Dallas City Council Denies Trinity East Drilling Permits

Categories: City Hall

trinityeasthearing.jpg
After nearly seven years, Trinity East has its answer. It all began when the Fort Worth independent answered a call put out by a cash-strapped city for bids to sink natural gas wells into the far eastern frontier of the Barnett Shale -- unproven territory few operators had ventured into. It ended Wednesday, at City Hall, where Mayor MIke Rawlings could not muster the supermajority needed to approve the permits after repeated denials from the Plan Commission.

In an impassioned monologue, Rawlings, who has warned that the city may face a lawsuit if it prevents Trinity East from drilling, said he was against drilling in urban environments. He nonetheless likened the potential face-off to a poker game.

"In the hand of the city is one card: that of time. They have to drill or spud by February 15, 2014. They have to make that decision in these few months. Two, we have done everything in accordance to our contract, especially with regards to health and safety. Three, we've taken our time because we went beyond the contract and have worked hard to find alternative sites and arrangements with Trinity East, to help them access their mineral leases. In my book, that's three of a kind.

"If we look at Trinity East's hand, the cards are not so good. The price of drilling is $4 to $5 million a well. The second card is the price of natural gas, which is below the rate of profitability, below $5 [per thousand cubic feet]. When we cut the deal it was $8 to $12. Experts told me the productivity of these reserves are uneconomic. There's been no successful wells drilled in this area," Rawlings continued.

"I predict there's no way Trinity East drills because it is not able. Their only chance in the poker game is one high card: that we vote to deny these [special-use permits] and they sue the city."

Ultimately, though, he could not convince the council to call Trinity East's bluff. Short of the 12 votes needed to approve, the tally came to nine. Council members Adam Medrano, Sandy Greyson, Scott Griggs, Philip Kingston, Carolyn Davis and Monica Alonzo -- no surprises here -- voted against.

If Trinity East's designs on Dallas minerals have an afterlife, it'll have to be in a courtroom. CEO Tom Blanton was characteristically circumspect in his statements about potential litigation. "Heavens, I don't know. We're so far from that," he told Unfair Park after the hearing.

"We came in to win."

Instead, he got tangled in a political morass stemming from assurances made to him by outgoing City Manager Mary Suhm. In an agreement only made public earlier this year, she told Blanton that he'd most likely be allowed to drill on city-owned parkland. Meanwhile, she told the City Council that there would be no drilling of parkland.

The intrigue deepened when the permits came back to the Plan Commission, even though it had already voted them down -- to the surprise and dismay of some commissioners. If the ploy had succeeded, there's little doubt that Trinity East would be drilling in Dallas.

My Voice Nation Help
124 comments
everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

Okay, so through no help whatsoever from @director21I managed to scrounge up the actual lease:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/34557019/Trinity-East-Energy-Lease

My quick read?  The city is fucked, hard and dry.

It's a standard oil and gas lease.  There are no "outs" in it.  It's the mineral rights, the access rights, the surface and easement rights, the whole shooting match.  In addition the very last clause, right above the signatures, is:

(q) If Lessee seeks a variance or waiver of any city, county or other governmental entity ordinance, rule, regulation, order, or other requirement relating to drilling, completing, operating, or producing an oil or gas well drilled on the Land or in the are of the Land, then Lessor shall not unreasonably oppose Lessee's request for such variance or waiver.

Stick a fork in them, they're done.  Settle it for $25 million and move on.

oakclifftownie
oakclifftownie

director21

I think I am enjoying the idea that you seem to believe I am  on the side of the Drilling forces ...

No I am Not 

What I am is a long time Dallas resident  who has seen enough STUPID stuff go on in this city to be suspicious when ever something of this importance goes in a direction other than what was planned by and the direction wished  by  City Management .By something as simple and  democratic as a Council Vote .

So as you director21 trot our every good reason to rejoice I am wondering where the shoe is going to drop ... an whose foot is wearing it right now .



everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

One more thing to remember in all of this -- Trinity East didn't come to Dallas with this wacky plan to drill on our parks and trick the city into signing it.  The city sent out a request for proposals in which they put up the parks and floodplains, and Trinity East was the highest bidder.

The city should have given them their money back a long, long time ago.  Now, with them taking the money and running, it looks a hell of a lot like fraud, especially with it all having been the city's idea in the first place.

harwood1
harwood1

Looks like the city of Dallas conned Trinity East out of $19,000,000.00. I can't believe the city of Dallas think that they will be able to get away with that kind of budget hustling! What will be the city of Dallas defense in court? None

fracquestions
fracquestions

@everlastingphelps @director21 One more thing, oh everlasting one, the paragraph to which you refer applies to a drilling permit where such a waiver would be sought. It never got anywhere NEAR that far because this issue was about a ZONING CHANGE, and that was NEVER promised or guaranteed.

You really do need some lessons in reading comprehension.

WylieH
WylieH

@everlastingphelps @director21 This looks like a "crafty" way for Suhm and Perkins to sneak around the laws which limit their power as administrative officials NOT elected officials with legislative ability.

When Suhm and Perkins tried to bind themselves to actions that were, at the time, illegal, they exceeded their authority.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps @director21 

"oppose Lessee's request" does not equate to approve Lessee's request. Remember, police power cannot be contracted away and the City cannot provide consent to a future request by Lessee. As long as the request was heard and decided in the correct manner the Lessor complied with its obligation.

Lessee was fully aware, no "fraud" such as you mention existed.

director21
director21

@oakclifftownie As a native Dallasite of 65 years, I have seen probably as much go wrong around here as you have seen. The difference is that usually there is no citizens activist involvement, and this time it is completely a whole new scenario. I can assure you that city government and Trinity East thought things would progress as they usually do, but they got the shock of their lives.

I am just waiting for the "everlasting" one to file his damned lawsuit on behalf of Trinity East because they seem very reluctant to do it themselves. Tom Blanton continues to say "We are a long way from that" when asked if TE is going to sue. But, the "everlasting" one thinks he understands the legal nuances when he cannot even comprehend what happened, how it happened, why it happened and who was privy to the inside reasons for it happening. He talks a big game, but I hear it as merely the frustrations of a guy who predicted every single thing wrongly from the beginning, and he is still wrong in what he predicts.

Even a stopped watch is correct twice a day, but the "everlasting" one is wrong ALL the time!

director21
director21

@harwood1 Well, take your opinion into court on the side of Trinity East (if they will accept you as a witness for them) and see how far it gets before a judge.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@harwood1 I bet they even are able to prove that the city used fraud to induce them into trying to drill in the first place, and get that trebled.  So, in reality, that vote probably just cost us $38 million, along with maybe $5-10 more million in legal fees.

Couldn't we have just used that $50 million to buy a couple more parks and let them drill in the old one?

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog@everlastingphelps@director21Saying "police power cannot be contracted away" isn't a magic wand you can wave over this to make it all just go away.  The Texas Supreme Court said essentially that in Robinson in 2010.

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.htm

Whatever the police power’s amorphous boundaries, we know these two things: (1) the Legislature may ask for private sacrifice, and receive it — provided the private rights sacrificed are outweighed in public good, burdened as little as possible, and amply justified on public-necessity grounds; and (2) the Legislature’s police power is not infinitely elastic, able to extinguish constitutional liberties with nonchalance. Texans long ago and since have embraced constitutional, meaning limited, government. The judiciary thus has a superseding obligation to disapprove certain encroachments on liberty, no matter the legislative vote-count. Put another way, judicial review sometimes means thwarting today’s majority from thwarting yesterday’s supermajority — the one that ratified our solemn Constitution.

That case (Robinson) was specifically about an ex-post-facto law designed to squash a lawsuit. We're dealing with similar state Bill of RIghts issues here (specifically the restriction on laws impairing the rights of contracts.)

The City of Dallas absolutely has the right to prevent this -- but that doesn't mean they won't end up paying a ton of cash in compensation.  It could very well be a Taking, and entitle TE to be compensated for it's contractual value.

director21
director21

@everlastingphelps @harwood1 MATH CHECK!

Treble damages on a $19 mil loss would be $57 Mil. Trinity East claims that the $19 mil paid to Dallas is only one fourth of what they have invested altogether, and treble damages on that would amount to $304 Mil.

