| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
| Alaska Supreme Court Opinions made Available byTouch N' Go Systems and Bright Solutions |
|
|
|
|
You can search the entire site. or go to the recent opinions, or the chronological or subject indices. In re: Cook Inlet Energy, LLC, Charles Gebhardt, Trustee for the Miller Energy Resources Creditors' Liquidation Trust v. Carol Inman, d/b/a Starichkof Enterprises, All American Oilfield, LLC v. Cook Inlet Energy, LLC (8/9/2019) sp-7395
Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER .
Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts,
303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email
corrections@akcourts.us.
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
ALL AMERICAN OILFIELD, LLC, )
) Supreme Court Nos. S-16974/17043
Plaintiff and ) (Consolidated)
Appellant, )
) U.S. Dist. Court No. 3:17-cv-00127-SLG
v. ) Bankruptcy Adv. No. 16-90002-GS
)
COOK INLET ENERGY, LLC, ) O P I N I O N
)
Defendant and ) No. 7395 - August 9, 2019
Appellee. )
IN RE: COOK INLET ENERGY, LLC, )
)
Debtor, ) Bankruptcy No. 15-00236-GS
) Bankruptcy Adv. No. 17-90041-GS
CHARLES GEBHARDT, TRUSTEE )
FOR THE MILLER ENERGY )
RESOURCES CREDITORS' )
LIQUIDATION TRUST, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
CAROL INMAN, d/b/a )
STARICHKOF ENTERPRISES, )
)
Defendant. )
)
Certified Questions from the United States District Court for
the District of Alaska, Sharon Gleason, Judge, and the United
----------------------- Page 2-----------------------
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Alaska, Gary
Spraker, Judge.
Appearances: Michael A. Grisham, Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Anchorage, for All American Oilfield. Cabot Christianson,
Law Offices of Cabot Christianson, Anchorage, for Carol
Inman. Elena Romerdahl, Perkins Coie LLP, Anchorage, and
David A. Zdunkewicz, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP,
Houston, Texas, for Cook Inlet Energy, LLC. Kevin G.
Clarkson, Brena, Bell & Clarkson, P.C., Anchorage, and
Aaron M. Guerrero and Carolyn Carollo, Snow Spence Green
LLP, Houston, Texas, for Charles Gebhardt, Trustee. Laura
Fox, Assistant Attorney General, Anchorage, and Jahna
Lindemuth, Attorney General, Juneau, for Amicus Curiae
State of Alaska.
Before: Bolger, Chief Justice, Winfree, Stowers, Maassen,
and Carney, Justices.
WINFREE, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
In 1910 the United States Congress passed Alaska's first mineral dump lien
statute, granting laborers a lien against a "dump or mass" of hard-rock minerals for their
work creating the dump. After piecemeal revisions, Alaska's 1933 territorial legislature
amended the dump lien statute to include oil and gas development, creating a framework
for technological advances in the state's nascent oil and gas industries. The mineral
dump lien statute has remained substantively unchanged since, and we have infrequently
addressed it.
We accepted certified questions from both the United States District Court
and the United States Bankruptcy Court regarding the scope of the mineral dump lien
statute as applied to natural gas development. For the reasons that follow, we conclude
-2- 7395
----------------------- Page 3-----------------------
that the statutory definition of "dump or mass" reflects that a mineral dump lien may
extend only to gas extracted from its natural reservoir, that the lien may cover produced
gas contained in a pipeline if certain conditions are met, and that to obtain a dump lien
laborers must demonstrate that their work aided, broadly, in gas production.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. All American v. Cook Inlet
1
The relevant facts of this case are not in dispute. Cook Inlet Energy, LLC
operates oil and gas wells in southcentral Alaska. In November 2014 Cook Inlet
contracted with All American Oilfield, LLC to "drill, complete, engineer and/or explore
three wells" on Cook Inlet's oil and gas leaseholds. All American began work soon
thereafter, including drilling rig operations, digging holes, casing, and completing the gas
wells. When All American concluded its work the following summer, Cook Inlet was
unable to pay. In June 2015 All American recorded liens against Cook Inlet, including
a mine lien under AS 34.35.125 and a mineral dump lien under AS 34.35.140. In
October, after its creditors filed an involuntary petition for relief, Cook Inlet consented
to Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
In January 2016 All American filed an adversary proceeding in the
bankruptcy court "to determine the validity and priority of its secured claims." The
2
bankruptcy court found that All American has a valid mine lien against the three wells.
But the court denied All American's asserted mineral dump lien against unextracted gas
1 "[W]hen answering certified questions we 'rely . . . on the federal court's
fact statements and the excerpt. We make no independent fact determinations.' "
Attorneys Liab. Prot. Soc'y, Inc., v. Ingaldson Fitzgerald, P.C. , 370 P.3d 1101, 1103 n.2
(Alaska 2016) (omission in original) (quoting C.P. ex rel. M.L. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 996
P.2d 1216, 1218 n.1 (Alaska 2000)).
2
In re Cook Inlet Energy LLC , No. A15-00236-GS, 2017 WL 1082217, at
*9 (Bankr. D. Alaska Mar. 21, 2017).
-3- 7395
----------------------- Page 4-----------------------
remaining in natural reservoirs.3 The court also concluded that All American's mine lien
is subordinate to Cook Inlet's secured creditors' prior liens, which would consume all
4 All American appealed to
of Cook Inlet's assets and leave All American with nothing.
the federal district court, which, in turn, certified to us questions regarding the Alaska
mineral dump lien statute.
B. Charles Gebhardt v. Carol Inman
Carol Inman, d/b/a Starichkof Enterprises, provided equipment, labor, and
services to Cook Inlet. Charles Gebhardt, the appointed trustee for Cook Inlet's
liquidation trust,5 sued Inman to recover payments Cook Inlet made to her before the
bankruptcy. In October 2017 Gebhardt filed a motion for partial summary judgment,
asserting that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the payments to Inman
6 Inman opposed the motion, asserting an inchoate
were avoidable preferred payments.
lien defense. Inman had not recorded a mineral dump lien; she asserted that, had she not
been paid for her work, she could have recorded a valid mineral dump lien that would
have attached to property valued in excess of the amount she was owed. She contended
3 Id.
4 See id.
5 Contemporaneous with Cook Inlet's bankruptcy, its parent company, Miller
Energy Resources, Inc., voluntarily filed for bankruptcy. That case was jointly
administered with Cook Inlet's c ase, and the joint debtors ultimately confirmed a joint
reorganization plan creating a liquidation trust to administer various assets, including
causes of act ion, for the benefit of the debtors' unsecured creditors. Gebhardt is the
appointed trustee for the Miller Energy Resources Creditors' Liquidation Trust.
