Gilmore v. Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

• Decision Date: 19 March 1982
• Docket Number: No. 5552,5552
• Parties: W. H. GILMORE, Appellant (Defendant below), v. OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION of the State of Wyoming, and Cities Service Company, Appellees (Plaintiffs below).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 773

642 P.2d 773

W. H. GILMORE, Appellant (Defendant below), v. OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION of the State of Wyoming, and Cities Service Company, Appellees (Plaintiffs below).

No. 5552.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

March 19, 1982.

Houston G. Williams, Richard L. Williams and Patricia M. Baird, of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, for appellant.

Joe Scott, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Casper, for appellee Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

Morris R. Massey of Brown, Drew, Apostolos, Massey & Sullivan, Casper, for appellee Cities Service Co.

Before ROSE, C. J., and RAPER, THOMAS, ROONEY and BROWN, JJ.

BROWN, Justice.

On July 1, 1980, the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (hereinafter referred to as Commission) entered its order approving a plan of unitization of the Hartzog draw field. ¹ Appellant appeals the unitization plan approved by the Commission and its affirmance by the district court.

The issue on appeal urged by appellant is:

"Were the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission with regard to the protection of Appellant Gilmore's correlative rights supported by substantial evidence and in conformity with law?"

We will affirm.

The Hartzog draw field is located in Campbell and Johnson Counties, Wyoming. The field is about 18 miles long and from one to three miles wide, embracing approximately 31,065 acres. At the time of the hearing before the Commission on the application to unitize the field, there were 177 producing wells with working interest ownership held by more than 80 individuals or entities.

The Commission took an interest in the field in April 1977, initiated numerous hearings and required the operators to keep the Commission advised of progress in development, production and the nature of the reservoir in the field. Technical committees and subcommittees of operators and their representatives met numerous times. Hearings were held before the Commission pursuant to § 30-5-104(b), W.S.1977. ² This provision of the law makes it the Commission's duty to investigate and determine whether waste exists or is imminent, or whether other facts justify or require action by the Commission. It eventually became apparent that reservoir pressure was falling to the bubble point. ³ The lower the pressure the more difficult it becomes to recover additional oil. The further the pressure falls below the bubble point, the less likely a successful secondary recovery operation can be accomplished. ⁴

A technical committee of operators and their representatives concluded that reservoir pressure had fallen from an original pressure of 5,000 PSIG ⁵ to slightly below the bubble point of 1,500 PSIG as of January 1979. This committee recommended that the field be unitized as soon as possible. It was estimated that the contemplated secondary recovery operation would recover 30,525,000 barrels of oil. Evidence before the Commission was that 1,800,000 barrels of oil would be wasted by a one-year delay in unitization and secondary recovery and 4,000,200 barrels by a two-year delay. In other words, 5,753.5 barrels of oil would be wasted each day that unitization and secondary recovery was delayed.

The Commission found that waste was occurring and would continue to occur by delaying secondary recovery, and as a result, after a November 13, 1979, hearing, ordered a curtailment of production pending unitization.

The operators held various meetings at which they voted on formulae to be used in allocating production under unitization. The 81 working interest owners considered a total of 71 formulae. Naturally, each of the owners wanted parameters favorable to them and wanted more weight to be given these parameters. After voting on almost 60 formulae, the owners were frustrated in their attempt to find one that would receive the statutory approval. As a result, they examined their voting records and used a computer to arrive at an equitable compromise formula that could receive the required approval. The resulting formula number 67 at issue here, received 75.89 percent approval. It appeared that no greater percentage would approve any formula proposed.

Section 30-5-110(f), W.S.1977, as amended, provides in pertinent part:

"No order of the commission authorizing the commencement of unit operations shall become effective until such plan of unitization has been signed or in writing ratified or approved by those persons who own at least eighty percent (80%) of the unit production or proceeds thereof that will be credited to royalty and overriding royalty interests which are free of costs, and unless both the plan of unitization and the operating plan, if any, have been signed, or in writing approved or ratified, by those persons who will be required to pay at least eighty percent (80%) of the cost of unit operations * * *. Any interested person may file an application with the commission requesting an order applicable only to the proposed unit area described in the application which shall provide for the percentage of approval or ratification by either cost-free or cost-bearing interests, or both, to be reduced from eighty percent (80%) to seventy-five percent (75%). * * * If the commission finds that negotiations were being conducted on the effective date of this act or have been conducted for a period of at least nine (9) months prior to the filing of the application, that the applicant has participated in the negotiations diligently and in good faith, and that the percentage of approval or ratification required by this subsection cannot be obtained, the commission may reduce any percentage of approval or ratification required by this section from eighty percent (80%) to seventy-five percent (75%). * * * "

Cities Service Company, one of the interested parties, filed an application requesting an order reducing the percentage of working interest owners and royalty owners who must approve unitization from 80 to 75 percent and requested an order approving the proposed unitization plan. On July 1, 1980, the Commission approved a unitization plan based on formula 67 and reduced the required approval from 80 to 75 percent. Formula 67 allocated unitization production based on eleven parameters or factors of varying weight. Formula 67 allocated appellant about 1.2 percent of unitized production. This was his share of the 2.25248 percent of unitized production allocated to his tracts.

Formula 67, which was approved by the Commission, allocated unitization production based on eleven parameters or factors of varying weight:

                PARAMETER                       WEIGHT
                ---------                       ------
                Usable Wells                     5.00%
                First Six Months Production     24.25%
                Peak Rate                        2.50%
                Wellbore Net Feet                7.50%
                Last Six Months Production
                  Ending March 31, 1979          1.50%
                Last Six Months Production
                  Ending March 31, 1979          1.75%
                Remaining Primary               14.50%
                Ultimate Primary                12.25%
                GLO (General Land Office)
                  Developed Porosity Acre Feet   5.75%
                GLO Porosity Acre Feet          12.25%
                

Appellant complains that some parameters of this formula are unfair, specifically, the last three months and last six months production ending March 31, 1979. He further complains that he receives a net acreage shortage of 33.66 acres. Acreages used in the unitization plan were based on an 1880 survey of the General Land Office (GLO). All parties agree that there were some inaccuracies in this survey. Owners caused a more accurate resurvey to be made.

I

Appellant appeals from the district court's review of a decision of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. This Court has had occasion numerous times to indicate appellate rules for reviewing a decision of an administrative agency. Section 9-4-114(c), W.S.1977, as amended, provides:

"(c) To the extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall:

"(i) Compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and

"(ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be:

"(A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law;

"(B) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity;

"(C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations, or lacking statutory right;

"(D) Without observance of procedure required by law; or

"(E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute."

In Board of Trustees of School District No. 4, Big Horn County v. Colwell, Wyo., 611 P.2d 427, 428-429 (1980), we said:

"For the purpose of reviewing the propriety of the district court's action, we will review the agency action as though the appeal were directly to this court from the agency. We are governed by the same rules of review as was the district court. (Citations.)

"Therefore, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency. * * *

" * * * Under this standard (§ 9-4-114(c), W.S.1977, as amended), we do not examine the record only to determine if there is substantial evidence to support the Board's decision, but we must also examine the conflicting evidence to determine if the Board could reasonably have made its findings and order upon all of the evidence before it. * * * "

In this appeal we may not substitute our opinion as to the weight and credibility of the evidence for that of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. In his statement of the issue, app...