| Litigation, Environmental and Other Contingencies | Litigation, Environmental and Other Contingencies We and our subsidiaries are parties to various legal, regulatory and other matters arising from the day-to-day operations of our businesses or certain predecessor operations that may result in claims against the Company. Although no assurance can be given, we believe, based on our experiences to date and taking into account established reserves and insurance, that the ultimate resolution of such items will not have a material adverse impact on our business, financial position, results of operations or dividends to our shareholders. We believe we have meritorious defenses to the matters to which we are a party and intend to vigorously defend the Company. When we determine a loss is probable of occurring and is reasonably estimable, we accrue an undiscounted liability for such contingencies based on our best estimate using information available at that time. If the estimated loss is a range of potential outcomes and there is no better estimate within the range, we accrue the amount at the low end of the range. We disclose contingencies where an adverse outcome may be material, or in the judgment of management, we conclude the matter should otherwise be disclosed. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Proceedings SFPP The tariffs and rates charged by SFPP are subject to a number of ongoing proceedings at the FERC, including the complaints and protests of various shippers the most recent of which was filed in late 2015 with the FERC (docketed at OR16-6) challenging SFPP’s filed East Line rates. In general, these complaints and protests allege the rates and tariffs charged by SFPP are not just and reasonable under the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA). In some of these proceedings shippers have challenged the overall rate being charged by SFPP, and in others the shippers have challenged SFPP’s index-based rate increases. If the shippers prevail on their arguments or claims, they are entitled to seek reparations (which may reach back up to two years prior to the filing date of their complaints) or refunds of any excess rates paid, and SFPP may be required to reduce its rates going forward. These proceedings tend to be protracted, with decisions of the FERC often appealed to the federal courts. The issues involved in these proceedings include, among others, whether indexed rate increases are justified, and the appropriate level of return and income tax allowance SFPP may include in its rates. On March 22, 2016, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in United Airlines, Inc. v. FERC remanding to FERC for further consideration of two issues: (1) the appropriate data to be used to determine the return on equity for SFPP in the underlying docket, and (2) the just and reasonable return to be provided to a tax pass-through entity that includes an income tax allowance in its underlying cost of service. On July 21, 2017, an initial decision by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in OR16-6 concluded that the Complainants are due reparations, with appropriate interest, equal to the difference between what SFPP collected from the Complainants for service on the East Line and the amounts SFPP would have collected had it charged just and reasonable rates for that line. The ALJ ruled that an income tax allowance should be included in the cost of service both to determine reparations and to set going forward rates, and found that the new just and reasonable rates are not knowable until the FERC reviews the initial decision and orders a compliance filing. The FERC will determine which portions of the initial decision to affirm, reject or amend. With respect to the various SFPP related complaints and protest proceedings at the FERC, we estimate that the shippers are seeking approximately $40 million in annual rate reductions and approximately $210 million in refunds. Management believes SFPP has meritorious arguments supporting SFPP’s rates and intends to vigorously defend SFPP against these complaints and protests. However, to the extent the shippers are successful in one or more of the complaints or protest proceedings, SFPP estimates that applying the principles of FERC precedent, as applicable, to pending SFPP cases would result in rate reductions and refunds substantially lower than those sought by the shippers. EPNG The tariffs and rates charged by EPNG are subject to two ongoing FERC proceedings (the “2008 rate case” and the “2010 rate case”). With respect to the 2008 rate case, the FERC issued its decision (Opinion 517-A) in July 2015. The FERC generally upheld its prior determinations, ordered refunds to be paid within 60 days, and stated that it will apply its findings in Opinion 517-A to the same issues in the 2010 rate case. EPNG sought federal appellate review of Opinion 517-A and oral arguments were held on February 15, 2017. On February 21, 2017, the reviewing court delayed the case until the FERC rules on the rehearing requests pending in the 2010 Rate Case. With respect to the 2010 rate case, the FERC issued its decision (Opinion 528-A) on February 18, 2016. The FERC generally upheld its prior determinations, affirmed prior findings of an Administrative Law Judge that certain shippers qualify for lower rates, and required EPNG to file revised pro forma recalculated rates consistent with the terms of Opinions 517-A and 528-A. EPNG and two