Northern Natural Gas Company v. Tract No. 1062710 et al

Filing 773

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 747 Northern's Motion for Reconsideration re 740 Memorandum and Order on Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald W. Bostwick on 11/26/2013. (Bostwick, Donald)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

NORTHERN NATURAL GAS
COMPANY,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Approximately 9117.53 acres in
)
Pratt, Kingman, and Reno Counties, )
Kansas and as further described
)
herein;
)
)
Tract No. 1062710 containing 80.00 )
acres more or less, located in
)
Kingman County, Kansas, and as
)
further described herein, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No. 10-1232-MLB-DWB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently before the court is a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 747) by
Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) seeking revisions in the court’s prior
Memorandum and Order (Doc. 740) denying Northern’s motion to compel
defendant L.D. Drilling, Inc. to allow Northern to enter onto L.D. Drilling’s leases
in the “Section 28 Area” for purposes of collecting gas samples. L.D. Drilling has
filed a response objecting to the motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 758). No

reply has been filed and the time for filing a reply has expired. See D. Kan. Rule
6.1(d)(1).
Northern is not asking the court to reconsider its denial of the motion to
compel. Instead, Northern seeks reconsideration of two findings made in the
order. Northern asks the court to strike from the record the finding that “a
determination of a migration pathway is not relevant to the valuation issue in this
condemnation case” and to expressly recognize that evidence of the migration
pathway is relevant to the valuation issue in this condemnation action. (Doc. 747,
at 5-6). The motion for reconsideration is based in part on the allegation that the
court misapprehended statements by Northern’s counsel at the September 4, 2013
status conference.
Northern’s motion to compel requested well testing of the “Section 28"
wells and stated that the results of these tests “are valuable evidence to
demonstrate (1) whether a migration pathway exists between the western-most
Expansion Area well areas . . . .” (Doc. 714, at 4). The court’s concern centered
on the fact that the wells which Northern sought to test were located well outside
the Expansion Area, and in some cases more than a section away from the
boundaries of the Expansion Area. Also of concern to the court was the fact that
Northern had an observation well located inside the boundaries of the Expansion
-2-

Area (between the western portion of the Expansion Area and the “Section 28"
wells Northern sought to test) which should provide adequate information about
any possible migration pathways inside the western portion of the Expansion Area.
The court concluded that
Northern has not explained in its motion, how the well
tests on property outside the Expansion Area (which is
the area at issue in this condemnation) will assist in
determining whether a specific migration pathway exists
in the western area of the field, and whether the
existence of any such pathway will in turn lead to
discoverable evidence about the volume of gas in the
Expansion Area or its value.
October 7, 2013 Memorandum and Order (Doc. 740), at 7 (emphasis added).
In so stating, the court was not finding or concluding that the location of a
migration pathway inside the Expansion Area was irrelevant to issues of valuation
in this condemnation. Nor did the court intend to limit presentation of evidence
before the Commission about the existence of migration pathways inside the
Expansion Area. Rather, the court’s concern was directly related to whether
Northern had adequately explained in its motion how such tests of wells located
far outside the Expansion Area would assist an expert in determining migration
pathways inside the Expansion Area.1 Because the court’s opinion does not find
The court specifically noted that statements in a supporting affidavit to the
motion for testing sounded more like the “Section 28" well tests were being sought
1

-3-

that evidence of a migration pathway inside the Expansion Area is irrelevant in
determining valuation issues in this condemnation action, the court sees no need to
strike anything from its prior opinion.
Northern’s motion, however, also seeks an express statement from the court
that evidence of the migration pathway is relevant to the valuation issue in this
condemnation case. This is an evidentiary issue that will be decided by the
Commission as it hears the evidence in this case and it would be inappropriate for
the court to rule on that evidentiary issue at this stage of the proceedings.
Finally, as to whether the court misapprehended the intent of the comments
by Northern’s counsel at the September 4, 2013 status conference, Northern has
now had the opportunity to explain those comments and there is no need for the
court to further address that issue. As counsel for L.D. Drilling notes in the
response, “there is no reason to quarrel over them now.”
For the above reasons, the court denies the motion for reconsideration and

to determine issues of migration outside the Expansion Area and thus the
ownership of gas in sections outside the storage field. This, of course, is not an
issue in the present condemnation case
-4-

believes that any of the concerns expressed by Northern’s motion have been
addressed herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 26th day of November, 2013, at Wichita, Kansas.
s/ DONALD W. BOSTWICK
Donald W. Bostwick
U.S. Magistrate Judge

-5-