Failed math, did you? It figures!

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

 @fracquestions @everlastingphelps @director21 So, if I take your own post here at face value, you say that their own attorney said that the chances that TE wins a lawsuit are about 50/50 (which is right in line with what I've said in this post's comments) which you conclude... means I'm full of shit.

How do you live with your rank partisan hypocrisy?

fracquestions
fracquestions

@everlastingphelps @fracquestions @director21 Phelps, you are just plainly full of shit!

At significant expense, the Dallas City Council hired an outside, independent attorney who specializes in oil and gas issues to review the Trinity East situation and then advise them on possible outcomes if they denied the SUPs. The attorney reviewed the lease and the specifics about this argument, then addressed the entire City Council in executive session. I have a report directly from two people who were privy to that briefing.

The attorney told the City Council that TE MIGHT sue, that TE has a 50/50 chance of winning, and if TE wins, then it is likely the MOST they would be awarded would about $2 Million.

Again, you are full of shit, and nothing you have ever said on this issue has been accurate. No matter how much you wish you were correct you are not. But, don't let things like facts get in the way of your argument. I am just wondering how many years will pass without TE filing that suit before you acknowledge that you were wrong.

TE cannot afford to sue. If they did, then all those hidden documents that were illegal to begin with would come out in court, and TE does not want that because it might send a couple of their execs to prison along with Mary Suhm and Tom Perkins, neither of whom are any longer employed by the City of Dallas specifically because of the TE situation.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@director21@everlastingphelpsThe whole oil and gas industry can ill afford 

The whole industry doesn't get a vote.  Trinity East decides what they want to do.

  since the city is self-insured it will have no choice but to fight vigorously to defend itself

Actually, quite the opposite.  The city never "fights to vigorously defend itself."  It settles, because it is self-insured.

 When presenting the documents that TE signed, the case will be declared a victory for the city and you will be a loser, along with TE.

Lawsuits don't work that way, especially if they allege fraud.  A document that you were fraudulently led to sign has no effect.  In any event, I actually win if TE loses, because the settlement would have been coming out of my (and all the other taxpayer's) pockets.  Unfortunately, the city has fucked us all over.

director21
director21

@everlastingphelps The whole oil and gas industry can ill afford for Trinity East to sue and set a precedent for getting its collective butt kicked when a city decides to invoke Home Rule and block that industry from running roughshod over citizens the way the oil and gas industry frequently does. There is no way for TE to prevail in a lawsuit, and since the city is self-insured it will have no choice but to fight vigorously to defend itself. When presenting the documents that TE signed, the case will be declared a victory for the city and you will be a loser, along with TE.

director21
director21

@mavdog @everlastingphelps @WylieH @director21 Mavdog, the everlasting one will NEVER get it because (1) he lacks the intellectual capacity to comprehend it, and (2) the truth does not fit well into his dogma. I have explained this issue to him MANY times, and it soaks in. Some people just lack the mental clarity to accept truth and fact when they conflict with their own opinions. The everlasting one is such a person.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@everlastingphelps 

True, I can't wait to see how these people react when they are introduced to the concept of reasonable belief by the lessee that the lessee has the right to explore, drill and produce ...

In my experience an SUP usually requires the applicant to take certain mitigating actions in order to mitigate the nuisances created by the nonconforming use.

Again, IMHO, this has been poorly handled since the beginning and I think TE is on to something about how the Barnet Shale lies against the Ouchita Mountains, perhaps an overthrust belt?

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

Exactly, Paul. I'm talking about how things can be. Anyone who thinks the city won't be sued is a fool who knows nothing about oil and gas. The whole industry is just a circle of lawsuits that somehow manages to produce oil. Anyone who thinks that the city can't lose is an even bigger dunce.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps

(Pockets money.) "Can't. I just made it against the rules. Now go away."

*sigh*

the "rules" were in place prior to the Lessor and Lessee entering into the Lease. The "rules" did not change subsequent to the execution of the lease.

you should pay attention to the facts and not your fabrications.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps

you didn't "acknowledge" the fact Lessee was aware of the need for subsequent approvals, you ignore it just as you do with the comment "It's also irrelevant to the issue".

