Rover Pipeline files against Landowner in Monroe Co. Ohio
According to Monroe County Beacon, April 16 and available today April 14:
Rover Pipeline LLC vs. Raymond Snell.
from Monroe County Clerk of Courts site:
Complaint is for Temporary restraining order; preliminary and permanent injunction.
Snell owns property in Lee TWP Section 2 right in path of Rover Pipeline
Views: 6017
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Allen on -
All politics, the Texas Supreme Court wouldn't hear it because they knew it wouldn't stick. The property itself, the Donnel track, isn't worth what they claimed was the damage to the remainder if you bought it all at the going price of $500/acre. Exxon had a case in Texas a while back where the landowner claimed the highest and best use of his land was for pipelines and wanted to claim the value of the pipe and value of the product being transported as his way of land appraisal value. It's just another way to stop "just compensation" where the company has eminent domain. I worked in SW Texas a while and never saw any company, with or without eminent domain power, not offer the landowners 10-15 times the actual value of their property for an easement. In "normal" eminent domain cases, the judge will allow up to 70% of the fee value per acre for an easement, but most generally it is 50%.
-
Permalink Reply by R on
-
Slowly it seems the public is becoming better educated and I don't think the education is enhancing the pipeline companies position.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/another-day-another-p...
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Allen on
-
Yet, after watching Maddow's sarcastic reporting, with over a million miles of existing pipelines, the percent of failure is still well below the spills of truck transporting, rail transporting, not to mention the "carbon footprint" of the vehicle using fuel to make the haul. Until all of you nay-sayers decide you don't want gasoline/diesel for your vehicles and no power but "green" power, thank your lucky stars there are still companies out there willing to gamble their money to make money, and in this case it's about oil and gas.
-
Permalink Reply by Zack Jameson on
-
Sounds like Rover is sticking their chest out and making it known that eminent domain will be dealt on any landowners that don't immediately submit to their demands. Are we all supposed to get down on our knees and beg for forgiveness. I have to say this though, going to court and using eminent domain will be a last resort for them. It's takes too much time and hassle. Just deal with them and be firm. As long as the landowner negotiates and tries to get a fair price, then they can stick eminent domain where the sun don't shine.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Allen on
-
I have been doing this for 30 years as a contract right of way agent/supervisor and have never worked for a company that wanted to use or used eminent domain as a hammer until the negotiations are at a total impass or the landowner refuses to deal rationally. Then and only then, does the company begin the pre-condemnation process. When the land agent tells you they are getting a TRO for the certified plat and appraisal, you know they are getting serious. The certified plat will run about $3,000, the appraisal will be $4,000 and the court costs are $20,000. If you reach a price that the company is not willing to go over, then offer an additional $27,000 and tell them that's their cost to go to court and you'll settle for their final offer plus the $27k. If you aren't willing to go for that, then prepare to get screwed in court. Plus you will have to pay your own attorney and appraiser from your award. You will not stop the pipeline construction, in fact, construction will be over by the time you go to court.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Allen on
-
A NIMBY by any other name is still just a NIMBY.
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Bezel on
-
Great post, Ed! An eminent domain taking is about the worst thing a government can do to an innocent citizen; the only thing worse is the government giving that power to a company so they can lock in a fat profit at the expense of the landowner and only the landowner. You are right Ed - everyone else in the process gets their profit except the one given no choice in the matter.
Before somebody on this site calls me a NIMBY, I would probably try to work something out with a FERC certified pipeline. I would hate it, but sometimes big utility projects do need to be built. My problem is that only about 20% of the pipelines being built in the Utica/Marcellus play qualify for eminent domain, but many of the pipeline companies are threatening landholders with eminent domain for projects that clearly don't qualify, such as ethane lines. Unsophisticated landowners are being bullied into signing agreements for pipelines they don't want out of fear and misinformation (often coming from land agents). I know a 76-year-old widow that got taken advantage of that way, and it really frosts my cookies.
I have been approached by 7 different companies for 13 different lines. If I said yes to all of them, I would have no farm left, so I don't have any choice but to fight. I did say yes to one, and it turned into a nightmare. No more; I've done my part.
-
Permalink Reply by Corvette on
-
Joe, my attorney told me that Sunoco will put one line in now-probably for propane. Then later lay a second one for ethane. I suppose Sunoco is trying to claim eminent domain for the propane. Once they get the ROW they can transport the ethane and eventually the butane. My attorney told me he hates what Sunoco is doing to landowners and calls them the lowest form of human life you can find. I agree with him.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Allen on
-
As a contract right of way supervisor, I have never worked for a company that threatens a landowner with eminent domain until all avenues of negotiations have been exhausted. Once in a while we get a landowner that will flat not talk to us or is abusive. This has happened to me in in a greater percentage while working in Ohio. I have not worked for Sunoco, and from what I understand, they are relatively new in the pipeline world and may have some ignorant engineers.
I also understand the attitude of already having a pipeline on their property and not wanting another one. The argument from them is why not put your pipeline on someone else and don't keep picking on me. The landowner with no pipeline say why are you coming on my property when there is already an established corridor where a pipeline route is already approved. In Texas, one large landowner when taken to court, maintained that his highest and best use of his land was for pipelines, since he received so much more on a per acre basis for allowing pipelines than if the land was sold to a willing buyer. This was an interesting situation, until the county assessor upped his land values according to his latest payments.
Bottom line is that if America is going to be totally self sufficient and not depend on any foreign oil/gas or any other petroleum product, we need new pipelines to make it work. The majority of landowners on any one project agree to the terms and the money. There will always be a few NIMBY's that want cheap gasoline, but don't want anything to do with a pipeline on their property. That's why there is eminent domain, just for those folks.
-
Permalink Reply by Zack Jameson on
-
Joe Bezel, I share your views completely. These companies want to run their pipelines where ever they please and some properties can be completely overtaken if the land lies within a popular route. My land is like that. I have pipelines from from 2 different companies already on my place and Rover and the Leach Express are next. Besides the well pad and everything else, my land is completely taken over. They don't care. Yes, I got paid a good sum of money, but in return I literally gave up my land.
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
