Gas Act has had an enormous impact on the interstate natural gas market in the United States. Although the natural gas industry has undergone tremendous change since 1938, and pipeline companies no longer function as resellers of gas to local distribution companies (LDCs), the key principles continue to motivate natural gas regulation in the United States. Concern about market power continues to be a key driver of natural gas regulation and monitoring of the market.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngmajorleg/ngact1938.html

[jump to top]

TITLE 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE > CHAPTER 15B -- NATURAL GAS -- 717f.

(c) Certificate of public convenience and necessity

(1)

(A) No natural-gas company or person which will be a natural-gas company upon completion of any proposed construction or extension shall engage in the transportation or sale of natural gas, subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or undertake the construction or extension of any facilities therefor, or acquire or operate any such facilities or extensions thereof, unless there is in force with respect to such natural-gas company a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Commission authorizing such acts or operations: Provided, however, That if any such natural-gas company or predecessor in interest was bona fide engaged in transportation or sale of natural gas, subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, on February 7, 1942, over the route or routes or within the area for which application is made and has so operated since that time, the Commission shall issue such certificate without requiring further proof that public convenience and necessity will be served by such operation, and without further proceedings, if application for such certificate is made to the Commission within ninety days after February 7, 1942. Pending the determination of any such application, the continuance of such operation shall be lawful.

(B) In all other cases the Commission shall set the matter for hearing and shall give such reasonable notice of the hearing thereon to all interested persons as in its judgment may be necessary under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Commission; and the application shall be decided in accordance with the procedure provided in subsection (e) of this section and such certificate shall be issued or denied accordingly: Provided, however, That the Commission may issue a temporary certificate in cases of emergency, to assure maintenance of adequate service or to serve particular customers, without notice or hearing, pending the determination of an application for a certificate, and may by regulation exempt from the requirements of this section temporary acts or operations for which the issuance of a certificate will not be required in the public interest.

(2) The Commission may issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity to a natural-gas company for the transportation in interstate commerce of natural gas used by any person for one or more high-priority uses, as defined, by rule, by the Commission, in the case of —

(A) natural gas sold by the producer to such person; and

(B) natural gas produced by such person.

(d) Application for certificate of public convenience and necessity

Application for certificates shall be made in writing to the Commission, be verified under oath, and shall be in such form, contain such information, and notice thereof shall be served upon such interested parties and in such manner as the Commission shall, by regulation, require.

(e) Granting of certificate of public convenience and necessity

Except in the cases governed by the provisos contained in subsection (c)(1) of this section, a certificate shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor, authorizing the whole or any part of the operation, sale, service, construction, extension, or acquisition covered by the application, if it is found that the applicant is able and willing properly to do the acts and to perform the service proposed and to conform to the provisions of this chapter and the requirements, rules, and regulations of the Commission thereunder, and that the proposed service, sale, operation, construction, extension, or acquisition, to the extent authorized by the certificate, is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity; otherwise such application shall be denied. The Commission shall have the power to attach to the issuance of the certificate and to the exercise of the rights granted thereunder such reasonable terms and conditions as the public convenience and necessity may require.

(f) Determination of service area; jurisdiction of transportation to ultimate consumers

(1) The Commission, after a hearing had upon its own motion or upon application, may determine the service area to which each authorization under this section is to be limited. Within such service area as determined by the Commission a natural-gas company may enlarge or extend its facilities for the purpose of supplying increased market demands in such service area without further authorization; and

(2) If the Commission has determined a service area pursuant to this subsection, transportation to ultimate consumers in such service area by the holder of such service area determination, even if across State lines, shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State commission in the State in which the gas is consumed. This section shall not apply to the transportation of natural gas to another natural gas company.

(g) Certificate of public convenience and necessity for service of area already being served

Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as a limitation upon the power of the Commission to grant certificates of public convenience and necessity for service of an area already being served by another natural-gas company.

(h) Right of eminent domain for construction of pipelines, etc.

