Opinion ID: 479383
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Market Pleaded

Text: 20 In this case, Consul urges that the relevant product is natural gas at the wellhead. The relevant geographical area pleaded is a strange amalgam of two natural gas fields in Mississippi plus any other areas in which Transco controls access to natural gas by virtue of the pipeline, but does not own the gas and would not transport it if Consul was able to broker it. 21 There is no way to establish Transco's market power in the market for natural gas at the wellhead on the basis of the above geographical limitation and the evidence presented by the parties. 14 The evidence did indicate that the producers at Greens Creek had numerous opportunities to sell gas to a large number of buyers other than Transco; that Transco bought only a small percentage of the gas produced in the county in which both fields lie; that Transco purchased gas all along its line from Texas to New York; and that the producers at Greens Creek considered attachment to the intrastate pipeline network a viable option. There is no indication that Consul's efforts to find sources of gas elsewhere in the country were foreclosed by Transco's power in the market. There is no reason to believe that circumstances rendered the two fields around which the instant events occurred economically significant portions of the national market for natural gas. Cf. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 336-37, 82 S.Ct. 1502, 1529-30, 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962) (regarding Clayton Act Sec. 7). There is no way to measure Transco's market power in an area as ethereal as sources of natural gas not owned by Transco but in close proximity to their pipeline and which would not be available to Consul as a broker under Transco's policies. While the market may not be measurable in metes and bounds, see Times-Picayune Publishing, 345 U.S. at 611, 73 S.Ct. at 881, it should be demonstrable in other than purely hypothetical terms. In sum, there is no reason to believe that the geographic market pleaded covered Transco's activities in a way that would encompass the area of effective competition between the parties, as brokers of natural gas. 15 22 We conclude that the district court was correct in granting judgment n.o.v. on the fourth Greens Creek 2.68 contract and in granting summary judgment on the 533 contract. 16 We reverse the refusal to grant judgment n.o.v. on the other 2.68 contracts. 23 AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART.