BLOOMINGTON - Enbridge Pipelines-Illinois has seen progress in its legal battle for a controversial crude-oil pipeline, but negotiations with landowners for easements are moving forward more slowly than in similar projects, according to Enbridge officials.

Enbridge has agreements on 30 percent of the 700 tracts needed for the pipeline proposed from a terminal near Pontiac to Patoka. The pipeline would be part of Enbridge's pipeline network connecting oil fields in Canada to U.S refineries, some as far south as the Gulf Coast.

Negotiations are continuing with owners of another third of the needed tracts, said David Martin, Enbridge right-of-way manager. The remaining landowners include those who oppose the project for various reasons.

Enbridge has been working on two fronts for 18 months to secure the needed easements.

One is fighting in federal court to enforce a 1939 easement it says is still binding on many landowners along the route. The other front is seeking eminent-domain powers from the Illinois Commerce Commission to compel other landowners to grant easements.

Thomas Pliura, one of the attorneys for anti-pipeline landowners, criticized Enbridge's two-pronged approach.

"It's the chase for the almighty oil dollar," said the LeRoy attorney.

On the first front, Enbridge got a boost from federal Judge Jeanne Scott, who ruled in May that the easement agreement dating to 1939 remains valid.

Enbridge has contended it acquired a 1939 pipeline right-of-way along with its 2006 purchase of Central Illinois Pipeline Co. Most of the planned pipeline route would follow the 120-mile, existing pipeline built almost 70 years ago from Heyworth to Salem.

With the original easement still valid, Enbridge wouldn't need to get owners' permission to go in and replace the existing 10-inch diameter pipe with 36-inch pipe.

Enbridge also has filed 10 lawsuits since September against landowners who argue the existing easements are invalid. Additional lawsuits on those existing easements are likely to follow.

In a motion filed Nov. 7 in U.S. District Court in Springfield, Enbridge asked that the cases be consolidated into one. A second motion filed the same day asks that the cases be handled by Scott.

The landowners along the 1939 pipeline who have refused to meet with Enbridge were notified recently that an early sign-on bonus has been withdrawn from settlement offers, said Martin.

"At this point, they need to come to us," Martin said of landowners.

The remaining offer still on the table includes compensation for property damages, but owners are not offered money beyond the small stipend previously paid under the 1939 agreement, he said.

The sign-on bonus also has been taken off the table for property owners along other areas of the pipeline

route who have declined to negotiate for new easements, according to Enbridge.

In addition to the pending lawsuits, Enbridge is waiting on a ruling from the ICC that could allow the company to secure easements through condemnation. With eminent domain granted, property owners would have to grant Enbridge an easement at fair market value.

Pliura disagrees with the interpretation of the 1939 easement. He argues the old pipeline has not been maintained, and that lapse means the old easements are no longer valid.

Enbridge contends the pipeline was used in the 1990s to transport ammonia and was deemed viable in testing conducted for the first federal lawsuit.

Enbridge has estimated that the new pipeline could be in service in 2010, if permits, easements and market commitments are finalized.