When any holder of a certificate of public convenience and necessity cannot acquire by contract, or is unable to agree with the owner of property to the compensation to be paid for, the necessary right-of-way to construct, operate, and maintain a pipe line or pipe lines for the transportation of natural gas, and the necessary land or other property, in addition to right-of-way, for the location of compressor stations, pressure apparatus, or other stations or equipment necessary to the proper operation of such pipe line or pipe lines, it may acquire the same by the exercise of the right of eminent domain in the district court of the United States for the district in which such property may be located, or in the State courts. The practice and procedure in any action or proceeding for that purpose in the district court of the United States shall conform as nearly as may be with the practice and procedure in similar action or proceeding in the courts of the State where the property is situated: Provided, That the United States district courts shall only have jurisdiction of cases when the amount claimed by the owner of the property to be condemned exceeds $3,000.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/usc_sec_15_00000717---f000-.html

[jump to top]

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. No. 109-58)

http://oversight.house.gov/bills.asp?ID=35

On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), which contains several distinct provisions preempting different aspects of state authority. The law preempts states and localities in the exercise of their traditional authorities over local land use decisions, siting liquefied natural gas facilities, and pollution control.

Preemption of State Authority over Transmission Lines

EPAct transfers the authority to approve the siting of certain transmission lines from state and local governments to the federal government. States and localities have long exercised this authority to protect the environment, address local land use preferences, and ensure reliable power service. EPAct shifts this authority to the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

Under section 1221 of EPAct, DOE may designate “national interest electric transmission corridors” within which state and local authority to deny or condition transmission line permit requests is severely limited. If a state denies a permit, places certain conditions on a permit, or has not acted on a permit within one year for any reason, including lack of information provided by the applicant, FERC can step in and issue the permit.

In addition, the section intrudes on long-standing state and local eminent domain authority. Under section 1221, electric utilities that have received a permit from FERC to construct a power line over state objections can petition a federal court for the right to exercise the power of eminent domain over private property in order to construct new transmission lines.

This section directly conflicts with the policy of the National Governors Association on the siting of transmission lines, which states:

Governors oppose preemption of traditional state and local authority over siting of electricity transmission networks. Governors recognize that situations exist where better cooperation could improve competition and reliability. Governors are willing to engage in a dialogue with the federal government and industry to address these situations in a manner that does not intrude upon traditional state and local authority.

Preemption of State Authority over Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminals

EPAct shifts the authority over siting onshore liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities from states to the federal government. Previously, states had the authority to site LNG facilities in a manner that guarded the state's interests in land use, public safety, and environmental protections.

Section 311 of EPAct grants FERC exclusive authority to approve or deny the siting, construction, expansion, and operation of onshore LNG terminals. State efforts to protect public safety or to address ratepayer and environmental concerns are preempted. While the law requires FERC to consult with state and local governments regarding safety concerns, they have no role in the final decision. State and local governments also lose the ability to impose penalties for safety violations at LNG facilities. The Act purports to preserve the rights of states under three specific environmental laws — the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act — but only to the extent that section 311 does not specifically provide otherwise.

This provision has significant practical implications for state authority. Sixteen applications for onshore LNG terminals are pending before FERC, and an additional nine potential locations for onshore LNG terminals have been identified by the LNG industry. Each of these applications raise significant safety concerns, including the possibility of a highly destructive explosion in the event of a terrorist attack. Yet state governments now have no authority to require any safety precautions or even to prosecute known violations of federal safety requirements.

This provision was opposed by state officials from both West Coast and East Coast states, as well as by the National Governors Association.

Limitation on State Authority to Require Clean Fuels for Motor Vehicles

EPAct sharply limits states' powers to require cleaner burning motor vehicle fuels. This law runs contrary to the Clean Air Act's long-standing recognition of states' authority to adopt more stringent pollution controls than the federal government. Prior to the adoption of EPAct, the Clean Air Act allowed states to require that gasoline and diesel fuel meet state “clean fuel” standards that are more stringent than federal standards if the states can demonstrate that the more stringent state standards are necessary for an area to meet the health-based air quality standards.

Section 1541 of EPAct bars EPA from approving — and hence bars a state from adopting — a new requirement for cleaner burning fuel unless: (1) the fuel would not increase the total number of fuel formulations in existence in 2004 and (2) use of the same fuel is already required elsewhere in that petroleum distribution district. In practice, this would block state requirements for any new and innovative type of clean burning fuels. It would also stop some areas from requiring clean burning fuel formulations that are used in other parts of the country. Section 1541 also allows EPA to suspend existing state clean fuel requirements under vaguely defined “extreme and unusual fuel and fuel additive supply circumstances.”