6
A bankruptcy trustee has the power to "avoid" certain pre-petition transfers
to third parties and recover that money for the bankruptcy estate. See 1 NORTON BANKR .
L. & P
RAC . 3D § 3:11 (201 9); 11 U .S.C. § 550(a)(1) (2012) (allowing bankruptcy trustee
to recover value of "avoided" transfers).
-4- 7395
----------------------- Page 5-----------------------
that this inchoate lien constituted a complete defense to the trustee's attempt to avoid the
payments made to her before the bankruptcy.
Inman filed a motion to certify to us the questions interpreting the mineral
dump lien in her case, which the bankruptcy court granted.
C. The Certified Questions
We accepted the following certified questions:
1. Can a "dump lien" under AS 34.35.125 et seq. apply
to gas stored in its natural reservoir; if so, was a
mineral "dump" created under AS 34.35.140 and
AS 34.35.170(1) when All American drilled three
natural gas wells at the request of Cook Inlet?
2. Is a mineral "dump" created under AS 34.35.140 and
AS 34.35.70(a)(1) each time that Cook Inlet releases
natural gas from the natural reservoir in which the gas
was formed and transports that gas through a pipeline
to the point of sale?
3. Must a dump lien claimant under AS 34.35.140 prove,
in order to have a valid dump lien, that the produced
gas was, in whole or in part, the product of her
[7]
labor?
The parties provided full briefing on these issues, and the State filed an
amicus brief at our request. We now hold that the answer to the first question is "no."
The second question presents factual determinations we leave to the triers of fact, but we
7 See All American Oilfield v. Cook Inlet Energy; Charles Gebhardt v. Carol
Inman , Nos. S-16974/17043, at 2 (Alaska Supreme Court Order, Apr. 13, 2018). We
also certified another question - similar to the first noted question - whether Inman
has a dump lien over minerals in a natural reservoir. But Inman decided not to pursue
this question.
-5- 7395
----------------------- Page 6-----------------------
hold that gas in a pipeline may be subject to a dump lien if other conditions are satisfied.
We hold that the answer to the final question is "yes."
III. STANDARD OF REvIEW
Appellate Rule 407(a) allows us to answer certified questions that "may be
determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court and as to which it appears
to the certifying court there is no controlling precedent in [our] decisions." Answering
certified questions requires that we "stand in the shoes of the certifying court, yet
8
exercise our independent judgment." "This entails 'selecting the rule of law that is most
persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.' "9
8 Attorneys Liab. Prot. Soc'y, Inc., v. Ingaldson Fitzgerald, P.C. , 370 P.3d
1101, 1105 (Alaska 2016) (quoting Schiel v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 219 P.3d 1025, 1029
(Alaska 2009)).
9 Id. (quoting Schiel, 219 P.3d at 1029).
-6- 7395
----------------------- Page 7-----------------------
Iv. DISCUSSION10
A. Unextracted Natural Gas Remaining In Its Natural Reservoir Cannot
Constitute A "Dump" Under The Mineral Dump Lien Statute.
1. Statutory framework
Alaska has three statutes allowing workers to attach liens to mines, mining
equipment, or minerals. Alaska Statute 34.35.125 allows a person who performs work
on a mine or oil well to attach a lien to "the mine or mining claim, oil, gas, or other claim
or well as security for the payment of the work." Alaska Statute 34.35.130 allows a
person who performs work on a mill or machine used in a mining operation to have "a
lien on the mill or machine, to secure the payment of the amount due for the work."
These two statutes create preferred liens, with precedent over other liens excepting those
11
recorded before the work resulting in the lien claim started.
Alaska Statute 34.35.140(a), at issue in this case, provides:
10 "We interpret statutes 'according to reason, practicality, and common sense,
considering the meaning of the statute's language, its legislative history, and its
purpose.' " Id . (quoting Municipality of Anchorage v. Stenseth , 361 P.3d 898, 905
(Alaska 2015)). We have rejected a mechanical application of the plain-meaning rule
and instead "use a sliding scale approach to statutory interpretation, in which 'the plainer
the statutory language is, the more convincing the evidence of contrary legislative
purpose or intent must be.' " Id. (quoting Stenseth, 361 P.3d at 905).
Alaska's worker lien laws are remedial in nature and should be construed
liberally. AS 34.35.930. But we have distinguished between the remedial portions of
lien statutes and those " 'which articulate mandatory conditions precedent to the very
creation and existence of the lien.' These mandatory conditions precedent . . . are to be
'strictly construed.' " Lakloey, Inc. v. Ballek , 211 P.3d 662, 665-66 (Alaska 2009) (first
quoting H.A.M.S. Co. v. Elec. Contractors of Alaska, Inc. , 563 P.2d 258, 262 (Alaska
1977); then quoting Nerox Power Sys., Inc. v. M-B Contracting Co., 54 P.3d 791, 800
(Alaska 2002)).
11 AS 34.35.135.
-7- 7395
----------------------- Page 8-----------------------
A person who, at the instance of another who has the right of
possession of a mine, or mining claim, oil or gas well,
performs upon, in, or about the mine or well any of the kinds
of work mentioned in AS 34.35.125, or who performs any
other kind of work in the production, piling up, or storing of
a dump or mass of mineral, has a lien on the dump or mass,
and the gold, gold dust, or other minerals contained in or
extracted from it, to secure the amount due the laborer in the
production of the minerals.
The dump lien statute thus describes: (1) the types of work qualifying "a person" for the
lien - "any of the kinds of work mentioned in [the mine lien statute], or . . . any other
kind of work in the production, piling up, or storing of a dump or mass of mineral";
(2) the property to which the lien attaches - "the dump or mass, and the . . . minerals
contained in or extracted from it"; and (3) the types of debts the lien satisfies -
"amount[s] due the laborer in the production of the minerals."12
A "dump or mass" is defined in AS 34.35.170(a)(1) as:
[M]ineral-bearing sands, gravel, earth, ore, stone, coal, oil,
gas, other fluids or minerals extracted, hoisted, and raised
from a mine or mining claim, while in mass at the mine or on
the mining claim or adjacent to it, whether it is deposited in
dumps or piles, or placed in hoppers, tanks, or reservoirs, or
in sluice boxes or bunkers or other receptacles and whether
partially or wholly reduced from its primary state or not.
(Emphasis added.)
A dump or mass thus must: (1) consist of specific types of matter; (2) be "extracted,
hoisted, and raised from a mine or mining claim"; (3) be "in mass"; and (4) be "at the
13
mine or on the mining claim or adjacent to it."
12 AS 34.35.140(a).
13 AS 34.35.170(a)(1).
-8- 7395
----------------------- Page 9-----------------------
In contrast to the other two liens over mines and mining equipment, the
dump lien created by AS 34.35.140 is "prior and preferred" over other liens, "whether
14
Because a dump
given before or after the work for which the lien is claimed is started."
15
lien has priority over other liens, a bankruptcy proceeding creditor would prefer
holding a dump lien to increase the creditor's chance of being paid if the bankruptcy
estate is not large enough to satisfy all obligations.
2. The dump lien statute's plain language excludes unextracted gas
remaining in its natural reservoir.
All American argues that the dump lien statute applies to unextracted gas
remaining in its natural reservoir and that it gained a dump lien by drilling natural gas
wells for Cook Inlet. All American's interpretation primarily relies on implied legislative
history and policy arguments. We conclude that the history and policy arguments are not
sufficient to overcome the statute's contrary plain language.
The statutory framework makes clear that for a claimant to obtain a dump
16
lien, there must be a "dump" to which the lien can attach. The existence of a dump is
a condition precedent to obtaining a dump lien, and we therefore strictly construe the
17
statutory definition. Under the statute's plain meaning, unextracted gas cannot
14 AS 34.35.140(c).
15 Id .
16 See AS 34.35.140(a).
17 See Lakloey, Inc. v. Ballek, 211 P.3d 662, 665 (Alaska 2009); see also
53 AM . JUR . 2D Mechanics' Liens § 25 (2017) (internal citations omitted) (emphasis
added):
[P]rior to the application of a liberal construction to the lien
laws, the procedural requirements - such as those for
attachment, creation, and perfection and dissolution of a
(continued...)
-9- 7395
----------------------- Page 10-----------------------
constitute a dump because it was never "extracted, hoisted, and raised" as the statutory
18
definition requires.
All American's contract contemplated that it would assist Cook Inlet with
natural gas extraction, but All American's work apparently was limited to establishing
natural gas wells. All American states that it "performed drilling, exploration,
engineering, and other work to access the natural gas contained" in the reservoir. All
American explains that it "explored, drilled, managed, and ultimately provided valuable
labor in both finding the gas and creating a mechanism (the well) by which [Cook Inlet]
was able to extract the gas." But the gas over which All American claims it has a dump
lien was not "extracted, hoisted, and raised."19
Although the certified question asks whether the dump lien applies to
natural gas stored in its native reservoir, All American instead discusses whether
unproduced gas that has never left its natural reservoir can be subject to a dump lien.
As the State notes, although "unextracted gas may remain in its reservoir until it is
produced, this is not gas storage." Gas storage specifically "requires prior production
20
In other words, produced gas reinjected and
and a separate agreement with the State."
17 (...continued)
mechanic's lien - are to be strictly construed against the
party claiming the lien. Accordingly, in many jurisdictions,
mechanic's lien statutes are strictly construed as to . . . what
constitutes labor and materials or lienable items [and] the
kind of property or the estate or interest on which a lien may
be fastened.
18 See AS 34.35.170(a)(1).
19 See id.
20 See AS 38.05.180(u) (providing Alaska Department of Natural Resources
(continued...)
-10- 7395
----------------------- Page 11-----------------------
stored in a natural reservoir has been "extracted, hoisted, and raised" and might qualify
as a dump.
All American contends that the words "extracted, hoisted, and raised"
effectively must be ignored to satisfy the dump lien statute's purpose. But based on this
plain language, because the gas for which All American drilled wells never was
"extracted, hoisted, and raised" from the mine, it cannot qualify for a dump lien under
AS 34.35.140. Although unextracted gas cannot constitute a dump, All American still
may obtain a non-preferred mine lien under AS 34.35.125, as the definition of "mine"
or "mining claim" broadly includes "all valuable mineral deposits, including coal, oil,
gas , or other fluid, and all loads, veins, or rock in place containing minerals."21
3. Neither legislative history nor case law extends the "dump"
definition to include unextracted gas remaining in its natural
reservoir.
Despite a dearth of legislative history, All American argues that we should
liberally interpret the dump lien statute and its accompanying definition based on
AS 34.35.930's provision that the lien chapter "is remedial and its provisions shall be
liberally construed." All American likens the dump lien statute to "a legal contraption
that has been significantly amended through patchwork additions, but never revised" and
argues that the "legislative purpose and intent of the 1933 amendments was to provide
companies like [itself] with [d]ump [l]ien protection." But even before "dump" was
explicitly defined, earlier versions of the dump lien statute consistently required that
minerals be removed from the ground to qualify as a dump to which a dump lien could
attach.
20 (...continued)
commissioner may authorize subsurface gas storage subject to lease).
21 AS 34.35.170(a)(3) (emphasis added).
-11- 7395
----------------------- Page 12-----------------------
Alaska's first dump lien statute was passed in 1910 by the United States
22
Congress. This earliest iteration granted a lien to laborers for work performed on "the
dump or mass of mineral-bearing sands, gravels, earth, or rocks, and all gold and gold
dust, or other minerals therein, and all gold and gold dust extracted therefrom." 23 The
statute neither defined "dump" nor required that all minerals be "extracted, hoisted, and
24
raised" from the mine itself. Congressional debate from 1910 - the only existing
legislative history accompanying any version of the statute - indicates that the statute
25 At that time Alaska
sought "to extend the lien of miners greater than it is at present."
apparently provided that every "person performing labor or furnishing material of any
kind to be used in the construction, development, alteration, or repair, either in whole or
in part, of any building, . . . [or] mine, . . . shall have a lien upon the same for the work
26
or labor done." But the law did not "give the miner who digs the ore or the mineral-
bearing gravel out of the earth any lien at all for his labor."27
Congress apparently thought it necessary for the miner to have such a lien
28 The congressional record
given the "practical operations of mining in Alaska."
explains:
22 Act of June 25, 1910, ch. 422, 36 Stat. 848 (creating miner's labor lien in
Alaska territory).
23 Id. at § 1.
24 See id. at §§ 1-11.
25 45 Cong. Rec. 4,905 (1910).
26 Id.
27 Id. (emphasis added).
28 Id.
-12- 7395
----------------------- Page 13-----------------------
[I]n the practical operations of mining in Alaska the mineral-
bearing gravel is removed in the winter time. When the
spring comes, the "dump," as it is called, is put through a
process of washing out the gold and gold dust and minerals
that are contained therein. It very frequently happens that the
person who operates the mine is obliged to borrow
considerable money as he commences to operate the mine.
When spring comes, it may be that the mortgagee then
forecloses his mortgage, on which he has received interest to
the amount of 4 to 6 per cent a month. After his mortgage is
satisfied there is nothing left to go to the miner, who has
produced this dump, there being no law giving him any
[29]
security for his labor.
The law did not "give [the miner] a lien upon the mine, but [rather] a lien only upon that
which his labor has produced, namely, the dump, and the gold or gold dust contained
therein or extracted therefrom."30
Alaska's territorial district court considered the 1910 dump lien statute in
31
Donaldson v. Henning . Because the statute did not define "dump," the court looked
to the term's common usage by miners: "[T]he term 'dump' usually refers to the pile or
mass of gold-bearing earth or gravel hoisted from a mine, prior to the time that it has
32
Even before a statutory
been washed and the gold and gold dust extracted therefrom."
definition, courts and common usage defined "dump" as containing only minerals
actually "hoisted from a mine."33
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 4 Alaska 642 (D. Alaska 1913).
32 Id. at 655.
33 See id.
-13- 7395
----------------------- Page 14-----------------------
Alaska's territorial district court again considered the dump lien statute a
34
year later in Nordstrom v. Sivertsen-Johnsen Mining & Dredging Co . Applying the
1910 version of the statute, the court looked to the dictionary definition of "dump" and
found that the legislature "meant the mineral-bearing sands piled up or collected into an
aggregate heap or body, and not the mineral-bearing sands or dirt that has been only
35
loosened or broken up, but not piled up on the surface of the ground in some place."
Alaska's 1913 territorial legislature amended the dump lien statute.36 The
amended statute provided, in relevant part, that the "lien shall attach in every case to such
mine, lode, mining claim, deposit, and the ore, gold bearing earth, rock, gravel, sand,
gold, gold dust or other precious mineral mined, taken and extracted from such mine,
37
lode, mining claim, deposit." Although the statute did not use the term "dump," it still
38
required that minerals be "mined, taken and extracted" from the mine to be lienable.
Alaska's 1915 territorial legislature again amended the dump lien statute.39
This iteration reintroduced the term "dump" and separated mine liens from dump liens.40
The dump lien attached to "the dump or mass of minerals . . . and gold or gold dust or
34 5 Alaska 204 (D. Alaska 1914).
35 Id. at 209.
36 Ch. 79, SLA 1913.
37 Id. at § 1 (emphasis added).
38 Id.
39 Ch. 13, SLA 1915.
40 Id.
-14- 7395
----------------------- Page 15-----------------------
41
other minerals therein." Perhaps more importantly, for the first time since the lien
statute's inception, the legislature explicitly defined the term "dump" and required that
the materials comprising the "dump" be "extracted, hoisted, and raised from a mine."42
The 1915 statute - like the 1913 statute - required that minerals be "extracted, hoisted,
43
and raised" from the mine to constitute a dump to which a lien could attach.
Alaska's 1933 territorial legislature again amended the dump lien statute,
44
varying from the current version only by renumbering. The 1933 statute reorganized
and reworded the mining lien statutes, revising them to explicitly encompass oil and gas
45 The statute expanded the definition of "mineral" to
in addition to hard-rock minerals.
include oil and gas, and it expanded the definition of "dump or mass" to include "mineral
bearing sands, gravel, earth, ore, stone, coal, oil, gas, other fluids or minerals extracted,
46
hoisted and raised from a mine." Minerals comprising a dump could be "deposited in
dumps or piles, or placed in hoppers, tanks or reservoirs, or in sluice boxes or bunkers
41 Id. at § 1.
42 Id. at § 13 (emphasis added).
43 Id. ; see Donaldson v. Henning , 4 Alaska 642, 655 (D. Alaska 1913);
Nordstrom v . Sivertsen-Johnsen Mining & Dredging Co., 5 Alaska 204, 209 (D. Alaska
1914).
44 Ch. 113, SLA 1933. The statute was renumbered in 1949 but substantively
contained the same provisions. §§ 26 -2-1 to 26-9-13 Alaska Compiled Laws Annotated
(1949).
45 Ch. 113, SLA 1933.
46 Id. at § 1.
-15- 7395
----------------------- Page 16-----------------------
or other receptacles," but nonetheless needed to be "extracted, hoisted and raised from
47
a mine."
The requirement that minerals be "extracted, hoisted, and raised from a
mine" has remained consistent from the dump lien statute's 1910 inception through each
of its iterations. The statute's legislative history is consistent with its plain language and
suggests no reason to depart from the requirement that a dump lien attaches to minerals,
including gas, only when "extracted, hoisted, and raised from a mine." Thus All
American's argument that the legislature intended to extend a dump lien to unextracted
gas remaining in its natural reservoir is inaccurate.
4. Applying the dump lien statute as written does not lead to
glaringly absurd results.
All American's final argument is that requiring gas to be "extracted,
hoisted, and raised" leads to "absurd results" given that in 1933 "there was no
commercially-available technology to store natural gas anywhere other than in the native
reservoir" and that the "industry practice continues to be to store the gas in its native
reservoir once the well is drilled." All American asserts that, "[u]nlike other minerals,
natural gas is not extracted from a mine and placed into a 'pile,' nor has it ever been, nor
47 Id. The dump lien statute has been mentioned in four other cases. The
"dump" definition was revisited in two of these cases. D.H. Blattner & Sons, Inc. v. N.M.
Rothschild & Sons, Ltd. , 55 P.3d 37, 42-49 (Alaska 2002) (discussing dump lien statute's
"work" definition but not analyzing whether dump or mass existed); Studdert v. Tanana
valley Gold Dredging Co., 8 Alaska 267, 271 (D. Alaska 1931) (rejecting expansive
reading of 1915 statute and stating legislature intended "to refer only to . . . minerals
which were either deposited in dumps or piles, placed in hoppers or tanks or in sluice
boxes or bunkers, or other receptacles, located in the same place"). The statute was
discussed only tangentially in the others. Morris v. Rowallan Alaska, Inc. , 121 P.3d 159,
161 n.4 (Alaska 2005) (explaining appellant filed dump lien to satisfy judgment); In re
Naknek Elec. Ass'n , 471 B.R. 225, 236-37 (Bankr. D. Alaska 2012) (discussing
AS 34.35.140 relating to"work" definition used in mine lien statute).
-16- 7395
----------------------- Page 17-----------------------
could it ever be." All American contends that, by requiring gas to be extracted, the
statute would exclude "over 90% of the natural gas produced in [Alaska] from the reach
of the dump lien statute, and effectively nullif[y] the [s]tatute's application to the
industry."
To support its proposition that "in Alaska more than 90% of natural gas is
stored in the native reservoir," All American relies on an expert report introduced in the
bankruptcy court. The report examines the term "reservoir" and focuses on gas produced
specifically in Cook Inlet, stating that "some 10% of the overall Cook Inlet-produced gas
volume is involved in local storage operations on an annual basis." The report also
explains that "[n]one of [the several gas storage reservoirs in Alaska] were authorized
and active as gas storage reservoirs before 2001."
"We have recognized that '[i]n ascertaining the legislature's intent, we are
obliged to avoid construing a statute in a way that leads to a glaringly absurd result.' "48
But "[w]e have refused to nullify statutes, however hard or unexpected the particular
effect, where unambiguous language called for a logical and sensible result."49
Contrary to All American's contentions, we conclude that interpreting
AS 34.35.140 according to its plain meaning does not lead to a "glaringly absurd
result."50 As Cook Inlet and the State contend, historical sources and case law from other
jurisdictions indicate that gas extraction and storage existed elsewhere in the United
States when the 1933 statute including oil and gas was passed, and, as the State argues,
Alaska's 1933 legislature thus "could have reasonably believed that extending the dump
48 Gillis v. Aleutians E. Borough , 258 P.3d 118, 124 (Alaska 2011) (alteration
in original) (quoting Sherbahn v. Kerkove, 987 P.2d 195, 201 (Alaska 1999)).
49 Sherman v. Holiday Const. Co., 435 P.2d 16, 19 (Alaska 1967).
50 See Gillis, 258 P.3d at 124.
-17- 7395
----------------------- Page 18-----------------------
lien statute to oil and gas might at least have some potential practical applications." 51
The legislature may have anticipated upcoming technological developments in the oil
and gas industry and may have passed the dump lien statute and accompanying definition
to create a framework for Alaska's future oil and gas laborers. All American appears to
acknowledge that gas extraction and storage outside of a natural reservoir were possible
in 1933, quoting a geological survey providing that the "earliest successful [off-site]
underground natural-gas storage was completed in 1915 in Welland County, Ontario,
Canada. In 1916, operations were begun at Zoar Field near Buffalo, New York, but
52
(Emphasis
developments of many such facilities did not commence until 1937."
omitted.)
That only a "small percentage of natural gas" would be subject to a dump
lien does not nullify the statute. The legislature specifically chose to include gas in the
51 The State cites Robert F. Walters, Gorham Oil Field, Russell County,
Kansas , KAN . GEOLOGICAL SURv . (1991) and Daniel Johnson, Gasometers: a brief
history, THE TELEGRAPH (Nov. 26, 2013), which, according to the State, "indicate that
around 1933, extracted crude oil was sometimes temporarily kept in pools or tanks near
a well that could constitute a 'dump' or 'mass,' and technology did exist that would
allow gas to be kept in tanks called 'gasholders' in some situations." The State also
discusses a 1934 Kentucky Court of Appeals case, Hammonds v. Cent. Ky. Nat. Gas Co. ,
75 S.W.2d 204 (Ky. App. 1934), overruled on other grounds by Tex. Am. Energy Corp.
v. Citizens Fid. Bank & Tr. Co., 736 S.W.2d 25 (Ky. 1987), which suggested that
"produced gas could be injected into depleted reservoirs for storage." Cook Inlet cites
an Indiana historical source, Robert v. Kirch, Development of Underground Gas Storage
in Indiana, 54 I
ND . MAG . OF HIST . 3 (1958), noting underground gas storage in Indiana
began as early as 1916.
52 See Louise Jordan, Natural Gas Storage in Oklahoma , 19 OKLA . GEOLOGY
NOTES , 183, 183 (1959).
-18- 7395
----------------------- Page 19-----------------------
dump lien statute, and, as written, the statute can be applied without leading to glaringly
53
absurd results.
5. Conclusion
The answer to this first certified question is "no." The plain language of
the dump lien statute and accompanying definition excludes unextracted gas remaining
in its natural reservoir. The dump lien statute's legislative history and case law do not
counsel extension of this definition, and affording the statute its plain meaning does not
lead to glaringly absurd results. We previously have considered "the historical
importance of mining for precious metals and the present importance of oil drilling to the
Alaska economy," and have noted that "[t]echnological advances in the mining industry
54
But we also
. . . require us to adapt the language in [earlier] cases to modern times."
have recognized that "we must respect the underlying principles embodied in those cases
55
and the statutes upon which they relied." Because a dump lien cannot apply to gas
remaining in its natural reservoir that has never been "extracted, hoisted, and raised," All
American's drilling of natural gas wells did not create a dump, and a dump lien did not
attach under AS 35.34.140.
53 All American also contends that the statute should be read to "maximize the
economic recovery Alaska obtains with respect to the extraction of its natural resources."
All American claims that requiring gas to be extracted would result in "outside lenders
. . . obtain[ing] decades of benefits" to the detriment of local economies. Evaluating the
merits of this economic policy argument is a task better left to the legislature.
54
D.H. Blattner & Sons, Inc. v. N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Ltd. , 55 P.3d 37, 44
(Alaska 2002).
55 Id.
-19- 7395
----------------------- Page 20-----------------------
B. Natural Gas In A Pipeline May Constitute A Dump If Certain Factual
Conditions Are Met.
