|
Longhorn Lawyer Says October 1 Goal Won't Be Met
Longhorn Lawyer Says October 1 Goal Won't Be Met
Rival's lawsuit tangles disputed gasoline pipeline
By Ralph K.M. Haurwitz
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, August 27, 2002
Longhorn Partners Pipeline LP and its rival, the Holly Corp., now are engaged in dueling lawsuits concerning Longhorn's gasoline pipeline.
Longhorn sued Holly in 1998 in state district court in El Paso, accusing it and two subsidiaries of orchestrating a legal and public relations campaign against the plan to send gasoline and other fuels from Houston to West Texas using a pipeline that crosses South Austin.
Now Holly and its Navajo Refining unit have sued Longhorn and its partners, including ExxonMobil Pipeline Co., the Williams Cos. and others, in state court in Carlsbad, N.M. That lawsuit, filed on Friday after a Texas appellate court refused to dismiss the El Paso case, is essentially a countersuit, contending that Longhorn's suit thwarted Holly's planned merger with Giant Industries Inc. and prompted lenders to impose costlier terms on Holly's operations.
"No decision has yet been made on whether Holly will seek review of this ruling in the Texas Supreme Court," the company said in a statement posted on its Web site.
Longhorn's lawyer, Barry Cannaday, said Monday that the Carlsbad lawsuit is "totally without merit."
Holly and Longhorn, both based in Dallas, are competing for the same market.
Holly's Navajo unit operates a refinery in Artesia, N.M., that supplies gasoline, jet fuel and other products to portions of New Mexico, Texas and Arizona. Longhorn's pipeline runs to El Paso, with a short line branching off to Odessa.
The Longhorn pipeline, most of which is 52 years old, formerly carried crude oil but has been idle since 1995. Longhorn's effort to refurbish the line to carry fuels has encountered intense opposition, primarily in Central Texas, where the line cuts through South Austin neighborhoods and across the Edwards Aquifer.
A federal lawsuit filed by the City of Austin, the Barton Springs-Edwards Aquifer Conservation District and two Hill Country landowners prompted a review of the project's environmental ramifications by federal regulators. As part of the review, Longhorn agreed to undertake about $60 million in precautionary measures, including replacement of some pipe and installation of leak detection equipment.
In its El Paso suit, Longhorn contends that Holly conspired to stifle competition by underwriting some of the legal and public relations expenses in the battle against the pipeline. Holly acknowledges paying some lawyers and activists but says it is simply exercising free speech and other constitutional rights.
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin ruled last month that additional environmental review is not needed before the pipeline goes into operation. Longhorn subsequently suspended its preparations while it seeks additional financing and said it hoped to begin pumping fuel Oct. 1.
Allan Wolff, Williams' operations manager for the Longhorn pipeline, said Monday that Longhorn is still pursuing financing. Cannaday, the Longhorn lawyer, said the Oct. 1 goal would not be met. Wolff said another date had not been selected.
The city, the conservation district and the landowners appealed Sparks' ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week.
rhaurwitz@statesman.com; 445-3604
Rival's lawsuit tangles disputed gasoline pipeline
By Ralph K.M. Haurwitz
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Tuesday, August 27, 2002
Longhorn Partners Pipeline LP and its rival, the Holly Corp., now are engaged in dueling lawsuits concerning Longhorn's gasoline pipeline.
Longhorn sued Holly in 1998 in state district court in El Paso, accusing it and two subsidiaries of orchestrating a legal and public relations campaign against the plan to send gasoline and other fuels from Houston to West Texas using a pipeline that crosses South Austin.
Now Holly and its Navajo Refining unit have sued Longhorn and its partners, including ExxonMobil Pipeline Co., the Williams Cos. and others, in state court in Carlsbad, N.M. That lawsuit, filed on Friday after a Texas appellate court refused to dismiss the El Paso case, is essentially a countersuit, contending that Longhorn's suit thwarted Holly's planned merger with Giant Industries Inc. and prompted lenders to impose costlier terms on Holly's operations.
"No decision has yet been made on whether Holly will seek review of this ruling in the Texas Supreme Court," the company said in a statement posted on its Web site.
Longhorn's lawyer, Barry Cannaday, said Monday that the Carlsbad lawsuit is "totally without merit."
Holly and Longhorn, both based in Dallas, are competing for the same market.
Holly's Navajo unit operates a refinery in Artesia, N.M., that supplies gasoline, jet fuel and other products to portions of New Mexico, Texas and Arizona. Longhorn's pipeline runs to El Paso, with a short line branching off to Odessa.
The Longhorn pipeline, most of which is 52 years old, formerly carried crude oil but has been idle since 1995. Longhorn's effort to refurbish the line to carry fuels has encountered intense opposition, primarily in Central Texas, where the line cuts through South Austin neighborhoods and across the Edwards Aquifer.
A federal lawsuit filed by the City of Austin, the Barton Springs-Edwards Aquifer Conservation District and two Hill Country landowners prompted a review of the project's environmental ramifications by federal regulators. As part of the review, Longhorn agreed to undertake about $60 million in precautionary measures, including replacement of some pipe and installation of leak detection equipment.
In its El Paso suit, Longhorn contends that Holly conspired to stifle competition by underwriting some of the legal and public relations expenses in the battle against the pipeline. Holly acknowledges paying some lawyers and activists but says it is simply exercising free speech and other constitutional rights.
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks of Austin ruled last month that additional environmental review is not needed before the pipeline goes into operation. Longhorn subsequently suspended its preparations while it seeks additional financing and said it hoped to begin pumping fuel Oct. 1.
Allan Wolff, Williams' operations manager for the Longhorn pipeline, said Monday that Longhorn is still pursuing financing. Cannaday, the Longhorn lawyer, said the Oct. 1 goal would not be met. Wolff said another date had not been selected.
The city, the conservation district and the landowners appealed Sparks' ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week.
rhaurwitz@statesman.com; 445-3604
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. This website has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is this website endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) When available, links to the original article are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted here may not match the versions our readers view when following the links.