It is the critical issue as far as your claim of "fraud". It is also in the Lease Agreement, Section 21 (c). You should understand the Lease before you attempt to speak about it.

The Letter Agreement is not an amendment, you really don't have any knowledge of this doc do you? It shows. As there is no "fraud in the inducement", the Letter Agreement is relevant to your claim of "fraud" and "untruth" showing the Lessee was aware of the need for permits.

Now you claim the City "never intended to issue those approvals". Care to show any facts that support this assertion, or just like shown of your claim of "fraud" and "untruth" are you just pulling it our of your ass?

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@mavdog @ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul  

I get it already.  I know more about real estate law than I care to admit to and not just in Texas.

As I  have stated previously, this is one big mess.  The discussion here is symptomatic of the dispute.

Due to the matters of a sovereign being involved complicates the matter and I can see the arguments that will be made on either side.

All I can say is that I am damn glad that I am not involved in this mess.  Except as a City of Dallas taxpayer who is going to pick up the tab on this mess, the question being how big of a tab.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog @ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul You don't see the BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS conflict of interest?

"Want to drill here for $19MM?"

I sure do! 

"Gimme $19MM."

Here you go!  When can I drill?

(Pockets money.)  "Can't.  I just made it against the rules. Now go away."

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul 

A Lease conveys to the Lessee rights of fee ownership for a period of time, subject to the limitations in the Lease.

Any property that is within the City limits is subject to the City Code.  The Lessee is no different than the fee owner, they must adhere to and follow City Code.

In this case the City Code says a pemit must be granted to allow there to be drilling, the permit was denied, and there will not be any drilling.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog@everlastingphelpsOk, this is the first lie:

when shown that the parties to the Lease acknowledged the requirement of Lessee to obtain subsequent approvals, you ignore this critical fact.

That's a lie.  I acknowledged it.  What you refuse to acknowledge is that this was an amendment,  presumably in the furtherance of settling the permitting issue.  It's also irrelevant to the issue.

when shown that the parties to the Lease signed a side agreement acknowledging the success by Lessee obtaining the approvals was not guaranteed, you not only show you lack knowing of this agreement you ignore the fact.

Second lie.  I acknowledged it, and explained why it was irrelevant.  The same way the city can't contract away police powers, you can't amend your way out of fraud in the inducement.

The lease granted Lessee the right to the minerals subject to City Code. The Lessee did not receive the required approvals according to the City Code to extract those minerals.

And that the city never intended to issue those approvals is the very essence of the fraud.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps 

here's my advice to you- stay away from property lease agreements. you show a complete lack of understanding, and will end up losing your ass.

You claim "fraud' and "untruth" by the City, but have yet to show a single case of either.

when shown that the parties to the Lease acknowledged the requirement of Lessee to obtain subsequent approvals, you ignore this critical fact.

when shown that the parties to the Lease signed a side agreement acknowledging the success by Lessee obtaining the approvals was not guaranteed, you not only show you lack knowing of this agreement you ignore the fact.

The lease granted Lessee the right to the minerals subject to City Code. The Lessee did not receive the required approvals according to the City Code to extract those minerals.

No "fraud", no "untruth". No claim exists against the City. Your wailing about "oil and gas law" is not going to change this reality.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@mavdog  

Are you sure you don't mean habitability?  There is no similar concept for mineral estates.  Access to the estate is a different matter.

As a real estate professional I am surprised that you don't understand the concept that an oil and gas lease is a transfer of a real property right with a reverter.

This whole mess has been screwed up royally by the City from the very beginning.  The City in my opinion overlooked a number of items.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog I'm going to give you some friendly advice -- stay far, far away from the oil patch.  If you try to apply your knowledge of oil and gas law, you are going to cost someone a whole hell of a lot of money.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps

I've been a Texas RE broker for many years, I am very aware of the meaning of the words.

It is always incumbent on the Buyer to do its due diligence.

There is a concept of habituality, that a leased Premises can be occupied and doesn't present a danger. the lessor is under no obligation (unless stated explicitly in the lease) to make any representations or warranties in regard to the tenant's intended use.

Mineral rights do not override or supercede City Code. period.

The City Code was in place when Lessor and Lessee entered into the Lease, and the City Code was not changed after the Lease was entered into.

Lessee took a risk and lost. Too bad. It only has itself to blame.

you have not shown any element of fraud, nor any action by the City that is illegal.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog@everlastingphelpsYou keep using those words.  I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

In real property in Texas, there is always an implied warranty of fitness to the purchaser.  There is no buyer beware in mineral rights.  When you lease mineral rights, the entity you are leasing them from cannot unreasonably prevent your access from them.  Period. Mineral rights override the surface rights.  

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/about/faqs/SurfaceOwnerInfo.pdf

Normally, the city would have no problem restricting all of this.  That's normal police powers.  Where the city screwed up is that it is the lessor.  The lessor cannot, on its own, decide to restrict the access of the entity holding the mineral rights as a matter of equity.  That's where the city has screwed up.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps 

the language states the permitted use, typical in a lease. the Lease grants Lessee the right to the Land for the specified use, and for that use only.

can you point to where the Lease states Lessee has the right to engage in these activities?

you can't, that language is not there. in fact the Lease has reference to the need of Lessee to obtain government approvals in order to engage in these activities.

no fraud. nothing "illegal". everything was expressly stated, Lessee was aware of the risk it took when it entered into the Lease. If Lessee was smart they would have made the Lease subject to the successful attainment of the SUP, so if they were unsuccessful they could void the Lease. They didn't, and that was their error.

Caveat emptor.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaulRight, it's not a slam dunk.  The problem the city has is that there are definite fact questions here, which means it is likely to survive summary judgment, and if it is slated for trial, the city will settle it.  That's just what cities do.

For para 5, it's the standard easement royalties and fees.  There's nothing special there beyond the normal rents and notices.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul
ThePosterFormerlyKnownasPaul topcommenter

@everlastingphelps  

This will make for an interesting argument in court.

When the City Council approved the lease with the language cited above, did they void the ordinance which prohibits drilling in city park land and also void the entire SUP process?


I say this as the City must positively negate the ordinance and must positively approve the SUP.


I'm not taking positions, just observing that it will be an interesting argument.


PS: How does Paragraph 5 limit the grant?

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

Paragraph ONE of the lease:

"I . Grant. In consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00), the royalties provided for herein, and other consideration in hand paid to the City, Lessor grants and leases exclusively unto Lessee the following described land (the "Land") in Dallas County, Texas, for the sole purpose of exploring, drilling, and producing oil and gas, laying pipelines, and building roads and tanks thereon to produce, save, treat, process, store, and transport oil and gas and other products manufactured from oil and gas produced from the Land, subject to the express limitations set forth in paragraph 5 (references to paragraphs herein shall include all of said paragraph's subparts) of this Lease:

All of the land described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes."

The only purpose of the access was for drilling and exploration.  The city sold them a big box of "nothing", which is illegal.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog @everlastingphelps Drilling is inherent in the lease.  When you get the mineral rights, you get all easements and access necessary to exploit it.  That's how oil and gas works. If you don't, then you didn't actually get the rights, and you paid for nothing, which is illegal (lack of consideration).  Your argument is as silly as saying that "freedom of the press means you are allowed to own a press but we can outlaw paper."

So, you know, whistle by the graveyard if you want.  At the end of the day, all there is left to figure out is how much this is going to cost the city of Dallas.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps 

"this land" was broader than the Land in question. Trinity East selected the park land and asked for it specifically. Also, the City did not "unreasonabley oppose" the Lessee's access, Lessee can access the Land. To engage in the act of drilling requires a permit, and the permit was reasonably denied by the correct due process.

Suhm "exceeded her authority"? In what way? In fact she expressly stated the extent of her authority and that neither she nor City staff could guarantee Lessee's success in obtaining the SUP or the permit to drill.

Suhm did have authority, granted by Council, to enter into the Lease Agreement. That Lease Agreement gives Lessee the right to the minerals but does not authorize drilling, and in fact states the need for additional items in order to drill.