This repeal of state clean fuel authorities was strongly opposed by state and local air pollution officials. According to these officials, requiring cleaner burning gasoline or diesel fuel is often one of the most cost-effective and least burdensome ways for states and localities to clean up their air and meet the health-based national air quality standards. They stated that the provision would “sharply curtail current state authority” that is “critical to protecting ... citizens from air pollution.”

Sources:

National Governors Association, NR-18: Comprehensive National Energy and Electricity Policy (2003). Prior to the passage of EPAct, FERC attempted unilaterally to assert jurisdiction over LNG facilities and was sued by the state of California since the FERC action deviates from the plain language of the Natural Gas Act. Californians for Renewable Energy Inc. & California Public Utilities Commission v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 9th Cir. Nos. 04-73650 & 04-75240.

See NOAA, Implications of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. No. 109-58) Provisions Relating to the Coastal Zone Management Act (Sept. 23, 2005) (“some state CZMA enforceable policies that NOAA previously approved that would specifically apply to LNG or LNG-type facilities would likely no longer be enforceable”).

E.g. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Existing and Proposed North American LNG Terminals (Mar. 8, 2006) (online at http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng/indus-act/terminals/exist-prop-lng.pdf); Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Potential North American LNG Terminals (Mar. 7, 2006) (online at http://www.ferc.gov/ industries/lng/indus-act/terminals/horizon-lng.pdf).

Sandia National Laboratories, Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill Over Water (Dec. 2004).

See, e.g., Letter from Governors Schwarzenegger (R-CA), Romney (R-MA), Blanco (D-LA), Carcieri (R-RI), Codey (D-NJ) and Minner (D-DE) to Chairman Domenici and Senators Bingaman, Alexander, and Dorgan (May 25, 2005); Letter from Raymond C. Scheppach, National Governors Association, to Chairman Domenici and Senator Bingaman (June 21, 2005).

See CAA § 211(c)(4)(C); 42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(c).

Pub. L. No. 109-58 § 1541(a) (2005).

See State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials, Air Pollution Topics — Vehicles and Fuels (online at www.4cleanair.org/TopicDetails.asp?parent=27#docs-Fuels).

Letter from S. William Becker, Executive Director, State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials to Chairman Joe Barton (Apr. 11, 2005).

[jump to top]

The courts and laws are not your friends when it comes to Eminent Domain, but they could be...

The United States Supreme Court's (universally despised) Kelo decision allowed a city (in this case, city of New London, Connecticut) to use eminent domain to take well cared for homes and property and transfer them from one private owner to another (a private developer) to increase tax revenue and jobs (further economic development).

This deplorable decision eliminates "any distinction between private and public use of property — and thereby effectively deletes the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

The Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005 sponsored by Senator John Cornyn, Republican from Texas was a great step in the right direction.

Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)

S 1313 IS

109th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 1313

To protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights, by limiting the power of eminent domain.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 27, 2005

Mr. CORNYN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights, by limiting the power of eminent domain.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the `Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:


(1) The protection of homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against government seizures and other unreasonable government interference is a fundamental principle and core commitment of our Nation's Founders.

(2) As Thomas Jefferson wrote on April 6, 1816, the protection of such rights is `the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it'.

(3) The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically provides that `private property' shall not `be taken for public use without just compensation'.

(4) The Fifth Amendment thus provides an essential guarantee of liberty against the abuse of the power of eminent domain, by permitting government to seize private property only `for public use'.

(5) On June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108.

(6) As the Court acknowledged, `it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B', and that under the Fifth Amendment, the power of eminent domain may be used only `for public use'.

(7) The Court nevertheless held, by a 5-4 vote, that government may seize the home, small business, or other private property of one owner, and transfer that same property to another private owner, simply by concluding that such a transfer would benefit the community through increased economic development.

(8) The Court's decision in Kelo is alarming because, as Justice O'Connor accurately noted in her dissenting opinion, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas, the Court has `effectively . . . delete[d] the words `for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment' and thereby `refus[ed] to enforce properly the Federal Constitution'.

(9) Under the Court's decision in Kelo, Justice O'Connor warns, `[t]he specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory'.

