Originally published for customers September 10, 2025.
What’s the issue?
A furniture store has sued Blackfin Pipeline, LLC (Blackfin) alleging a planned compressor station violates a restrictive covenant. Injunction requests remain pending, with trial set for May of 2026.
Why does it matter?
Blackfin’s pipeline will feed the CP2 LNG project via CP Express. A temporary injunction could delay startup, and a permanent halt would force project modification. Both would be costly for Blackfin.
What’s our view?
The main question is whether noise and hazard claims amount to a nuisance in violation of the covenant, and if so, whether an injunction is warranted.
A furniture store has sued Blackfin Pipeline, LLC (Blackfin) alleging a planned compressor station and associated facilities violate a restrictive covenant. Injunction requests remain pending, with trial set for May of 2026. Blackfin’s pipeline is envisioned to feed the CP2 LNG project via CP Express. Even a temporary injunction could delay startup, and a permanent halt would force project modification. Both would be costly for Blackfin. The main question is whether noise and hazard claims amount to a nuisance in violation of the covenant, and if so, whether an injunction is warranted.
On July 23, Bartholet Home Furnishings (Bartholet) filed suit to block construction of Blackfin’s 4-turbine Conroe compressor station that is “less than half the length of a football field” from the store. The station is part of Blackfin’s two-phase, 193-mile pipeline project that is envisioned to transport gas from the Houston Ship Channel east to Venture Global’s CP Express Pipeline and on to the CP2 LNG project. The pipeline phase is expected to be completed by the end of October 2025, and the compression phase sometime in 2028.
Bartholet’s petition asks for both a temporary and permanent injunction, claiming Blackfin’s project as constructed and as envisioned violates a “restrictive covenant” it has on the property. A restrictive covenant is like the opposite of an easement. Where an easement grants permission to conduct an activity or use land for a specific purpose upon agreement with the landowner, a restrictive covenant prevents a landowner from conducting certain activities.
Because the tract at issue has components that will be critical for both phases, even a temporary injunction preventing completion of the phase-1 facilities on the site which are already under construction (a pig launcher, receiver, and block valve) “would effectively delay or prevent the completion of the Pipeline.” As shown on the below timeline, both defendants — Blackfin and I-45 Montgomery Investments LLC (I-45) — have filed and Blackfin’s requested trial has been calendared.
The restrictive covenant came about before Blackfin acquired the property. It is worth breaking down some of the language, which states that Bartholet and the property owner cannot use their respective tracts:
Plaintiff’s case: Bartholet describes itself as a “high-end furniture and design store” dependent on “a safe, peaceful, and attractive environment for clientele.” Its expert claims that a 48-inch pipeline is uniquely hazardous, with the phase 1 facilities under construction causing pipeline blowdowns “as loud as and as strong as a jet airplane engine” and creating “extreme risk of fire and/or explosion with catastrophic consequences.” In its view, the envisioned compressor turbines will add additional noise.
Blackfin’s case: Blackfin argues that restrictive covenants must be strictly construed, and “noise” and “vibration” are not listed. It asserts that the compressor station facilities will “add little to the ambient noise” already emanating from the I-45 highway and industrial area next to the store consisting of a warehouse, loading docks, dirt bike course, and gravel pit. It also states that blowdowns would be infrequent, only occurring for maintenance and testing, and points to planned noise mitigation measures including a 12-foot concrete wall around the property, silencers used during blowdowns, and individualized enclosures for each turbine.
Blackfin also describes the risk of explosion as exaggerated, noting that the project will be in compliance with all regulatory codes, other 48-inch pipelines already operate safely, and natural gas dissipates quickly, reducing explosion risk.
I-45’s case: I-45 similarly argues that the project will be safe, but adds that the Bartholet Property is already subject to an existing oil and gas “gathering line” and appurtenant pumps and equipment, and that the covenant expressly contemplates the installation of gas utility lines.
Both defendants raise additional procedural defenses, asserting that injunctions require imminent harm and a sufficient bond, but the compressor station is not scheduled to operate until 2028 and Bartholet’s proposed $2,000 bond is inadequate in light of Blackfin’s projected tens of millions in losses if the project is delayed.
Most immediately, the court must decide if there has already been a violation of the covenant and if temporary relief is justified before the trial in May. The broader fight will determine if all of the alleged hazards fall within the scope of the covenant, and if so, how effective Blackfin’s proposed mitigations will be, and whether an injunction is the appropriate remedy after balancing equities.
At a higher level, this case illustrates that it’s not only federal lawsuits that can throw a wrench in project plans. State level litigation, particularly tied to landowner interests, can be just as important to monitor.
Browse recent blogs about a similar topic.
FERC reissued the Northeast Supply Enhancement Project certificate in a procedural first, but state Clean Water Act permits from New York and New Jersey remain uncertain ahead of NJ’s gubernatorial election amid rising energy costs.