- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
spin-off from ML thread: levee board O&G suit
Posted on 2/12/14 at 4:07 pm
Posted on 2/12/14 at 4:07 pm
didn't want to hijack that thread, but wanted to ask about something cwill posted there.
i don't know much at all about the suit details, that type of engineering, or the history there, so i haven't heard the levee system argument you made.
is this what the defense will argue? is it true and verifiable enough to likely be effective?
edited title
i don't know much at all about the suit details, that type of engineering, or the history there, so i haven't heard the levee system argument you made.
quote:
the ROWs that were cut for P/Ls and location access would have to be dredged and repaired yearly if the levees didn't exist. And most of the ROWs were cut on pvt property and contracted for with the landowners a very long time ago. They couldn't foresee that this common practice would exacerbate the erosion created by the levee system that wasn't visible.
is this what the defense will argue? is it true and verifiable enough to likely be effective?
edited title
This post was edited on 2/12/14 at 5:30 pm
2
Posted on 2/12/14 at 4:15 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
didn't want to hijack that thread, but wanted to ask about something cwill posted there. i don't know much at all about the suit details, that type of engineering, or the history there, so i haven't heard the levee system argument you made. quote:the ROWs that were cut for P/Ls and location access would have to be dredged and repaired yearly if the levees didn't exist. And most of the ROWs were cut on pvt property and contracted for with the landowners a very long time ago. They couldn't foresee that this common practice would exacerbate the erosion created by the levee system that wasn't visible. is this what the defense will argue? is it true and verifiable enough to likely be effective?
I'm new to this new thread, but it was my impression that the suit is simply over the pipeline companies honoring their standard lease agreements to return the land back to its former condition after the term of the lease - which, at least in Louisiana, is almost NEVER done.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 4:17 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
honoring their standard lease agreements to return the land back to its former condition after the term of the lease
were those the terms, that simply? are they 100% liable if they aren't responsible for the change in condition and can show it?
Posted on 2/12/14 at 4:54 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
were those the terms, that simply?
They're prtty much that straightforward in every o/g lease agreement I've seen.
I'll see if I can dig up an old lease and get the exact language.
A few years back I was negotiating an agreement with a producer to buy the remaining o/g in a unit for a lump sum. I high-balled him. His position was that he would just shut in the well and we wouldn't get anything. Mine was fine, we have a rancher that wants to lease that lot from us, so let me know when you shut it in and we can get started with remediating the site right away. He knew I worked for an engineering firm and that I knew exactly what I was talking about. They continued negotiating.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 4:58 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
In the end is the property owner responsible for not having his land returned to its natural state?
Isn't he to blame for not enforcing his lease and letting his land aid in the degradation of the wetlands???
Isn't he to blame for not enforcing his lease and letting his land aid in the degradation of the wetlands???
Posted on 2/12/14 at 4:58 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
are they 100% liable if they aren't responsible for the change in condition
I don't know about liability beyond the original design specs. But I imagine if damage occurred due to their negligence by not abiding by the agreement and returning the land to its previous state, they could be exposed.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 5:02 pm to doubleb
quote:
In the end is the property owner responsible for not having his land returned to its natural state?
So one party breaks a contract, and it's the responsibility of the other party to hold them to it?
I dunno...
Maybe some good faith effort has to be shown by the land owner. The problem in the past has been that the landowner rarely had the resources to bring these companies to court. The pipeline co. would simply stall and rack up fees for the landowner.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 5:09 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
So one party breaks a contract, and it's the responsibility of the other party to hold them to it?
Landowner and OC enter into a contract. OC hiresa a contractor who may even hire a subcontractor to dig and then restore the channels. The problem no one returns to fix the channels thus breaking the contract. The landowner ignores this and lets it slide.
After time the resulting condition harms the environment.
The govt. knows the landowner has a problem. He doesn't know the oil company, or who did the actual work. But he does know who the landowner is.
It seems to me you sue the landowner.
Would it be any different if a contractor hired by your neighbor did some grading work, and screwed up the natural drainage as a result leaving your property underwater after a rain.
You sue the neighbor, not the contractor, right?
Posted on 2/12/14 at 5:10 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
is this what the defense will argue? is it true and verifiable enough to likely be effective?
I'm sure it will be one of the defenses - the base cause of marsh degradation isn't the P/Ls its the leveeing of the MS.
A lot of those P/L agreements out there are old and I can guarantee you most allowed abandonment in place and did not have a restoration clause or had a very weak one. And that duty was owed to the landowner, not the government.
But let's take it as true that all of these contracts required restoration. It wouldn't work and it wouldn't stem the tide of wetlands loss in any meaningful way. It would be like dumping dirt in the ocean.
The only way to halt the loss of wetlands is through massive diversion projects. But guess what it will never happen because their isn't the political will to make it happen. Further the pvt landowners have been a huge problem - they will never agree to it.
This post was edited on 2/12/14 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 2/12/14 at 5:14 pm to cwill
quote:
And that duty was owed to the landowner, not the government.
That's my thinking too.
BTW, I read an article somewhere by some scientist that the whole Northern Gulf Coast was sinking for natural reasons and not erosion of wetlands.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 5:17 pm to cwill
quote:
the base cause of marsh degradation isn't the P/Ls its the leveeing of the MS
ok, is marsh degradation the whole of the damages alleged though?
thanks for the useful answers, all
Posted on 2/12/14 at 5:20 pm to 90proofprofessional
I haven't read the full suit, but I think that's all it is...the idea is that due to wetlands loss the damages were caused. I think it's as simple as that.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 5:24 pm to cwill
Just to add - people think of wetlands loss as simple erosion - the salt water comes in and kills the plants and the banks of the bayous, canals and trenasses simply fall away over time. And if you simply refilled all the canals it would halt or slow the loss.
But it's not that simple. Wetlands are mostly being lost through subsidence. They are sinking as the loose silt compact in on itself. You'd have to cover the entire marsh with dirt every year to keep it from going away. And, hey, you know what - that's exactly what took place every spring until the corp leveed up everything.
But it's not that simple. Wetlands are mostly being lost through subsidence. They are sinking as the loose silt compact in on itself. You'd have to cover the entire marsh with dirt every year to keep it from going away. And, hey, you know what - that's exactly what took place every spring until the corp leveed up everything.
Posted on 2/12/14 at 6:18 pm to cwill
quote:
I'm sure it will be one of the defenses - the base cause of marsh degradation isn't the P/Ls its the leveeing of the MS.
While I agree with this, pipeline canal represent direct loss of wetlands.
quote:
A lot of those P/L agreements out there are old and I can guarantee you most allowed abandonment in place
I don't know of any that actually required removing the pipe. As a matter of fact, after the term of the agreement, the ownership of the pipe transfers to the land owner. He can rent that pipe out to anyone wanting to use it.
quote:
But let's take it as true that all of these contracts required restoration. It wouldn't work and it wouldn't stem the tide of wetlands loss in any meaningful way.
It would restore many acres of wetlands, that would, yes, be subject to degradation in the future - IF there is no other restoration efforts under way. I submit to you that no meaningful restoration efforts can take place without filling in these canals.
quote:
It would be like dumping dirt in the ocean.
Yes it would, and that is exactly how coastal Louisiana was formed - dumping dirt in the ocean. quote:
The only way to halt the loss of wetlands is through massive diversion projects.
And even then the Mississippi doesn't carry nearly the sediment load it once did before all the locks and dams were installed along it.
quote:
But guess what it will never happen because their isn't the political will to make it happen. Further the pvt landowners have been a huge problem - they will never agree to it.
These are one in the same. And yes, the landowners don't care that they're cutting off their noses to spite their faces, that they are losing the very land they don't want flooded. So now other people are put at risk due to the poor land management of coastal land owners. Do land rights extend to destroying the enviroment and putting other people's lives and property at risk? Many of the entities are out of state corporate owners. As a matter of fact, the French corporation, Fina-Total, at one point was one of the largest land holders in coastal Louisiana. Sometimes these are oil/gas corporations that have no intention of holding the pipeline company to their contract terms. So some foreign company owns tens of thousands of acres of wetland, and whose poor stewardship has led to accelerating wetland loss - wetlands that help to protect property owned by actual Louisiana residents - yet when we appeal to the government for some sort of action, it's frivolous? We have no recourse to foreign entities that are threatening our property through neglect?
Posted on 2/12/14 at 9:16 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Filling in a canal will does not stop subsidence. See my post right before yours.
Modern P/L ROWs with sophisticated landowners typically give the owner the option to demand removal.
Also O&G companies with fee lands in LA are very demanding when it comes to access, ROWs and exploration.
Modern P/L ROWs with sophisticated landowners typically give the owner the option to demand removal.
Also O&G companies with fee lands in LA are very demanding when it comes to access, ROWs and exploration.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News