an isolated phrase. We therefore conclude that the Anti-Indemnity Statute does not apply to the Tenneco-MRO agreement. (519 So.2d at 1196). As noted earlier, the Supreme Court of Louisiana has not addressed this issue. At least two courts have held that the “related to” language of the Act should be broadly construed. Copous v. Odeco Oil & Gas Co., 835 F.2d 115 (5th Cir.1988); Livings v. Service Truck Lines of Tex., Inc., 467 So.2d 595 (La.App. 3d Cir.1985). It is readily apparent that the decided cases are not completely harmonious on the applicability of the Act to a contract concerning services performed in connection with a gas transmission pipeline. One need only compare this court’s opinion in Clarkco Contractors v. Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline, 615 F.Supp. 775 (M.D.La.1985) (<HOLDING>) with Murray v. Trunkline Gas Co., 544 So.2d 28
holding that an agencys policy shift reallocating the burden of proof from natural gas importers to parties opposing importation was based on a reasonable interpretation of the natural gas act holding that the act did not apply to a pipeline contract between texas eastern a major natural gas transmission company and clarkco its pipeline contractor in connection with a pipeline explosion and fire which occurred in west feliciana parish holding that the natural gas act did not completely preempt state law claims within its scope and thus the federal court did not have removal jurisdiction over the contract price dispute filed in state court holding that permanent easement on land containing natural gas pipeline reduced value of directly encumbered land by 75 holding that permanent easement arising from condemnation of pipeline easement reduced property value by 20