Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Company

Decision Date31 August 1973
Docket NumberNo. 67-C-238.,67-C-238.
Citation364 F. Supp. 6
PartiesASHLAND OIL, INC., Plaintiff, v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, Defendant. and United States of America, Intervenor.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma

Gerald Sawatzky and Stanley G. Andeel, Wichita, Kan., Jay W. Elston, of Fulbright, Crooker & Jaworski, Houston, Tex., and John M. Imel, of Martin, Logan, Moyers, Martin & Conway, Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiff.

Richard B. McDermott, of Boesche, McDermott & Eskridge, Tulsa, Okl., and Don L. Jemison, Phillips Petroleum Co., Bartlesville, Okl., for defendant.

Floyd L. France and Dennis A. Dutterer, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., and Nathan G. Graham, U. S. Atty., Tulsa, Okl., for intervenor.

OPINION

BOHANON, District Judge.

This action was initially instituted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and was later, by proper proceedings transferred to this Court for trial and disposition. Ashland Oil and Refining Company (hereinafter referred to as Ashland) originally claimed the right to recover moneys from Phillips Petroleum Company (hereinafter referred to as Phillips) representing an alleged deficiency in payments for sale of natural gas under the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission. Ashland also asserted claims against Phillips to be paid for helium contained in the jurisdictional mass of natural gas, and which was extracted from the natural gas stream by Phillips under contract with the United States of America through the Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines.

The Court has diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction, 28 U. S.C.A. §§ 1331(a) and 1332.

Ashland abandoned its claim against Phillips for deficiency payments for sale of natural gas under the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission by reason of proceedings before the Federal Power Commission, and an appeal from its order (Ashland Oil and Refining Company v. FPC, 421 F.2d 17, 6th C.A.). Consequently, the only claim remaining for trial and determination by this Court is Ashland's claim for recovery of the reasonable value of helium contained in the natural gas stream delivered by Ashland to Phillips.

Plaintiff Ashland acquired all of the interests of United Producing Company which had entered into a contract with Phillips Petroleum Company on November 8, 1945 (amended Oct. 1, 1950 & June 27, 1956) providing for the sale of natural gas from 15 wells located in Sherman County, Texas. These same parties entered into another gas purchase agreement on April 15, 1953, (amended June 27, 1956) providing for the sale of natural gas from three wells in Hansford County, Texas. These agreements were properly filed with the Federal Power Commission as provided by law and rate schedules were fixed for the sale of said gas. These filings were required under the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. § 717 et seq.) because Ashland's deliveries to Phillips constituted sales of natural gas for resale in interstate commerce. Ashland succeeded to all the rights and interest of United Producing Company. All of the wells above referred to are subject to the contract between Ashland, as successor to United Producing Company, and Phillips Petroleum Company, and Phillips Petroleum Company extracted helium which was contained in the natural gas stream as delivered by Ashland to Phillips.

Ashland's contention is that the title to the helium in the contained natural gas did not pass to Phillips under the gas purchase contracts and if and when Phillips elected to extract the helium from the natural gas stream, plaintiff Ashland was entitled to payment therefor from Phillips for the reasonable value of such helium less certain costs of extraction, and other deductions hereafter referred to.

The defendant contends that when it purchased the gas stream from Ashland, it purchased all of the elements thereof including the helium, and inasmuch as Phillips paid Ashland the Federal Power Commission rate for the gas delivered to Phillips, Phillips became the owner of the entire stream, including the helium, and therefore, is not liable in any sum to Ashland for the helium extracted. Further, Phillips presents the defense of Statute of Limitations claiming that if liable, they are liable only for the helium extracted from the natural gas for two years prior to the filing of this action and thereafter; further Phillips claims that by reason of payment to Ashland for the natural gas, plaintiff is barred by the defenses of accounts stated, accord and satisfaction, and to require payment now would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The United States of America by Order of the Court was realigned as a party defendant.

Findings

1. Helium is an unusual element; it is a gas which is inert and noncombustible and is the second lightest element known. Helium is so inert that it will not chemically react or combine with other elements and thus remains as helium forever. It is tasteless, colorless, odorless and invisible. For a more complete description of helium, its unusual characteristics, its uses, and where found, etc., see Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Grounds, 441 F.2d 704 (10 C.A.) and in the Opinion of District Judge Wesley E. Brown, 292 F.Supp. 619 (D. C.Kan.).

2. The United States of America, through the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Mines of the Department, recognizing the need for the conservation of this rare material and its scarcity, and its need for defense purposes and other important uses, Congress enacted the Helium Act Amendments of 1960 (50 U.S.C. § 167 et seq.) authorizing the United States to enter into a program of conservation of helium for future use; under this program, private companies negotiated contracts with the United States of America through the Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, to construct plants for the extraction of helium from natural gas streams, then being produced from the Hugoton-Panhandle area; otherwise, this valuable material would be lost at the burner tip of the ultimate user of the gas and discharged into the air as residue.