intervenors sought rehearing of certain aspects of the decision, and the judicial review sought by certain intervenors has been delayed until the FERC issues an order on rehearing. All refund obligations related to the 2008 rate case were satisfied during calendar year 2015. With respect to the 2010 rate case, EPNG believes it has an appropriate reserve related to the findings in Opinions 517-A and 528-A. NGPL and WIC On January 19, 2017, NGPL and WIC were separately notified by the FERC of rate proceedings against them pursuant to section 5 of the Natural Gas Act (the “Orders”). The matters were set for hearings to determine whether NGPL’s and WIC’s current rates remain just and reasonable. A proceeding under section 5 of the Natural Gas Act is prospective in nature such that a change in rates charged to customers, if any, would likely only occur after the FERC has issued a final order. Both WIC and NGPL have reached settlements in principle with their respective customer groups that would resolve all matters set for hearing subject to completion of definitive documents and additional FERC approval. If such definitive documents or approvals are not obtained, an initial Administrative Law Judge decision for each proceeding would be anticipated by late February 2018, with final FERC decisions anticipated by the third quarter of 2018. We do not believe that the ultimate resolution of these proceedings will have a material adverse impact on our results of operations or cash flows from operations. Trans Mountain Expansion Project Litigation There are numerous legal challenges pending before the Federal Court of Appeal which have been filed by various governmental and non-governmental organizations, Aboriginal groups or other parties that seek judicial review of the recommendation of the National Energy Board (NEB) and subsequent decision by the Federal Governor in Council to conditionally approve the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project (the ‘‘Project’’). The petitions allege, among other things, that additional consultation, engagement or accommodation is required and that various non-economic impacts of the Project were not adequately considered. The remedies sought include requests that the NEB recommendation be quashed, that additional consultations be undertaken, and that the order of the Governor in Council approving the Project be quashed. A decision by the Federal Court of Appeal is subject to potential further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Although we believe that each of the foregoing appeals lacks merit, in the event an applicant is successful at the Supreme Court of Canada, among other potential impacts, the NEB recommendation or Governor in Council’s approval may be quashed, permits may be revoked, the Project may be subject to additional significant regulatory reviews, there may be significant changes to the Project plans, further obligations or restrictions may be implemented, or the Project may be stopped altogether, which could materially impact the overall feasibility or economic benefits of the Project, which in turn would have a material adverse effect on the Project and, consequently, our investment in KML. In addition to the judicial reviews of the NEB recommendation report and Governor in Council’s order, three judicial review proceedings have been commenced at the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Squamish Nation; the City of Vancouver; and Democracy Watch et al.). The petitions allege a duty and failure to consult or accommodate First Nations, apprehension of bias of decision makers, and generally, among other claims, that the Province ought not to have approved the Project. Each Applicant seeks to quash the Environmental Assessment Certificate that was issued by the BC Environmental Assessment Office. In the event that an applicant for judicial review is successful, among other potential impacts, the Environmental Assessment Certificate may be quashed, provincial permits may be revoked, the Project may be subject to additional significant regulatory reviews, there may be significant changes to the Project plans, further obligations or restrictions may be imposed or the Project may be stopped altogether. In the event that an applicant is unsuccessful at the Supreme Court of British Columbia, they may further seek to appeal the decision to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Any decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. A successful appeal at either of these levels could result in the same types of consequences described above. Other Commercial Matters Union Pacific Railroad Company Easements & Related Litigation SFPP and Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) have been engaged in a proceeding to determine the extent, if any, to which rent payable by SFPP for the use of pipeline easements on rights-of-way held by UPRR should be adjusted pursuant to existing contractual arrangements for the ten-year period beginning January 1, 2004 ( Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., et al, , Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC319170). In September 2011, the trial judge determined that the annual rent payable as of January 1, 2004 was $14 million , subject to annual consumer price index increases. SFPP appealed the judgment. In addition, as part of the second ten-year rent setting period, in 2013 UPRR demanded the payment of $22.3 million in rent for