[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 68 (Thursday, April 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 17401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9298]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GP98-21-000]


Midgard Energy Company; Notice of Petition for Dispute Resolution

April 3, 1998.
    Take notice that, on March 6, 1998, Midgard Energy Company 
(Midgard), formerly; Maxus Exploration Company (Maxus), filed a 
petition requesting the Commission to resolve Midgard's dispute with K 
N Interstate Gas Transmission Company (KNI) over Midgard's Kansas ad 
valorem tax refund liability to KNI. The Commission, by order issued 
September 10, 1997, in Docket No. RP97-369-000 et al.,\1\ on remand 
from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,\2\ required first sellers to 
refund the Kansas ad valorem tax reimbursements to the pipelines, with 
interest, for the period from 1983 to 1988.\3\ Midgard's petition is on 
file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 80 FERC para. 61,264 (1997); order denying reh'g issued 
January 28, 1998, 82 FERC para. 61,058 (1998).
    \2\ Public Service Company of Colorado v. FERC, 91 F.3d 1478 
(D.C. 1996), cert. denied, Nos. 96-954 and 96-1230 (65 U.S.L.W. 3751 
and 3754, May 12, 1997).
    \3\ In its January 28, 1998 Order Clarifying Procedures, the 
Commission stated that producers (i.e., first sellers) could file 
dispute resolution requests with the Commission, asking the 
Commission to resolve the dispute with the pipeline over the amount 
of Kansas ad valorem tax refunds owed, see 82 FERC para. 61,059 
(1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its petition, Midgard argues that it has no refund liability to 
KNI because, during the 1983 through 1988 period at issue Midgard did 
not own the properties and/or the production under Contract No. 130 on 
which KNI claims refunds. Midgard adds that it does not own those 
properties now.
    Midgard states that KNI's Statement of Refunds Due lists Maxus 
Energy (as successor to Cotton Petroleum) as the first seller under 
Contract No. 130, for production from the Betts A-1 well. Midgard 
states that it did not collect any Kansas ad valorem tax reimbursements 
under Contract No. 130 during the 1983 to 1988 period, and that it 
believes that Cotton Petroleum owned the Betts A-1 well production 
under Contract No. 130 from 1983 through 1986, and that Apache 
Corporation or an Apache affiliate (Apache) acquired the subject well 
in 1986. Midgard states that it acquired the Betts A-1 well from 
Apache, effective May 1, 1991, as part of a producing property 
acquisition and that, effective August 1, 1992, Midgard and KNI entered 
into a termination agreement for Contract No. 130 that specifically 
provided (among other things) that ``each party does hereby forever 
release and discharge the other from any and all liability under the 
contract.'' Midgard adds that, effective July 1, 1996, it sold its 
interest in the Betts A-1 well to Mr. Kenneth R. Lang, Sr., of Garden 
City, Kansas, for $5,000.
    Midgard contends that the 1983-1988 Kansas ad valorem tax refund 
liability should fall to Cotton Petroleum and Apache, not Midgard, 
since Midgard did not receive any Kansas ad valorem tax reimbursements 
during the 1983-1988 period at issue. Therefore, Midgard contends that 
it has no refund liability to KNI under Contract No. 130.
    Any person desiring to comment on or make any protest with respect 
to said petition should, on or before April 24, 1998, file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene or protest in accordance 
with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211). All protests filed with the 
Commission will be considered by it in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make the protestants parties 
to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to the 
proceeding, or to participate as a party in any hearing therein, must 
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-9298 Filed 4-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M