(10) Justice O'Connor further warns that, under the Court's decision in Kelo, `[a]ny property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party', and `the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result'.

(11) As an amicus brief filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, AARP, and other organizations noted, `[a]bsent a true public use requirement the takings power will be employed more frequently. The takings that result will disproportionately affect and harm the economically disadvantaged and, in particular, racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly'.

(12) It is appropriate for Congress to take action, consistent with its limited powers under the Constitution, to restore the vital protections of the Fifth Amendment and to protect homes, small businesses, and other private property rights against unreasonable government use of the power of eminent domain.

(13) It would also be appropriate for States to take action to voluntarily limit their own power of eminent domain. As the Court in Kelo noted, `nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power'.

SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF HOMES, SMALL BUSINESSES, AND OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. 

(a) In General- The power of eminent domain shall be available only for public use.

(b) Public Use- In this Act, the term `public use' shall not be construed to include economic development.

(c) Application- This Act shall apply to--
(1) all exercises of eminent domain power by the Federal Government; and
(2) all exercises of eminent domain power by State and local government through the use of Federal funds.

COSPONSORS(32), ALPHABETICAL:


Sen Alexander, Lamar [TN] - 6/30/2005
Sen Allard, Wayne [CO] - 8/1/2006
Sen Allen, George [VA] - 6/28/2005
Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] - 7/11/2005
Sen Bunning, Jim [KY] - 6/30/2005
Sen Burns, Conrad R. [MT] - 6/28/2005
Sen Burr, Richard [NC] - 7/29/2005
Sen Chambliss, Saxby [GA] - 9/14/2005
Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] - 7/12/2005
Sen Craig, Larry E. [ID] - 6/30/2005
Sen Crapo, Mike [ID] - 6/30/2005
Sen DeMint, Jim [SC] - 7/11/2005
Sen Ensign, John [NV] - 6/28/2005
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY] - 9/19/2005
Sen Hagel, Chuck [NE] - 12/13/2005
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey [TX] - 6/30/2005
Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK] - 6/28/2005
Sen Isakson, Johnny [GA] - 7/1/2005
Sen Kyl, Jon [AZ] - 6/28/2005
Sen Lott, Trent [MS] - 7/1/2005
Sen Martinez, Mel [FL] - 6/28/2005
Sen McCain, John [AZ] - 7/11/2005
Sen Murkowski, Lisa [AK] - 6/30/2005
Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] - 6/28/2005
Sen Roberts, Pat [KS] - 10/3/2005
Sen Santorum, Rick [PA] - 6/30/2005
Sen Snowe, Olympia J. [ME] - 7/29/2005
Sen Talent, Jim [MO] - 9/21/2005
Sen Thomas, Craig [WY] - 6/28/2005
Sen Thune, John [SD] - 7/1/2005
Sen Vitter, David [LA] - 7/11/2005
Sen Warner, John [VA] - 9/8/2005

[jump to top]

---

Well the pipeline industry didn't like this...

The Honorable John Cornyn
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Cornyn:

I am writing on behalf of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) to share our members’ views on S. 1313, the "Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2005." INGAA is a trade organization that represents virtually all interstate natural gas transmission pipeline companies operating in the U.S., as well as comparable companies in Canada and Mexico. Our members transport over 95 percent of the nation's natural gas through a network of 180,000 miles of pipelines. The efficient and timely construction of interstate natural gas pipelines depends on the right of eminent domain now granted under federal law, which is why we ask that you consider several refinements to your legislation as it moves forward. Before discussing suggested refinements, however, I first will provide some background on eminent domain and the construction of interstate natural gas pipelines.

Interstate natural gas pipelines cannot be constructed in the United States without first obtaining approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC is responsible, pursuant to the Natural Gas Act (NGA), for reviewing proposed natural gas pipeline projects and authorizing only those that it finds to be in "the public convenience and necessity." Upon receiving an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity, FERC undertakes a comprehensive public review in which it solicits views from affected landowners and works to mitigate any long-term effects that the proposed project may have on landowners and the environment. Should FERC issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity, section 7(h) of the NGA authorizes the certificate holder to exercise the right of eminent domain in federal district court, if necessary, to acquire property along the approved pipeline right-of-way.