3. Prior to 1961, the United States Government, with minor exceptions for a short time, was the sole extractor and source of commercial helium. It controlled and fixed the price of all wholesale sales of helium.

4. Pursuant to the authority granted by Congress, the United States entered into five long-term helium purchase contracts with four companies, one of which was Phillips Petroleum Company, which contracted on November 13, 1961, with the United States to sell a helium gas mixture from two plants it proposed to build, the Sherman Helium Plant and the Dumas Helium Plant. These plants were constructed so as to extract for delivery and sale to the government a helium gas mixture (crude helium) which was to consist of at least 50% helium under the contract requirements, the remainder being essentially nitrogen. Under this contract, the United States agreed to pay a base price of $10.30 per m. c. f. (thousand cubic feet) of contained helium in the crude product, which price was subject to escalation in accordance with the contract. The base price was also subject to escalation in the event Phillips was required to pay third parties "for the acquisition of helium."1 Specifically, under the contract between the United States and Phillips, producers of commingled helium such as Ashland and the mineral or royalty owners, being third parties, and if they were entitled to recover from Phillips the reasonable value of the helium produced from the commingled gas Phillips was required to pay under paragraph 7.4 of the contract, part 2 of the unit price only approximately $3.00 per m. c. f. and the United States under the contract was required to reimburse or indemnify Phillips for any excess of $3.00 per m. c. f. which Phillips was required to pay. This was an important part of the contract because it indemnified Phillips against required payments to third persons of the amount in excess of $3.00 per m. c. f. and thus gave the United States the right to purchase this helium for a lesser sum than, no doubt, otherwise would have been required.

5. The United States took delivery of the helium gas mixture from Phillips and transported it through its own pipeline to storage in government-owned storage facilities at Cliffside Field near Amarillo, Texas. From there it can be withdrawn as needed, and purified to grade A helium (99.995% pure helium) in government-owned plants at approximately $2.00 per m. c. f. helium.

6. Under the contracts the government agreed to take all of the helium produced up to certain amounts, and the government sold grade A helium at wholesale F.O.B. its helium plants for $35.00 per m. c. f. and has done so since the fall of 1961. All federal departments and agencies were required to purchase their helium needs from the United States at this price. The Bureau of Mines has the statutory authority and responsibility to fix the price at whatever level is necessary to pay for costs associated with the helium conservation program, including any additional payments which may be required to be paid by the United States as a result of this case.

7. Beginning in 1961, several private helium plants have been built to sell pure helium in the private commercial market. Although the government price for its helium has remained at $35.00 per m. c. f., the prices for which helium has sold on the private market from 1963 through 1972 have ranged from $35.00 to approximately $20.00 per m. c. f. Such prices are wholesale prices and the only market prices for sale of helium in the United States during the period in question.

8. The Court finds the fair and reasonable value of grade A helium during the periods here involved was $20.00 per m. c. f.

9. Recognizing the benefit to United States and the importance of paragraph 7.4 of the United States-Phillips helium...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Northern Helex Company v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • 22 October 1975
    ...v. Grounds, 441 F.2d 704, 723 (10th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 951, 92 S.Ct. 268, 30 L.Ed.2d 267; Ashland Oil Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 364 F.Supp. 6 (N.D.Okl.1973). The plaintiff has continued to operate its plant and extract helium and nitrogen from natural gas from the date......
  • Brown v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 3 February 1988
    ...in the record. II. One of the cases not tried by this trial judge and the subject of the cross-appeal was Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 364 F.Supp. 6 (N.D.Okla.1973), which was filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma and resulted in this court's en banc decision approving ......
  • NORTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY v. Grounds, Civ. A. No. KC-1969
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • 12 November 1974
    ...to valuation of the helium content of helium bearing natural gas was successfully urged by the producer in Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. (N.D.Okl. 1973), 364 F.Supp. 6, appeal pending, a suit which involved the Phillips' Helex plants in Texas. In that instance, where the Phill......
1 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 3 METHODS TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE COMPLEX MULTI-PARTY DISPUTES
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Resolution and Avoidance of Disputes (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...F. Supp. 399 (W.D. Okla. 1978) 637 F.2d 7431 (10th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 102 S.Ct. 132. [9] Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum, 364 F. Supp. 6 (N.D. Okla. 1973) modified and remanded 554 F.2d 381 (10th Cir. 1975), on remand 463 F. Supp. 619 (N.D. Okla. 1979). [10] See, Raymond-Drar......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT