Anschutz Corp. v. Sanders, 61281
| Decision Date | 03 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 61281,61281 |
| Parties | The ANSCHUTZ CORPORATION, Appellee, v. Kenneth SANDERS, Appellant. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Birdwell & Pain by William F. Pain and Ronald J. Pool, Oklahoma City, for appellee.
Adcock & Flowers by Jon Flowers, Shawnee, and Abel, Musser, Sokolosky & Clark by Larry D. Bishop and Glen Mullins, Oklahoma City, for appellant.
Appellee, The Anschutz Corporation, is the holder of an oil and gas lease covering an undivided fractional interest 1 in an 106.7 acre tract in the northwest quarter of Section 19, Township 9 North, Range 4 East in Pottawatomie County. The surface estate in this tract is owned by appellant Kenneth Sanders. Appellee's lessor is the owner of a severed mineral interest in this property.
Appellee initiated the present action by filing a petition for injunctive relief to prohibit appellant from interfering with appellee's entrance onto the surface estate for the purpose of conducting seismic testing of the property. A hearing was had in the matter and a temporary injunction issued, enjoining appellant from interfering with appellee's survey and seismic exploration of the property. Appellant now challenges the propriety of the issuance of the injunction.
The basis of appellant's arguments on appeal is his assertion that the surface damages act, 52 O.S.Supp.1982, §§ 318.2 through 318.9, applies to an oil and gas lessee seeking to make entry onto the surface estate for the purpose of exploration activities. Appellant argues that the act does so apply and that appellee had no right to enter onto the land without complying with the provisions of the act.
Appellant presents a rather unique line of reasoning to support his theory. Appellant would have us believe that because the States of Montana, South Dakota and North Dakota have provided that their respective surface damages acts 2 shall apply to exploration activities, the State of Oklahoma must likewise have so intended. This reasoning founders on the basic tenets of statutory construction.
The right to go upon land to prospect for and take oil and gas is a proper subject of ownership. 3 Appellee's lessor was possessed of such a right in the surface property owned by appellant. This right was in turn passed to appellee by the terms of its lease. As explained in the case of Davon Drilling Company v. Ginder: 4
We are cognizant of decisional law which requires oil and gas leases to be construed in accord with reasonable intendment of the parties, if ascertainable from within four corners of the contract. Lewis v. Grininger, 198 Okl. 419, 179 P.2d 463. And, that a lessee has right of ingress and egress, and to occupy surface of the land to the extent reasonably necessary for exploring and marketing oil and gas. Rich v. Doneghey, 71 Okl. 204, 177 P. 86, 3 A.L.R. 352; Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp. v. Donelson, 189 Okl. 273, 116 P.2d 271. An oil and gas lease, either by express grant or by implication, carries the right to surface possession so far as necessarily incident to perform the obligations imposed by the lease. Summer's O. & G. (Per.Ed.) § 652; Pulaski Oil Co. v. Conner, 62 Okl. 211, 162 P. 464; L.R.A. 1917C, 1190. Basis of the rule rests upon the principle that when a thing is granted all means to obtain it and all fruits and effects likewise are granted....
Any subsequent legislative action taken in derogation of these recognized rights of access to the surface must be strictly construed against the abrogation of such rights. 5 The statutory scheme adopted by Oklahoma contains a clear definition of the term "operator." An operator is defined as one engaged in drilling or in preparations to drill. 6 The subsequent duties imposed by the legislation: to file a surety bond, to engage in negotiations with the surface owner concerning damages, or to file a petition seeking appraisement of those damages, are placed upon the "operator." One who is engaged merely in the process of geophysical exploration may, as a result of that exploration, determine not to drill at all.
The right of entry for the purpose of exploration has been previously recognized as part of Oklahoma decisional law. The legislation which appellant argues derogates that right is specifically addressed only to drilling and production operations. To infer an intent of the Legislature that this statutory scheme was also to function to limit the right to engage in exploratory activities is not a permissible result.
This conclusion is strengthened by the very authorities cited by appellant. The Legislatures of Montana, South Dakota and North Dakota, to apply their surface damages acts to exploratory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Copeland v. Stone
...Duesterhaus v. City of Edmond, 634 P.2d 720, 722 (Okla.1981).9 Title 12 O.S.1981 § 1280, see note 1, supra.10 Anschutz Corp. v. Sanders, 734 P.2d 1290, 1292 (Okla.1987); McVicker v. Board of County Comm'rs, 442 P.2d 297, 302 (Okla.1968); Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. v. Central Li......
-
Walker v. Oak Cliff Volunteer Fire Protection Dist.
...process, it is necessary to address the issue of equitable relief.21 Fuller v. Odom, see note 9, at 452; Anschutz Corp. v. Sanders, 734 P.2d 1290, 1292 (Okla.1987).22 Wade v. Brown, 516 P.2d 526, 528 (Okla.1973); In re Guardianship of Campbell, 450 P.2d 203, 205 (Okla.1966).23 Cook v. Hill,......
-
DuLaney v. Oklahoma State Dept. of Health
...for such meeting." 6 Title 63 O.S.1991 § 1-2415, see note 1, supra. 7 Title 75 O.S.1981 § 309, see note 3, supra. 8 Anschutz Corp. v. Sanders, 734 P.2d 1290-91 (Okla.1987). 9 Id.; Hinds v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 591 P.2d 697, 698-88 (Okla.1979). 10 Turley v. Flag-Redfern Oil Co., 782 P.2d ......
-
Morgan v. Okla. Corp.
...necessary for exploring and marketing oil and gas. Lierly v. Tidewater Pet. Corp., 2006 OK 47, ¶ 20, 139 P.3d 897, 903 (citing Anschutz v. Sanders, 1987 OK 11, ¶ 5, 734 P.2d 1290, 1291; Davon Drilling Co. v. Ginder, 1970 OK 51, ¶ 11, 467 P.2d 470, 472–473). See also Davis Oil Co. v. Cloud, ......
-
CHAPTER 1 THE COMMON LAW OF ACCESS AND SURFACE USE IN MINING
...the land, claiming that the only subsurface rights retained by the company were the rights to the coal.) Anschutz Corp. v. Sanders, 734 P.2d 1290 (Okla.,1987) (Surface owner sought to bar seismic exploration of his land by the oil and gas lessee of the mineral rights owner.) Atlantic Richfi......
-
CHAPTER 3 RIGHTS OF ACCESS BETWEEN SURFACE OWNERS AND MINERAL LESSEES
...mineral interest owner cannot exclude the exercise of such rights by other undivided mineral interest owners). Anschutz Corp. v. Sanders, 734 P.2d 1290 (Okla. 1987) (lessee entitled to enter upon surface to conduct seismic testing without complying with Oklahoma Surface Damage Act, 52 Okla.......
-
CHAPTER 3 EXPLORATION AGREEMENTS: ACQUIRING GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL DATA
...has been held, however, that the Oklahoma Surface Damage Act is not applicable to seismic exploration. Anschutz Corporation v. Sanders, 734 P.2d 1290, 1291-1292 (Okla. 1987) holding that Oklahoma Surface Damage Act defines "operator" as one engaged in drilling or in preparations to drill an......
-
STATE LAW REGIMES: BAKKEN AND MIDCONTINENT REGION (NORTH DAKOTA, KANSAS AND OKLAHOMA)
...to negotiate in good faith before being able to argue a breach of that duty by [operator]." [96] Id. [97] See Anschutz Corp. v. Sanders, 1987 OK 11, 734 P.2d 1290, 1291-92, the Oklahoma Supreme Court confirmed that a lessee has the right of ingress and egress, and to occupy surface of the l......