The Congress first authorized the holders of certificates for constructing interstate natural gas pipelines to exercise federal eminent domain in 1942. The reason for this amendment was that an interstate pipeline may traverse hundreds of miles and cross thousands of separate land parcels. While certificate holders typically can negotiate land use agreements with 90 to 95 percent of landowners, access to the remainder of the land along the pipeline right-of-way often is complicated by unclear land title and intransigent landowners. It should be noted, however, that the FERC requires fair market compensation for all affected landowners – regardless of whether the certificate holder has been compelled to use eminent domain proceedings to obtain land access. FERC certificate orders also include environmental conditions requiring the restoration of the land following construction. Finally, almost all pipelines are buried at least three feet underground, which means that landowners may still use their property for a variety of applications, such as agriculture, once the pipeline is constructed.

Given the forecasts of continued growth in the demand for natural gas, as well as the need to access natural gas from new supply sources, expansion of natural gas pipeline infrastructure in the United States will be an urgent need in coming years. While eminent domain must be invoked in only a small number of cases on any given project, the continued ability to rely on this authority remains critical to avoiding endless delay in building energy infrastructure of national importance.

The process for obtaining a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorized by section 7 of the NGA ensures that FERC-approved interstate pipeline projects meet a "public use" standard similar to the one suggested in S. 1313. While eminent domain is used in connection with constructing privately-owned pipelines, there is the prerequisite of a finding by the federal regulator that such facilities are required for the public convenience and necessity.

INGAA therefore recommends S. 1313 be amended to recognize expressly the longstanding grant of federal eminent domain under the NGA. Specifically, section 3 of S. 1313 could be amended in one of two ways: 

• 1. Defining "public use" to include projects found to meet the "public convenience and necessity" pursuant to section 7 of the NGA; or
• 2. Exempting from the definition of "economic development" those projects that have been approved by FERC under section 7 of the NGA.

 Thank you for considering these views. Please feel free to contact me, or our Vice President of Legislative Affairs, Martin Edwards (202-216-5910), if you have any questions.

Respectfully,

Donald F. Santa, Jr.
President

http://www.ingaa.org/cms/15/3560/3634/3665.aspx

They intend to earn millions of dollars in profits, but if they have to actually pay TRUE fair market value for the land they need to build their pipeline, that is somehow unfair???

[jump to top]

Will Your Insurance cover a non-natural gas pipeline problem???
Not Likely!

Force majeure declared after Louisiana natural gas pipeline explosion

Supply of natural gas to Gulf Coast could be disrupted

By Maria Varmazis -- Purchasing, 12/17/2007 9:13:00 AM

NiSource declared a force majeure on all three of its lines of the Columbia Gulf natural gas pipeline on Friday after one of the pipelines exploded in northeast Louisiana, killing one person and injuring another. All three pipelines—lines 100, 200 and 300—carrying natural gas to the Midwest, Northeast and Southeast U.S. were immediately closed down following the explosion, though line 300 was reopened by Friday evening. NiSource has made no estimates when lines 100 and 200 will reopen.

“It will impact the supply of gas as Atmos and others reroute gas from one pipeline to another,” says Rand LaVonn, a spokesman for Atmos Energy, a natural gas distributor. “It’s too early to say what impact this will have on the price of gas.”

http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA6513384.html

Force majeure, an unexpected and disruptive event that may operate to excuse a party from a contract.

Superior or overpowering force.
An unexpected or uncontrollable event.

a natural and unavoidable catastrophe that interrupts the expected course of events; "he discovered that his house was not insured against acts of God"

Force Majeure
A French term literally translated as "greater force", this clause is included in contracts to remove liability for natural and unavoidable catastrophes that interrupt the expected course of events and restrict participants from fulfilling obligations.

Investopedia Commentary

This clause is meant to benefit both parties in a contract. Force majeure would come into play, for example, when you buy a house: should the house be destroyed in a fire caused by a lightning strike, neither party remains obligated.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Force+majeure+&db=*

 

Force majeure
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Force majeure (French for "greater force") is a common clause in contracts which essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as war, strike, riot, crime, act of God (e.g., flooding, earthquake, volcano), prevents one or both parties from fulfilling their obligations under the contract. However, force majeure is not intended to excuse negligence or other malfeasance of a party, as where non-performance is caused by the usual and natural consequences of external forces (e.g., predicted rain stops an outdoor event), or where the intervening circumstances are specifically contemplated.

