The provisions of the Natural Gas Act of June 21, 1938, as amended [15 U.S.C. 717 et seq.], shall not be applicable to the sale, extraction, processing, transportation, or storage of helium either prior to or subsequent to the separation of such helium from the natural gas with which it is commingled, whether or not the provisions of such Act apply to such natural gas, and in determining the rates of a natural gas company under sections 4 and 5 of the Natural Gas Act, as amended [15 U.S.C. 717c, 717d], whenever helium is extracted from helium-bearing natural gas, there shall be excluded (1) all income received from the sale of helium; (2) all direct costs incurred in the extraction, processing, compression, transportation or storage of helium; and (3) that portion of joint costs of exploration, production, gathering, extraction, processing, compression, transportation or storage divided and allocated to helium on a volumetric basis.
Notes of Decisions
N. Nat. Gas Co. v. Grounds, 292 F. Supp. 619 (D. Kan. 1968).
“" 50 U.S.C.A. § 167i. During committee hearings on this section, FPC representatives objected that it jeopardized Commission jurisdiction over any stream of natural gas containing helium.”
Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co. v. Fed. Power Comm'n, 359 F.2d 675 (8th Cir. 1966).
“Panhandle contends that this portion of the order is in violation of the Helium Act Amendments of 1960 (50 U.S.C. § 167i) as well as the Natural Gas Act ( 15 U.”
N. Nat. Gas Co. v. Grounds, 441 F.2d 704 (10th Cir. 1971).
“The argument centers around § 11, 50 U.S.C. § 167i. 5 This says that the Natural Gas Act does not apply “to the sale, extraction, processing, transportation, or storage of helium either prior to or subsequent to the separation of such helium from the natural gas with which it is…”
Texaco Inc., a Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., a Corp., 481 F.2d 70 (10th Cir. 1973).
“The complaint alleges that plaintiff, a lessee-producer, and defendant are natural gas companies within the scope of the Natural Gas Act; that plaintiff has made written contracts to sell gas to defendant for movement in interstate commerce; that for several years defendant has…”
N. Nat. Gas Co. v. Grounds, 393 F. Supp. 949 (D. Kan. 1974).
“1 On appeal from this court’s determination that § 11 of the Helium Act Amendments, 50 U.S.C. § 167i, did not alter the scope of the gas purchase contracts, so as to allow the Lessee-Producers to share in revenues derived by the Helex companies from their sales of helium to the…”
Texaco, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 374 F. Supp. 13 (N.D. Okla. 1972).
· cites it 2× “, by § 11 of the Helium Act Amendments, 50 U.S.C.A. § 167i and by the judgment in the Northern Natural Gas Company case, supra.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.