Williams Says Court Rules in Its Favor in Pipeline Dispute with Energy Transfer
(Reuters) — Pipeline operator Williams said on Wednesday a Louisiana court has ruled in its favor in a dispute with its rival Energy Transfer over a pipeline construction.
The two firms were locked in a tussle over Williams' Louisiana Energy Gateway (LEG) Project, under construction in Texas and Louisiana, after Energy Transfer pushed back on the line for crossing its own systems.
RELATED: Energy Transfer Faces Allegations of Anti-Competitive Practices in Louisiana Pipeline Dispute
The ruling by Louisiana's 36th Judicial District Court of Beauregard Parish was in company's favor on all seven crossings, and enjoined Energy Transfer from interfering with the construction, operation and maintenance of the pipeline, a Williams spokesperson said in a statement.
The 1.8-billion-cubic-feet-per-day system was supposed to be operational this year but has been delayed until the second half of 2025 following the dispute.
RELATED: Williams Foresees Victory in Energy Transfer Dispute Over Louisiana Gas Pipeline
Energy Transfer did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
The line would feed gas from the Haynesville shale field to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Related News
Related News
- Kinder Morgan Proposes 290-Mile Gas Pipeline Expansion Spanning Three States
- Valero Plans to Shut California Refinery, Takes $1.1 Billion Hit
- Three Killed, Two Injured in Accident at LNG Construction Site in Texas
- Tallgrass to Build New Permian-to-Rockies Pipeline, Targets 2028 Startup with 2.4 Bcf Capacity
- TC Energy Approves $900 Million Northwoods Pipeline Expansion for U.S. Midwest
- U.S. Pipeline Expansion to Add 99 Bcf/d, Mostly for LNG Export, Report Finds
- Enbridge Adds Turboexpanders at Pipeline Sites to Power Data Centers in Canada, Pennsylvania
- Great Basin Gas Expansion Draws Strong Shipper Demand in Northern Nevada
- US Poised to Become Net Exporter of Crude Oil in 2023
- EIG’s MidOcean Energy Acquires 20% Stake in Peru LNG, Including 254-Mile Pipeline
Comments