the first year of the next ten-year period beginning January 1, 2014, which SFPP rejected. On November 5, 2014, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion which reversed the judgment, including the award of prejudgment interest, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a determination of UPRR’s property interest in its right-of-way, including whether UPRR has sufficient interest to grant SFPP’s easements. UPRR filed a petition for review to the California Supreme Court which was denied. In July 2017, UPRR and SFPP reached a settlement of the rental disputes on terms that are confidential and within the right-of-way liability previously recorded for back rent. After the above-referenced decision by the California Court of Appeals which held that UPRR does not own the subsurface rights to grant certain easements and may not be able to collect rent from those easements, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in 2015 in California federal court by private landowners in California who claim to be the lawful owners of subsurface real property allegedly used or occupied by UPRR or SFPP. Substantially similar follow-on lawsuits were filed and are pending in federal courts by landowners in Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. These suits, which are brought purportedly as class actions on behalf of all landowners who own land in fee adjacent to and underlying the railroad easement under which the SFPP pipeline is located in those respective states, assert claims against UPRR, SFPP, KMGP, and Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. “D” for declaratory judgment, trespass, ejectment, quiet title, unjust enrichment, inverse condemnation and accounting arising from defendants’ alleged improper use or occupation of subsurface real property. Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification were denied by the federal district courts in Arizona and California, and plaintiffs are pursuing an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The New Mexico and Nevada lawsuits have been stayed. SFPP views these cases as primarily a dispute between UPRR and the plaintiffs. UPRR purported to grant SFPP a network of subsurface pipeline easements along UPRR’s railroad right-of-way. SFPP relied on the validity of those easements and paid rent to UPRR for the value of those easements. SFPP and UPRR have also engaged in multiple disputes since 2000 over the circumstances and conditions under which SFPP must pay to relocate its pipeline within the UPRR right-of-way. In July 2017, UPRR and SFPP reached a settlement of the relocation disputes on terms that are confidential but which generally require the parties to share and allocate the cost of future relocations. Although the cost sharing mechanism in the settlement is expected to reduce the cost of future relocations, SFPP does not know UPRR’s plans for projects or other activities that would cause pipeline relocations such that it is difficult to quantify the cost of future potential relocations. Such costs could have an adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, cash flows, and dividends to our shareholders. Gulf LNG Facility Arbitration On March 1, 2016, Gulf LNG Energy, LLC and Gulf LNG Pipeline, LLC (GLNG) received a Notice of Disagreement and Disputed Statements and a Notice of Arbitration from Eni USA Gas Marketing LLC (Eni USA), one of two companies that entered into a terminal use agreement for capacity of the Gulf LNG Facility in Mississippi for an initial term that is not scheduled to expire until the year 2031. Eni USA is an indirect subsidiary of Eni S.p.A., a multi-national integrated energy company headquartered in Milan, Italy. Pursuant to its Notice of Arbitration, Eni USA seeks declaratory and monetary relief based upon its assertion that (i) the terminal use agreement should be terminated because changes in the U.S. natural gas market since the execution of the agreement in December 2007 have “frustrated the essential purpose” of the agreement and (ii) activities allegedly undertaken by affiliates of Gulf LNG Holdings Group LLC “in connection with a plan to convert the LNG Facility into a liquefaction/export facility have given rise to a contractual right on the part of Eni USA to terminate” the agreement. As set forth in the terminal use agreement, disputes are meant to be resolved by final and binding arbitration. A three-member arbitration panel conducted an arbitration hearing in January 2017. We expect the arbitration panel will issue its decision before the end of the third quarter 2017. Eni USA has indicated that it will continue to pay the amounts claimed to be due pending resolution of the dispute. The successful assertion by Eni USA of its claim to terminate or amend its payment obligations under the agreement prior to the expiration of its initial term could have an adverse effect on the business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of GLNG and distributions to KMI, a 50% shareholder of GLNG. We view the demand for arbitration to be without merit, and we will continue to contest it vigorously. Brinckerhoff Merger Litigation In April 2017, a purported class action suit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by a former EPB unitholder on behalf of a class of former unaffiliated unitholders of EPB, seeking to challenge the $9.2 billion merger of EPB into a subsidiary of KMI as part of a series of transactions in November 2014 whereby KMI acquired all of the outstanding equity interests in KMP, KMR, and EPB that KMI and its subsidiaries did not already own. The suit alleges that the merger consideration did not sufficiently compensate EPB unitholders for the value of three derivative suits concerning drop down transactions which the derivative plaintiff lost standing to pursue after the merger and which the present suit now alleges were collectively worth as much as $700 million . The suit claims that the alleged failure to obtain sufficient merger consideration for the drop down lawsuits constitutes a breach of the EPB limited partnership agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The suit also asserts claims against KMI and certain individual defendants for allegedly tortiously interfering with and/or aiding and abetting the alleged breach of the limited partnership agreement. Defendants have moved to dismiss the suit. We continue to believe that both the merger and the drop down transactions were appropriate and in the best interests of EPB, and we intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. Price Reporting Litigation Beginning in 2003, several lawsuits were filed by purchasers of natural gas against El Paso Corporation, El Paso Marketing L.P. and numerous other energy companies based on a claim under state antitrust law that such defendants conspired to manipulate the price of natural gas by providing false price information to industry trade publications that published gas indices. Several of the cases have been settled or dismissed. The remaining cases, which are pending in Nevada federal district court, were dismissed, but the dismissal was reversed by the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision dated April 21, 2015, and the cases were then remanded to the Nevada federal district court for further consideration and trial, if necessary, of numerous remaining issues. On May 24, 2016, the district court granted a motion for summary judgment dismissing a lawsuit brought by an industrial consumer in Kansas in which approximately $500 million in damages has been alleged. That ruling has been appealed to the 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals. Tentative settlements have been reached in class actions originally filed in Kansas and Missouri, which settlements are subject to final court approval. In the remaining case, a Wisconsin class action in which approximately $300 million in damages has been alleged against all defendants, the district court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The 9 th Circuit Court of Appeals granted plaintiff’s request for an interlocutory appeal of this ruling. There remains significant uncertainty regarding the validity of the causes of action, the damages asserted and the level of damages, if any, which may be allocated to us in the remaining lawsuits and therefore, our legal exposure, if any, and costs are not currently determinable. Pipeline Integrity and Releases From time to time, despite our best efforts, our pipelines experience leaks and ruptures. These leaks and ruptures may cause explosions, fire, and damage to the environment, damage to property and/or personal injury or death. In connection with these incidents, we may be sued for damages caused by an alleged failure to properly mark the locations of our pipelines and/or to properly maintain our pipelines. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular incident, state and federal regulatory authorities may seek civil and/or criminal fines and penalties. General As of June 30, 2017 and December 31, 2016, our total reserve for legal matters was $389 million and $407 million , respectively. The reserve primarily relates to various claims from regulatory proceedings arising in our products and natural gas pipeline segments. Environmental Matters We and our subsidiaries are subject to environmental cleanup and enforcement actions from time to time. In particular, CERCLA generally imposes joint and several liability for cleanup and enforcement costs on current and predecessor owners and operators of a site, among others, without regard to fault or the legality of the original conduct, subject to the right of a liable party to establish a “reasonable basis” for apportionment of costs. Our operations are also subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to protection of the environment. Although we believe our operations are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations, risks of additional costs and liabilities are inherent in pipeline, terminal and CO 2 field and oil field operations, and there can be no assurance that we will not incur significant costs and liabilities. Moreover, it is possible that other developments, such as increasingly stringent environmental laws, regulations and enforcement policies under the terms of authority of those laws, and claims for damages to property or persons resulting from our operations, could result in substantial costs and liabilities to us. We are currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving alleged violations of environmental and safety regulations, including alleged violations of the Risk Management Program and leak detection and repair requirements of the Clean Air Act. As we receive notices of non-compliance, we attempt to negotiate and settle such matters where appropriate. These alleged violations may result in fines and penalties, but we do not believe any such fines and penalties, individually or in the aggregate, will be material. We are also currently involved in several governmental proceedings involving groundwater and soil remediation efforts under administrative orders or related state remediation programs. We have established a reserve to address the costs associated with the cleanup. In addition, we are involved with and have been identified as a potentially responsible party in several federal and state superfund sites. Environmental reserves have been established for those sites where our contribution is probable and reasonably estimable. In addition, we are from time to time involved in civil proceedings relating to damages alleged to have occurred as a result of accidental leaks or spills of refined petroleum products, NGL, natural gas and CO 2 . Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Willamette River, Portland, Oregon In December 2000, the EPA issued General Notice letters to potentially responsible parties including GATX Terminals Corporation (n/k/a KMLT). At that time, GATX owned two liquids terminals along the lower reach of the Willamette River, an industrialized area known as Portland Harbor. Portland Harbor is listed on the National Priorities List and is designated as a Superfund Site under CERCLA. A group of potentially responsible parties formed what is known as the Lower Willamette Group (LWG), of which KMLT is a non-voting member and pays a minimal fee to be part of the group. The LWG agreed to conduct the remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) leading to the proposed remedy for cleanup of the Portland Harbor site. The EPA issued the FS and the Proposed Plan on June 8, 2016 which included a proposed combination of dredging, capping, and enhanced natural recovery. On January 6, 2017, the EPA issued its Record of Decision (ROD) for the final cleanup plan. The final remedy is more stringent than the remedy proposed in the EPA’s Proposed Plan. The estimated cost increased from approximately $750 million to approximately $1.1 billion and active cleanup is now expected to take as long as 13 years to complete. KMLT and 90 other parties are involved in a non-judicial allocation process to determine each party’s respective share of the cleanup costs. We are participating in the allocation process on behalf of KMLT and KMBT in connection with their current or former ownership or operation of four facilities located in Portland Harbor. Our share of responsibility for Portland Harbor Superfund Site costs will not be determined until the ongoing non-judicial allocation process is concluded in several years or a lawsuit is filed that results in a judicial decision allocating responsibility. Until the allocation process is completed, we are unable to reasonably estimate the extent of our liability for the costs related to the design of the proposed remedy and cleanup of the site. In addition to CERCLA cleanup costs, we are reviewing and will attempt to settle, if possible, natural resource damage (NRD) claims asserted by state and federal trustees following their natural resource assessment of the site. At this time, we are unable to reasonably estimate the extent of our potential NRD liability. Roosevelt Irrigation District v. Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. , U.S. District Court, Arizona The Roosevelt Irrigation District sued KMGP, KMEP and others under CERCLA for alleged contamination of the water purveyor’s wells. The First Amended Complaint sought $175 million in damages from approximately 70 defendants. On August 6, 2013 plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint seeking monetary damages in unspecified amounts and reducing the number of defendants to 26 including KMEP and SFPP. The claims now presented against KMEP and SFPP are related to alleged releases from a specific parcel within the SFPP Phoenix Terminal and the alleged impact of such releases on water wells owned by the plaintiffs and located in the vicinity of the Terminal. We have filed an answer, general denial, and affirmative defenses in response to the Second Amended Complaint and fact discovery is proceeding. Uranium Mines in Vicinity of Cameron, Arizona In the 1950s and 1960s, Rare Metals Inc., a historical subsidiary of EPNG, mined approximately twenty uranium mines in the vicinity of Cameron, Arizona, many of which are located on the Navajo Indian Reservation. The mining activities were in response to numerous incentives provided to industry by the U.S. to locate and produce domestic sources of uranium to support the Cold War-era nuclear weapons program. In May 2012, EPNG received a general notice letter from the EPA notifying EPNG of the EPA’s investigation of certain sites and its determination that the EPA considers EPNG to be a potentially responsible party within the meaning of CERCLA. In August 2013, EPNG and the EPA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent and Scope of Work pursuant to which EPNG is conducting a radiological assessment of the surface of the mines. On September 3, 2014, EPNG filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Case No. 3:14-08165-DGC) seeking cost recovery and contribution from the applicable federal government agencies toward the cost of environmental activities associated with the mines, given the pervasive control of such federal agencies over all aspects of the nuclear weapons program. Defendants filed an answer and counterclaims seeking contribution