Upon application, the court agreed to re evaluate, and the evaluation result was that the pipeline enterprise lost 726000 yuan.
In January 2016, the basic people’s court of Feicheng City sentenced Bao and other three people to commit the crime of negligently destroying flammable and explosive equipment, and sentenced them to a fixed-term imprisonment of one year and six months, with a suspension of one year and six months.
At the same time, in the pipeline crossing area, from February to March 2012, the cross reinforcement project of Cao’e River Bridge and embankments on both banks of the Hangzhou Ningbo Railway Passenger Dedicated Line Project contracted by China Railway 17th Bureau to be responsible for construction by the Hangzhou Ningbo Railway Passenger Dedicated Line Company began and completed.
The actual elevation of the pipe top at the projection intersection in the original design drawings was -13.8m, while the designed pipe bottom elevation was -28.1m.
and the project owner Hangzhou Ningbo Railway Passenger Dedicated Line Company compensate its losses totaling 10578393 million yuan.
The pipeline enterprise immediately filed a lawsuit to the court, demanding the industrial and trade company and the construction unit to jointly compensate the pipeline enterprise for its economic losses.
On March 7, 2019, the Feicheng City Court decided to compensate the pipeline enterprise with a loss of 726000 yuan in the first instance, and to compensate the pipeline enterprise by share for a power company, a village committee, Sun and other three infringers.
Through inspection, it is found that the pig is blocked at the construction site of bored cast-in-place pile for the cross reinforcement project of Cao’e River Bridge and embankments on both banks on the right bank of Cao’e River, that is, because the bored cast-in-place pile constructed by China Railway 17th Bureau damages the pipeline, the pig is blocked.
In May 2013, the Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court made a final judgment, holding that the industry and trade company and its construction unit violated the Regulations on the Protection of Oil and Gas Pipelines and should bear 80% of the liability for compensation.
Later, the pipeline enterprise filed a separate civil lawsuit against the above-mentioned offender and an electric power enterprise and a village committee where the offender belongs, requesting the court to reassess the loss of the pipeline enterprise and compensate according to law.
In order to successfully complete the construction of Yongshao Jinqu Product Oil Pipeline Project, a construction unit carried out the second construction of pipeline crossing Cao’e River from September 28 to December 1, 2012.
Since then, a construction unit has conducted pipeline pigging twice from May 31, 2012 to June 1, 2012, and from July 8, 2012 to July 8, 2012, and the pig has been blocked.
Based on the above losses, on July 15, 2013, a construction unit filed a lawsuit to the court, demanding that China Railway 17th Engineering Group Co., Ltd.
During the process of erecting the power line, they ignored the prevention of the pipeline patrol workers of the pipeline enterprise, and knew that there might be an oil pipeline near the excavation site, so they damaged the Luning oil pipeline and caused crude oil leakage, Some sections of nearby Provincial Highway 104 were closed for nearly 12 hours.
In recent years, with the development of local economy, the contradiction between various construction projects and pipeline lines has become increasingly prominent, and the pipeline has been damaged by third-party construction from time to time.
Therefore, even if the product oil pipeline was damaged by the bored pile driven by China Railway 17th Bureau, China Railway 17th Bureau and Hangzhou Ningbo Railway Passenger Dedicated Line Company did not have any fault..
According to this, the court, in combination with other evidential materials in the court trial, determined that a construction unit did not construct according to the drawing, resulting in the elevation of the pipe top at the original projection intersection point being only -13.8m, the design change was not filed with Zhejiang Qiantang Administration Bureau, and there were no clear warning signs and signs at the construction site.
From November 18 to 20, 2011, a construction unit conducted pressure test on the pipeline, and the result was qualified.
At the same time, it was found that the designed pile bottom elevation of bored piles constructed by China Railway 17th Engineering Group Co., Ltd.
After entering the court proceedings, the court found out during the court hearing that the project of a construction unit crossing the Cao’e River was not constructed according to the design drawings during the actual construction, and the original design of directional drilling crossing the Cao’e River was exchanged at the exit and entry points.
On this basis, the industrial and trade company and its construction unit were judged to compensate the pipeline enterprise for the economic loss of 615300 yuan in total.
（3） On April 8, 2010, a pipeline enterprise and a construction unit signed the Contract for Pipeline Installation and Construction of Yongshao Jinqu Product Oil Pipeline Project, which contracted Zhejiang Yongshao Jinqu Product Oil Pipeline Project – Pipeline Installation (Section II) to a construction unit for the third-party construction damage claim case of a directional drilling pipeline crossing Cao’e River.
The excavator entrusted by the construction unit cut off the pipeline of the pipeline enterprise near the 223 stake of the East Yellow Double Track Pipeline, causing crude oil leakage.
The court made it clear in the judgment that there was no management loophole in the pipeline patrol process of the pipeline enterprise, and the court did not support the criminal request to reduce the criminal liability.
（2） In May 2010, an industry and trade company in Qingdao (hereinafter referred to as “the industry and trade company”) demolished illegal buildings on the pipeline under the jurisdiction of the pipeline enterprise by itself.
The pipeline enterprise could not prove that it had orally informed Yuanping industry and trade company and its construction unit of the location of the pipeline and prevented illegal third-party construction, and it should bear 20% of the loss.
During the investigation of criminal cases, the public security organ assessed the loss of the pipeline enterprise as 310000 yuan.
This case is the first case in China where the court decided to bear criminal responsibility for the negligent destruction of oil and gas pipelines.
On June 28, 2011, the contract was submitted to Zhejiang Qiantang River Administration Bureau for approval, A DN508 product oil pipeline constructed by a construction unit crosses Cao’e River at about 38m on the right bank and 58m on the left bank of the upstream Cao’e River Bridge of Hangzhou Ningbo High speed Railway.
1、 Typical Case (I) Criminal Case of Third Party Construction Damaging Pipelines On April 17, 2015, Bao, a contract electrician of an electric power company, and other three people carried out rural power network reconstruction in Dashipu Village, Feicheng City, Shandong Province.
was -14.4m.
On January 5, 2012, the pigging and diameter measurement were conducted, and the inspection opinion was that the diameter measurement was qualified.
This paper starts with relevant typical cases, analyzes relevant legal issues, and puts forward suggestions for the next step.
Long oil and gas pipeline has many points and long lines.