The second certified question, whether a dump or mass is created each time
gas flows through a pipeline, is a closer question. Based on the statutory definition, gas
constitutes a dump or mass if it: (1) has been "extracted, hoisted, and raised from the
mine or mining claim," (2) is "in mass," and (3) is "at the mine or on the mining claim
56
or adjacent to it." We hold that natural gas in a pipeline meets the first two
requirements, but we leave the question whether the particular gas in Cook Inlet's
pipelines is at, on, or adjacent to the mine or mining claim to the trier of fact in each case.
1. Gas in a pipeline has been "extracted, hoisted, and raised from
the mine or mining claim."
Gas must be "extracted, hoisted, and raised from the mine or mining claim"
57 All American, Inman, and the State agree that gas in a pipeline
to qualify as a dump.
has been extracted from the ground and hoisted and raised from its native reservoir into
the pipeline. But Cook Inlet argues that gas in a pipeline does not meet this statutory
58
requirement because pipelines are included in the definition of mine or mining claim,
and a dump must be "extracted, hoisted, and raised from a mine or mining claim ."
(Emphasis in original.) Cook Inlet contends that gas must be "removed" from the mine,
and because gas in a pipeline is still part of the mine itself, it is not a "dump."
Cook Inlet's argument fails to recognize either the breadth of the definition
of "mine or mining claim" or the distinction between a "dump" and its location or
container. The definition of "mine or mining claim" is broad; it includes five primary
56 See AS 34.35.170(a)(1).
57 Id.
58 See AS 34.35.170(a)(3).
-20- 7395
----------------------- Page 21-----------------------
categories of property: (1) "a block or parcel of mining ground"; (2) "all valuable
mineral deposits"; (3) various structures "below the surface of the ground"; (4) various
above-ground structures "affixed to the ground and used in the working, mining, and
development"; and (5) various "appurtenances," including roads and pipelines.59
Based on this broad definition, it is possible for a dump to be created if it
is "deposited" on or "placed in" property that is itself part of the mine or mining claim.60
61
For example, mineral-bearing sands piled on a "parcel of mining ground" would
qualify as a dump, as would oil pumped into a "tank[]"62 that also happened to be
"affixed to the ground and used in the working, mining, and development"63 of the mine.
Likewise there is no reason that gas in a pipeline cannot constitute a dump, even when
the pipeline itself is part of the "mine or mining claim."
Cook Inlet's suggested interpretation of the statute also fails to reconcile
all of the requirements in the "dump" definition. A dump or mass must both be
"extracted, hoisted, and raised from a mine or mining claim" and "in mass at the mine
64
or on the mining claim or adjacent to it." It thus is clear that minerals could not be
entirely removed from a mine and still constitute a dump. We instead interpret
"extracted, hoisted, and raised" to require that minerals must cease being "mineral
59 Id.
60 See AS 34.35.170(a)(1).
61
See AS 34.35.170(a)(3).
62 See AS 34.35.170(a)(1).
63 See AS 34.35.170(a)(3).
64 AS 34.35.170(a)(1).
-21- 7395
----------------------- Page 22-----------------------
65
deposits" that are part of the mine, not that the minerals must be removed entirely from
the mine and its component parts. Gas ceases to be a mineral deposit when it is severed
66
Because gas
from the land, i.e., "extracted from the soil and brought to the surface."
in a pipeline has been "extracted from the soil and brought to the surface," it has been
"extracted, hoisted, and raised from a mine or mining claim."
2. Gas in a pipeline is "in mass."
Alaska Statute 34.35.170(a)(1) also requires gas to be "in mass" to
constitute a dump. The statute provides that a dump is "in mass . . . whether it is
deposited in dumps or piles, or placed in hoppers, tanks, or reservoirs, or in sluice boxes
67
or bunkers or other receptacles." Consistent with the conclusion reached by the
territorial district court in Studdert v. Tanana valley Gold Dredging Co., we conclude
that the "whether" clause limits the ways that a dump can be "in mass" to the enumerated
65 See AS 34.35.170(a)(3).
66 38 AM . JUR . 2D Gas and Oil § 4 (2017) ("Gas and oil when unsevered are
a part of the land and after gas and oil are extracted from the soil and brought to the
surface, they are deemed personal property." (Internal citations omitted)); see Cont'l
Res. of Ill., Inc. v. Ill. Methane, LLC , 847 N.E.2d 897, 901 (Ill. App. 2006) ("Oil and gas
in place are minerals, but because of their fugacious qualities, they are incapable of
ownership distinct from the soil. . . . Oil and gas are incapable of ownership until actually
found and produced.").
67 AS 34.35.170(a)(1).
-22- 7395
----------------------- Page 23-----------------------
68
examples. The term "whether," when used as a conjunction, introduces "alternative"
69
possibilities that have "qualifying or conditional force."
Following this interpretation, the only way for natural gas to be "in mass"
would be for it either to be "deposited in dumps or piles" or "placed in hoppers, tanks,
70 Because gas has no
or reservoirs, or in sluice boxes or bunkers or other receptacles."
fixed shape or volume, it cannot be deposited in a dump or pile. We must therefore
determine whether natural gas pumped out of its natural reservoir into a pipeline on its
way to another destination is "placed" into a "receptacle" for the statute's purposes.
Cook Inlet and Gebhardt argue that a pipeline is not a "receptacle" containing a dump
because, unlike the statute's other listed examples, a pipeline is used for transportation,
not storage.
A "receptacle" is "[t]hat which receives or holds anything for rest or
71 We apply the ejusdem generis canon of construction and interpret the word
deposit."
68 See 8 Alaska 267, 271 (D. Alaska 1931) ("Clearly, in my judgment, the
Legislature intended, by the use of this language, to refer only to sands, earth, ore, rock,
and minerals which were either deposited in dumps or piles, placed in hoppers or tanks
or in sluice boxes or bunkers, or other receptacles, located in the same place." (Emphasis
added)).
69
See Whether, 10 A NEW ENGLISH DICTIONARY ON HISTORICAL PRINCIPLES
36 (C.T. Onions ed. 1928) ("Introducing a disjunctive clause (usually with correlative
or) having a qualifying or conditional force, and standing in adverbial relation to the
main sentence." (Emphasis in original)); Whether, 10 THE CENTURY DICTIONARY &
CYCLOPEDIA 6895 (Benjamin E. Smith ed. 1914) ("Introducing the first of two (or more)
alternatives, the second being introduced by or." (Emphasis in original)).