Time-critical and other sensitive contracts may be drafted to limit the shield of this clause where a party does not take reasonable steps (or specific precautions) to prevent or limit the effects of the outside interference, either when they become likely or when they actually occur. A force majeure may work to excuse all or part of the obligations of one or both parties. For example, a strike might prevent timely delivery of goods, but not timely payment for the portion delivered. Similarly, a widespread power outage would not be a force majeure excuse if the contract requires the provision of backup power or other contingency plans for continuity.

(In the military, force majeure has a slightly different meaning. It refers to an event, either external or internal, that happens to a vessel or aircraft that allows it to enter normally restricted areas without penalty. A recent example would be the U.S. Navy aircraft that landed at a Chinese military airbase after a collision with a Chinese fighter. Under the principle of force majeure, the aircraft must be allowed to land without interference.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure

 

Louisiana pipeline blast kills one
Fri Dec 14, 7:56 PM ET

HOUSTON (Reuters) - A motorist was killed and another was injured when the Columbia Gulf natural gas pipeline in northeast Louisiana exploded on Friday afternoon near an interstate highway, said a Louisiana State Police spokeswoman.

All three natural gas lines that make up Columbia Gulf Pipeline, which carries natural gas to the Midwest, Northeast and Southeast United States, were shut at the blast site near Delhi, Louisiana, pipeline operator NiSource Inc said in a posting on its Web site.

Corbin Fawcett, 47, of Haleyville, Alabama, and George McCaleb, 58, of Fayetteville, Alabama, were traveling east in a pickup truck on Interstate Highway 20 when the pipeline exploded at about 1 p.m. CST (2 p.m. EST), said Sgt. Julie Lewis of the Louisiana State Police.

Earlier media reports said the deceased man was fishing near the pipeline when it exploded, but those were incorrect, Lewis said.

Fawcett was killed and McCaleb was taken to a hospital for treatment of second-degree burns to his hands.

In the Web site posting, NiSource said it expected to resume moving gas through one of the lines that make up the pipeline Friday night.

NiSource declared force majeure for the line on which the explosion occurred. Force majeure is invoked when a company cannot comply with the terms of a contract for reasons beyond its control.

"It's too early to say what impact this will have on the price of gas," said Rand LaVonn, spokesman for Dallas-based Atmos Energy Corp, the nation's largest natural gas-only distributor serving a dozen states. Atmos also procures gas for industrial and municipal customers in 22 states.

"It will impact the supply of gas as Atmos and others reroute gas from one pipeline to another," LaVonn said. "We'll have to wait and see."

The Columbia Gulf pipeline stretches 4,200 miles (6,759 kilometers) across Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and Kentucky. It interconnects with every major pipeline system on the Gulf Coast and moves gas to markets in the U.S. Midwest, Southeast and Northeast.

About six miles of Interstate 20 will remain shut until Louisiana officials determine that the highway and nearby bridges were not damaged in the blast and following fire.

The two lines next to the line that blew up were shut for evaluation to determine if they were damaged in the blast, NiSource said.

Natural gas is sold to utilities for home-heating and to produce electricity, as well as to municipalities and industrial and manufacturing companies.

(Reporting by Erwin Seba, Joe Silha, Eileen O'Grady, Bruce Nichols, Anna Driver and Robert Campbell, writing by Erwin Seba; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1456016620071215

[jump to top]

Why Do these Big Energy Front Companies refuse to identify their Pipeline Routes?

Posted on August 25th, 2007 by admin | Edit

The biggest reason that there is no defined pipeline route is because less information works to their advantage, not ours.  These deceptive companies do themselves no favors by identifying their opponents.  If they can Keep Oregon land owners in the dark, these land owners might not be too concerned, and may not mount an opposition until it is too late.  They are counting on us only being worried about ourselves, and not banning together and helping one another.

Claiming that public disclosure of a pipeline route is somehow a national security breach it total HOGWASH.  You can go to Google maps and see live satellite photographs of every US Military instillation.  Once the pipeline is in place, Accurate satellite photographs of it too will be readily available.  The only possible "threat" from publishing the proposed route is from the affected land owners, not terrorist, who already have much more detailed information about actual targets, not just proposed projects.

[jump to top]