With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In our view, the recurring reference to wells and drilling combined with the rather general language relied upon by MRO makes the statute ambiguous. (519 So.2d at 1195). The court then cited this court’s opinion in Clarkco Contractors v. Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline, 615 F.Supp. 775 (M.D.La. 1985) and further noted: ... The Legislature was obviously concerned about wells and drilling, not about pipeline transportation or refining of oil, and this concern is reflected in this statute. We will not extend the scope of the statute beyond the legislative intent by broadly inte La.App. 4th Cir.1989), writ denied 547 So.2d 1317 (La.1989) (applying the Act to a contract for welding services on an offshore gas line platform) and Ferguson v. Stringray Pipeline Co., 672 F.Supp. 944 (W.D.La.1987) (<HOLDING>). While Murray and Ferguson distinguished

A: holding act applicable to contract for replacement of recuperators on a compression station on a natural gas line platform located offshore
B: holding that gas line is not improvement
C: recognizing the need for natural gas supply as a substantial public interest
D: 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
A.