and recovery of response costs allegedly incurred by the federal agencies in investigating uranium impacts on the Navajo Reservation. The counterclaim of defendant EPA has been settled, and no viable claims for reimbursement by the other defendants are known to exist. Lower Passaic River Study Area of the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, Essex, Hudson, Bergen and Passaic Counties, New Jersey EPEC Polymers, Inc. (EPEC Polymers) and EPEC Oil Company Liquidating Trust (EPEC Oil Trust), former El Paso Corporation entities now owned by KMI, are involved in an administrative action under CERCLA known as the Lower Passaic River Study Area Superfund Site (Site) concerning the lower 17-mile stretch of the Passaic River. It has been alleged that EPEC Polymers and EPEC Oil Trust may be potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under CERCLA based on prior ownership and/or operation of properties located along the relevant section of the Passaic River. EPEC Polymers and EPEC Oil Trust entered into two Administrative Orders on Consent (AOCs) which obligate them to investigate and characterize contamination at the Site. They are also part of a joint defense group of approximately 70 cooperating parties, referred to as the Cooperating Parties Group (CPG), which has entered into AOCs and is directing and funding the work required by the EPA. Under the first AOC, draft remedial investigation and feasibility studies (RI/FS) of the Site were submitted to the EPA in 2015, and comments from the EPA remain pending. Under the second AOC, the CPG members conducted a CERCLA removal action at the Passaic River Mile 10.9, and the group is currently conducting EPA-directed post-remedy monitoring in the removal area. We have established a reserve for the anticipated cost of compliance with the AOCs. On April 11, 2014, the EPA announced the issuance of its Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) for the lower eight miles of the Passaic River Study Area, and its proposed plan for remedial alternatives to address the dioxin sediment contamination from the mouth of Newark Bay to River Mile 8.3. The EPA estimates the cost for the alternatives will range from $365 million to $3.2 billion . The EPA’s preferred alternative would involve dredging the river bank-to-bank and installing an engineered cap at an estimated cost of $1.7 billion . On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued its ROD for the lower 8.3 miles of the Passaic River Study area. The final cleanup plan in the ROD is substantially similar to the EPA’s preferred alternative announced on April 11, 2014. On October 5, 2016, the EPA entered into an AOC with one member of the PRP group requiring such member to spend $165 million to perform engineering and design work necessary to begin the cleanup of the lower 8.3 miles of the Passaic River. The design work is expected to take four years to complete and the cleanup is expected to take six years to complete. In addition, the EPA has notified over 80 other PRPs, including EPEC Polymers and EPEC Oil Trust (the Notice), that the EPA intends to pursue agreements with other “major PRPs” and initiate negotiations over cash buyouts with parties whom the EPA does not consider “major PRPs.” The Notice creates significant uncertainty as to the implementation and associated costs of the remedy set forth in the FFS and ROD, and provides no guidance as to the EPA’s definition of a “major PRP” or the potential amount or range of cash buyouts. There is also uncertainty as to the impact of the RI/FS that the CPG is currently preparing for portions of the Site. The draft RI/FS was submitted by the CPG earlier in 2015 and proposes a different remedy than the FFS announced by the EPA. Therefore, the scope of potential EPA claims for the lower eight miles of the Passaic River is not reasonably estimable at this time. Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Litigation On July 24, 2013, the Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority - East (SLFPA) filed a petition for damages and injunctive relief in state district court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana (Case No. 13-6911) against TGP, SNG and approximately 100 other energy companies, alleging that defendants’ drilling, dredging, pipeline and industrial operations since the 1930’s have caused direct land loss and increased erosion and submergence resulting in alleged increased storm surge risk, increased flood protection costs and unspecified damages to the plaintiff. The SLFPA asserts claims for negligence, strict liability, public nuisance, private nuisance, and breach of contract. Among other relief, the petition seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorney fees, interest, and injunctive relief in the form of abatement and restoration of the alleged coastal land loss including but not limited to backfilling and re-vegetation of canals, wetlands and reef creation, land bridge construction, hydrologic restoration, shoreline protection, structural protection, and bank stabilization. On August 13, 2013, the suit was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. On February 13, 2015, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim, and issued an order dismissing the SLFPA’s claims with prejudice. On March 3, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court’s decision. On March 17, 2017, the SLFPA filed a petition seeking en banc review and reco |