70 See AS 34.35.170(a)(1).
71 Receptacle , 8 THE CENTURY DICTIONARY & CYCLOPEDIA 4998 (Benjamin
E. Smith ed. 1914); see also Receptacle, 2 F
UNK & WAGNALLS NEW PRACTICAL
STANDARD DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1093 (Charles Earle Funk ed.
(continued...)
-23- 7395
----------------------- Page 24-----------------------
72
"receptacle" "in light of the characteristics of the specific terms" that precede it. All
but one of the statute's listed receptacles primarily are used to hold or store materials.
73 "Bunkers" are "large
"Tanks" and "reservoirs" both are used to store liquids or gases.
74 "Hoppers" also are bins or vessels that typically have a
bins" used to store materials.
door or chute on the bottom that can be opened to remove their contents, and can be used
75 76
for storage or as a temporary holding place. The outlier among the enumerated
71 (...continued)
1954) ("Anything that serves to contain or hold other things").
72 City of Kenai v. Friends of Recreation Ctr., Inc. , 129 P.3d 452, 459 (Alaska
2006) (quoting West v. Umialik Ins. Co., 8 P.3d 1135, 1141 (Alaska 2000)).
73 See Reservoir, Paul W. Thrush, A DICTIONARY OF MINING , MINERAL, &
RELATED TERMS 914 (1968), available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED059035.pdf
("A natural underground container of liquids, such as oil or water, and gases.");
Reservoir , 8 THE CENTURY DICTIONARY & CYCLOPEDIA 5101 (Benjamin E. Smith ed.
1914) ("A place where anything is kept in store: usually applied to a large receptacle for
fluids or liquids, as gases or oils."); Tank, A DICTIONARY OF MINING , MINERAL, &
RELATED TERMS 1119 (1968), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED059035.pdf ("A large
vessel or receptacle, made either of wood or of metal, intended to contain a fluid as gas
or water."); Tank, 9 THE CENTURY DICTIONARY & CYCLOPEDIA 6180 (Benjamin E.
Smith ed. 1914) ("A large vessel or structure of wood or metal designed to hold water,
oil, or other liquid, or a gas.").
74
See Bunker, A DICTIONARY OF MINING , MINERAL, & RELATED TERMS 151
(1968), available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED059035.pdf ("A vessel for the
storage of materials; the lowermost portion is usually constructed in the form of a
hopper. Also called bin."); Bunker , 1 THE CENTURY DICTIONARY & CYCLOPEDIA 721
(Benjamin E. Smith ed. 1914) ("A sort of fixed chest or box; a large bin or receptacle:
as, a coal-bunker." (Emphasis in original.)).
75 See Hopper, A DICTIONARY OF MINING , MINERAL, & RELATED TERMS 550
(1968), available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED059035.pdf (providing third
definition of "hopper" as "[a] storage bin or a funnel that is loaded from the top and
(continued...)
-24- 7395
----------------------- Page 25-----------------------
receptacles is the "sluice box." Unlike the other listed receptacles, sluice boxes are used
77
primarily to separate valuable minerals from waste minerals. But like the other
receptacles, they hold a quantifiable amount of materials in one place.
We conclude that pipelines are sufficiently similar to tanks, reservoirs,
bunkers, hoppers, and sluice boxes to qualify as "receptacles." Unlike tanks, reservoirs,
bunkers, and hoppers, the primary purpose of a pipeline is not to hold something, but to
78 But the inclusion of "sluice boxes" in the
transport it from one place to another.
enumerated list of receptacles indicates that a "receptacle" under the statute does not
75 (...continued)
discharges through a door or chute at the bottom").
76 See Hopper, A DICTIONARY OF MINING , MINERAL, & RELATED TERMS 550
(1968), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED059035.pdf (providing first definition of
"hopper" as "[a] vessel into which materials are fed, usually constructed in the form of
an inverted pyramid or cone terminating in an opening through which the materials are
discharged (not primarily intended for storage)" (emphasis added)); Hopper , 1 FUNK &
WAGNALLS NEW PRACTICAL STANDARD DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 640
(Charles Earle Funk ed. 1948) ("A tank or box-like receptacle for holding water, grain,
sugar, etc., which may be emptied by opening its bottom.").
77 See Sluiceboxes, A DICTIONARY OF MINING , MINERAL, & RELATED TERMS
1031 (1968), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED059035.pdf ("Long, inclined troughs
or launders containing riffles in the bottom that provide a lodging place for heavy
minerals in ore concentration."); Sluice, 9 T
HE CENTURY DICTIONARY & CYCLOPEDIA
5707 (Benjamin E. Smith ed. 1914) ("In mining, a trough made of boards, used for
separating gold from the gravel and sand in which it occurs." (Emphasis in original.)).
78 See Pipeline, A DICTIONARY OF MINING , MINERAL, & RELATED TERMS 824
(1968), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED059035.pdf ("A line of pipe with pumping
machinery and apparatus for conveying a liquid or gas."); Pipe-line , 2 FUNK &
WAGNALLS NEW PRACTICAL STANDARD DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 999
(Charles Earle Funk ed. 1954) ("A line of pipe, as for transmission of water, oil, etc.").
-25- 7395
----------------------- Page 26-----------------------
need to only or primarily hold its contents. In the process of conveying a gas, pipelines
do "hold" or "contain" it for a brief period of time, as a "receptacle" would.
As All American notes, it also appears that natural gas can be stored in a
79 In some pipeline
pipeline to enable a gas producer to respond to changes in demand.
systems, a certain level of gas must be stored in the system to maintain pressure levels.80
The gas stored in a pipeline is called "line pack," and its volume can be calculated.81 The
incidental storage function of pipelines is similar to that of sluice boxes, which are used
to separate gold from sand and gravel and likely only store the gold for a short time.
Because pipelines are "receptacles," we conclude that gas in a pipeline is "in mass."
3. Whether gas in a pipeline is "adjacent" to the mine or mining
claim to constitute a dump is a factual question left to the trier
of fact.
Gas in a pipeline also must be "at the mine or mining claim or adjacent to
it" to qualify as a dump.82 The statute does not clearly answer whether a large receptacle
located partly on the mine, but mostly off the mine, can qualify as being "at the mine or
79 See M.A.B. Ernst et. al, Line-Pack Management For Producing Electric
Power On Peak Periods , 31 APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING 42, 42-43 (2011)
("Line-pack is the storing of natural gas inside the pipeline network by boosting the line
pressure above the delivery pressure. The line-pack is useful to reduce abrupt changes
on compressor load.").
80
See Transw. Pipeline Co. v. United States, 639 F.2d 679, 680-81 (Ct. Cl.
1980) ("The line pack gas in issue, in the sense of a constant volume of gas, but not in
the sense of specific molecules of gas, is an indispensable and, in substance, an integral
part of the pipeline system, just as the pipe in the pipeline, or the compressors or any
other essential component without which the pipeline system cannot operate.").
81 E. SHASHI MENON , GAS PIPELINE HYDRAULICS 132-35 (2005) (providing
equations to calculate line-pack volume based on pipe diameter, length, gas pressure,
temperature, and compressibility).
82 See AS 34.35.170(a)(1).
-26- 7395
----------------------- Page 27-----------------------
on the mining claim or adjacent to it." To determine whether a pipeline that is only
partially on a mine or mining claim satisfies the requirement, courts will need to engage
in a fact-specific inquiry to determine if the off-mine portions are close enough to be
considered "adjacent" to the mine. Because neither the bankruptcy court nor the district
court made findings about the exact location and size of the pipelines at issue in these
cases, we leave these conclusions to the triers of fact.83
4. Conclusion
Because gas in a pipeline has been "extracted, hoisted, and raised" and is
"in mass," it may constitute a dump if the gas is located "adjacent" to the mine or mining
84
claim. This determination must be made on a case-by-case basis, and we leave to the
trial courts the answer whether in these cases the gas qualifies.
C. Dump Lien Claimants Must Prove That Their Work Aided, Broadly,
In Producing Minerals.
As posed, the final certified question asks whether dump lien claimants
must prove that produced gas is the product of their labor. The answer is "yes." Alaska
Statute 34.35.140(a) plainly requires that lien claimants make this showing, providing
83 Assuming that gas in a pipeline could qualify as a dump, both All American
and Inman argue that a corresponding dump lien should extend to all gas pumped though
the pipeline, not just the gas that exists at a particular point in time. Gebhardt argues, on
the other hand, that a dump lien would attach only to gas present at a fixed point in time,
and his counsel noted at oral argument before us that the legal implications of foreclosure
law compel that conclusion. Acknowledging these arguments, we do not address their
merits because they are beyond the scope of the question certified to us.
84
Cf. D.H. Blattner & Sons, Inc. v. N.M. Rothschild & Sons, Ltd., 55 P.3d 37,
54 (Alaska 2002) ("The determination of whether 'adjacent' or 'nearby' activities can
be considered part of the project must be made on a case-by-case basis and take into
account 'whether the activity could have been carried out at an alternative site closer' to
the project." (quoting Bd. of Trade, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Labor, Wage & Hour Admin. ,
968 P.2d 86, 92 (Alaska 1998))).
-27- 7395
----------------------- Page 28-----------------------
that the dump lien is "to secure the amount due the laborer in the production of the
minerals." (Emphasis added.) This is in contrast to AS 34.35.125, providing a lower
priority mine lien "as security for the payment of the work ." (Emphasis added.)
Laborers working on mines thus may obtain dump liens to secure amounts owed only
for work "in the production of the minerals"; other work may be secured by a mine lien.
Framing this certified question differently, the more important consideration
is the required connection between a laborer's work and the production of the minerals.
Alaska Statute 34.35.140(a) provides that a claimant may be entitled to a dump lien by
performing "any of the kinds of work mentioned in AS 34.35.125" or "any other kind
of work in the production, piling up, or storing of a dump or mass of mineral." Alaska
Statute 34.35.125, in turn, lists as work entitling a claimant to a mine lien:
opening up, developing, sinking, drilling, drifting, stoping,
mucking, stripping, shoveling, mining, hoisting, firing,
cooking, teaming, or perform[ing] any other class or kind of
work necessary or convenient to the development, operation,
working, or mining of the claim or well; . . . perform[ing]
work tending to or assisting in the developing, extraction,
separation, or reduction to a commercial value of the
minerals; . . . perform[ing] work on a water right, ditch,
flume, pipe line, tramway, tram, road, or trail, used in
connection with the opening up, or to facilitate the opening
up, operation, or development of the claim or well, or the
extraction of the minerals.
The statutory language describing allowable work in AS 34.35.140, and in
AS 34.35.125, by reference, is expansive. As the superior court found in D.H. Blattner
& Sons, Inc. v. USMX, Inc., dump liens "are not restricted to labor specifically devoted
to the production of minerals."85
We affirmed this conclusion on appeal, perhaps
inarticulately, holding that the petitioner in that case "need not prove that covered work
85 No. 4FA-98-1749 CI, at 11 (Alaska Super., Nov. 30, 1999).
-28- 7395
----------------------- Page 29-----------------------
86
produced the minerals against which the lien is claimed." By that language we meant
precisely what the superior court said, namely that "[a] fair reading of the statutes . . .
places a broad umbrella over the types of work that will allow a person to claim a dump
87
lien, beyond those who can prove they actually produced the minerals." Because
88
a
"production" encompasses more than bringing subsurface minerals above ground,
laborer may claim and enforce a dump lien by performing any of the kinds of work
mentioned in the dump and mine lien statutes. Whether a particular claimant's labor
meets these requirements is a fact- and case-specific inquiry, and we leave the answers
in these cases to the triers of fact.
v. CONCLUSION
The answer to the first certified question, whether All American's drilling
of gas wells created a dump under AS 34.35.140, is "no." We leave the answer to the
second certified question, whether Cook Inlet creates a dump each time it releases gas
into its pipelines, to the trier of fact, but we hold that gas in a pipeline may be considered
a dump if it is "adjacent" to the mine or mining claim. The answer to the final certified
question, whether produced gas must be the product of the lienor's labor as defined in
the dump and mine lien statutes, is "yes."
86 D.H. Blattner & Sons, Inc. , 55 P.3d at 42.
87 See Blattner, No. 4FA-98-1749 CI, at 13.
88 See Production, 2 FUNK & WAGNALLS NEW PRACTICAL STANDARD
DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 1045 (Charles Earle Funk ed. 1954) (defining
"production" as "[t]he act or process of producing" or "[t]hat which is produced or
made").
-29- 7395
 |
| Case Law Statutes, Regs & Rules Constitutions Miscellaneous |
|
