Gulf Oil Corp. v. Andrus, Civ. No. 77-2287-HP.
| Decision Date | 21 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 77-2287-HP. |
| Citation | 460 F. Supp. 15 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | GULF OIL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Cecil D. ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior of the United States, Vincent T. McKelvey, Director of the United States Geological Survey, W. A. Radlinski, Deputy Director of the United States Geological Survey, F. J. Schambeck, Oil and Gas Supervisor, Pacific Area, Geological Survey Conservation Division, Defendants. |
J. L. O'Laughlin, Wm. V. Kastler, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.
James W. Moorman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Land & Natural Resources Div., Washington, D. C., Andrea Sheridan Ordin, U. S. Atty., C. D. Cal., Los Angeles, Cal., Gerald S. Fish, Atty. — Land & Natural Resources Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. After considering the pleadings and the memoranda of law submitted by both parties as well as the oral argument heard on May 22, 1978, the court determines that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should be granted and defendant's motion for summary judgment should be denied.
This action concerns three federal oil and gas leases owned and operated by plaintiff Gulf Oil Corporation as lessee. The leases, granted by the federal government as lessor pursuant to Section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 30 U.S.C. § 226, are described as follows: Sacramento 019376, issued effective December 1, 1939; Los Angeles 055472, issued effective April 1, 1944; and Sacramento 040666, issued effective September 1, 1946. Each lease provides in Section 2(e) that the lessee will pay to the lessor royalty "on the amount or value of all production from the lands (except that portion thereof used for production purposes on said lands or unavoidably lost)." Until about November 1974, similar language had been used as a standard provision of federal oil and gas leases issued after enactment of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 30 U.S.C. §§ 181 et seq.
In November 1974, the Department of the Interior (the "Department"), through F. J. Shambeck, United States Geological Survey, Oil and Gas Supervisor for the Pacific Area, issued a "Notice to Lessees and Operators of Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leases" (NTL-4). NTL-4 requires onshore federal oil and gas lessees to pay royalty on all oil and gas produced at the well after November 1974, including that produced from and used on the lease for production purposes.
On May 24, 1976, Gulf Oil Corporation notified the District Engineer, United States Geological Survey, Bakersfield, California, of its intention to begin cyclic steam injection for production purposes on Los Angeles Lease 055472 and to fuel the generator with crude oil produced from the leasehold. Despite contrary language found in Section 2(e) of Lease 055472, the District Engineer notified plaintiff that NTL-4 required payment of royalty on crude oil produced from the leasehold and used to fuel the steam generator. The decision to apply NTL-4 to plaintiff's lease was appealed unsuccessfully to the Director, United States Geological Survey, and to the Secretary of the Interior. The adverse decision was applied to plaintiff's other two leases as well.
Section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (the "Act"), 30 U.S.C. § 226, is the asserted basis for the newly-imposed royalty requirement set out in NTL-4. From the time of its enactment in 1920 until its amendment in 1946, Section 17 provided for the payment of royalty on the "amount or value of production." This language differed from that contained in Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 227 and 228, wherein oil and gas produced from and used on the lease for production purposes were specifically exempted from royalty payments. Despite this difference, the Department interpreted all three sections uniformly. Thus, during the time period 1920-1946, the Department consistently interpreted Section 17 as not requiring royalty to be paid on total oil and gas production at the well. Accordingly, oil and gas produced from and used on federal leaseholds for production purposes was exempt from royalty obligations. The royalty provisions of plaintiff's three leases, signed during this time period, are consistent with the Department's earlier interpretation. NTL-4's royalty requirements, however, are contrary to this interpretation.
In support of NTL-4, defendants assert that the Department's interpretation of Section 17 during this 26-year period was erroneous. They argue that the exemptions from royalty obligations specifically set out in Sections 18 and 19 should not have been applied to leases, such as plaintiff's, issued under Section 17. They contend that since express statutory authority for such exemptions did not exist under Section 17, any lease provisions purporting to grant the exemptions are invalid. Defendants thus conclude that the provisions of plaintiff's leases exempting from payment of royalty oil and gas produced from and used on the leasehold for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amoco Production Co. v. Hodel, 86-4168
...Marathon Oil Co. v. Kleppe, 556 F.2d 982 (10th Cir.1977); Amoco Prod. Co. v. Andrus, 527 F.Supp. 790 (E.D.La.1981); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Andrus, 460 F.Supp. 15 (C.D.Cal.1978); Marathon Oil Co. v. Andrus, 452 F.Supp. 548 (D.Wyo.1978); Standard Oil Co. v. Hickel, 317 F.Supp. 1192 (D.Alaska 1970)......
-
Ringe v. Romero
... ... James ROMERO, et al ... Civ. A. No. 84-2135 "L" ... United States District Court, ... pursuant to a statutory scheme, Colonnade Catering Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S. 72, 90 S.Ct. 774, 25 L.Ed.2d ... ...
-
Amoco Production Co. v. Andrus
...to the Act to clarify that royalty could not be collected on Lost and Used Hydrocarbons. Two courts have so held. In Gulf Oil Corp. v. Andrus, 460 F.Supp. 15 (D.Cal.) and Marathon Oil Company v. Andrus, 452 F.Supp. 548 (D.Wyo.1978) the courts held that the government could not collect royal......
-
ROYALTY VALUATION PROCEDURES
...of clarifying that royalties could not be collected on lost and used hydrocarbons. 527 F. Supp. at 792, citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Andrus, 460 F. Supp. 15 (D. Cal. 1978) and Marathon Oil Co. v. Andrus, 452 F. Supp. 548 (D. Wyo. 1978). The fact that the Interior Department had long interpreted......
-
CHAPTER 1 WHAT'S BEHIND THE VALUATION CONTROVERSY ANYWAY?
...and limited by the Mineral Leasing Act ... and Regulations lawfully adopted pursuant thereto."). [35] E.g., Gulf Oil Corp. v. Andrus, 460 F. Supp. 15, 17 (C.D. Cal. 1978) (relying upon legislative history to overturn Department's NTL-4 and noting the Department "apparently overlooked" the l......
-
CHAPTER 4 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RULES AFFECTING ROYALTY REPORTING AND PAYMENT
...production purposes or unavoidably lost were not subject to royalty payments to the government."). See also Gulf Oil Corp. v. Andrus, 460 F. Supp. 15 (C.D. Cal. 1978). [108] The federal courts confirmed this interpretation in the late 1970s after the Department of the Interior attempted to ......
-
THE "DUTY TO MARKET" DOWNSTREAM AT NO COST TO THE LESSOR (THE ALLEGED FEDERAL "DUTY TO MARKET")
...Jan. 1, 2000). [158] De Los Santos, supra n. 46. [159] See 30 U.S.C. § 226, 43 U.S.C. §1337(a)(1). [160] Gulf Oil corp. v. Andrus, 460 F.Supp. 15, 17 (C.D. Cal. 1978); BWAB, Inc., 108 IBLA 250 (1989). [161] Supra, n. 100. [162] See 30 C.F.R. 221.35 (1943); 30 C.F.R. 250.41(b) (1956). [163] ......