No fraud, not "untruths" as you attempt to prove occured.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog@everlastingphelpsPlease give a factual explanation of where "fraud" occured, as well as what "initial untruth" existed. You are incorrect in repeatedly invoking the word "fraud". There is no element of fraud, not in the conduct of the City staff nor the City Council.

There's two main directions.  First, the city represented that this land was ready for exploration, to the point that they actually solicited bids in an RFP.  They agreed to not unreasonably oppose any actions needed to grant access.  This wasn't just Suhm -- the council ratified the lease.

The other direction is the one that has been posited here, that Suhm exceeded her authority.  As the city manager, TE could and did reasonably rely on her to have the authority that she claimed and that the average citizen of Dallas would assume that she had.

Those are the material untruths -- that the city intended to have this land explored, and that Suhm had the authority to contract it. 

WylieH
WylieH

It's great that you think that. Unfortunately, Texas case law dating to the mid 1950's says they could not.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps

no, the Letter Agreement Suhm and Trinity East both signed in 2008 concurrent with the Lease execution. The letter states the City staff will assist TE in pursuing the required approvals.

Please give a factual explanation of where "fraud" occured, as well as what "initial untruth" existed. You are incorrect in repeatedly invoking the word "fraud". There is no element of fraud, not in the conduct of the City staff nor the City Council.

There is a reason the phrase "caveat emptor" is used in real estate.

As has been pointed out, the Lessee was knowledgeable of the requirement to obtain a SUP in order to obtain a permit to drill, and they could not drill until such requirement was satisfied, and there was no assurance nor representation that they would be successful in the pursuit. In fact they were advised and Lessee acknowledged that there wasn't any guarantee of successfully obtaining the SUP.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@mavdog @everlastingphelps @WylieH @director21 By "letter Agreement" I assume you are talking about the July 2011 amendments.  The problem is, this is long, long after the initial fraud, and attempts at mitigating the damages don't excuse the initial untruth.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps @WylieH @director21 

no. the letter Agreement between Suhm and Trinity specifically states Lessee is aware the authority resides only in Council, that City staff cannot guarantee the required approvals will be granted.

You fail to understand the Lessee was repeatedly informed in writing of the necessity of future approvals for them to be permitted to drill, that such approvals are not guaranteed, and that Lessee acknowledged such in writing.

WylieH
WylieH

What mavdog said.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@everlastingphelps @mavdog @director21 

Robinson has no bearing. The City Code requiring the SUP was in effect when the Lease was signed. Lessee was aware of the requirement, there is inherent consent to meet the Code.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@director21 @everlastingphelpsThe result of the court's decision would render a fatal blow to TE and severely cripple the entire O&G industry.

 I think this is what psychologists refer to as "magical thinking".  Would it be a fatal blow to "TE?"  I guess, in that TE is a single purpose partnership with no other business than this lease.  I doubt it will do much more harm to the underlying investors than they already have.  It's not like they are going to be cutting the city another check.

As for the entire O&G industry, Dallas is a pissant compared to the rest of the state.  Contrary to your delusion addled brain, the rest of the state generally welcomes fracking money, and isn't going to start throwing up regulations to kill it.

director21
director21

@everlastingphelps @director21 @oakclifftownie Well, having been a law student in my first tour of college duty, and having studies business law in my third college degree plan, I think I do understand litigation, which is mostly a bluff to coerce an out-of-court settlement. Try that with Wal-Mart and see how far you get!

The City of Dallas has a slam dunk defense that will prevent TE from suing. Actually, I wish they WOULD sue. The result of the court's decision would render a fatal blow to TE and severely cripple the entire O&G industry.

director21
director21

@everlastingphelps @director21 @harwood1 You truly are a poor fool. The city does NOT have that money. It was spent the same year it was received - 2008. And, even if the city did still have the money that would not negate the error of your calculation because treble damages would still be $57 Million, NOT $38 Million. You never said it would ne ANOTHER $38 million, and you just assumed that the city has that money lying around. We are in debt this year and next as it is, which is why we are closing libraries, laying off policemen and firemen, as well as other city employees and cutting back on street maintenance, parks maintenance and other budgetary items that are not supported by bond programs.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...