Hystad v. Industrial Com'n, 11044
Decision Date | 19 June 1986 |
Docket Number | No. 11044,11044 |
Citation | 389 N.W.2d 590 |
Parties | Dallas HYSTAD and Phylis A. Hystad, Appellees, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of the State of North Dakota in the Matter of the Proper Spacing for the Development of the Poe-Red River, McKenzie County, North Dakota, and Exeter Exploration Company, Appellants. Civ. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Rolfstad, Winkjer, McKennett & Stenehjem, Williston, for appellees; argued by Kent Reierson. Appearance by Dean Winkjer.
Lawrence Bender, Asst. Atty. Gen., North Dakota Indus. Com'n, State Capitol, Bismarck, for appellant Industrial Com'n of the State of N.D.
Fleck, Mather, Strutz & Mayer, Bismarck, for appellant Exeter Exploration Co.; argued by John W. Morrison.
The Industrial Commission of North Dakota (Commission) and Exeter Exploration Company (Exeter) appeal from a district court judgment reversing in part a Commission order establishing spacing units in the Poe-Red River Pool. The issues relate to the Commission's statutory authority to order different size spacing units for a pool when it enters its initial order establishing proper spacing, and whether an order for such spacing units was supported by substantial and credible evidence. We conclude that the Commission has the authority to order different size spacing units for a pool in its initial proper spacing order when necessary to prevent waste, to avoid the drilling of unnecessary wells, or to protect correlative rights. Within the exercise of its administrative judgment, however, the Commission must satisfactorily explain why different size spacing units are necessary to accomplish one or more of those objectives. Because the Commission has not satisfactorily explained its decision, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The Poe-Red River Pool underlies seven sections of land in McKenzie County, North Dakota. 1 In late 1981 and early 1982, three wells were drilled 2 in the pool. Pursuant to Section 43-02-03-18(3), N.D.A.C., 3 the Commission entered an order, dated April 13, 1982, establishing temporary spacing units of 640 acres for the pool. The Commission held a hearing to consider proper spacing on November 22, 1983. Because there was insufficient reservoir and production data from the three wells to establish proper spacing, the Commission continued the temporary order. Following a hearing on July 9, 1984, the Commission entered an order, dated July 19, 1984, establishing proper spacing for the pool at 320 acres for the four sections without existing wells and 640 acres with a second allowable well for the three sections with existing wells. (See fn. 2).
Dallas and Phylis Hystad 4 petitioned the Commission for a rehearing, asserting that the Commission overlooked certain statutory spacing provisions and that there was no evidence to support the Commission's decision for 640-acre spacing units on the three sections with existing wells. Following a rehearing at which the issues were briefed and argued but no additional evidence was presented, the Commission entered an order, dated October 17, 1984, affirming its July 19 order.
The Hystads appealed the Commission's order to district court and Exeter was permitted to intervene. The district court reversed the part of the order establishing spacing units of 640 acres with a second allowable well on the three sections with existing wells and entered a judgment establishing 320-acre spacing units for the entire seven section pool. Exeter and the Commission appealed.
The standard of review on appeals from an order of the Commission is specifically provided in Section 38-08-14, N.D.C.C., and requires affirmance if (1) the Commission has regularly pursued its authority, and (2) the Commission's findings and conclusions are sustained by the law and by substantial and credible evidence. Amoco Production Co. v. North Dakota Indus. Comm'n, 307 N.W.2d 839 (N.D.1981), where we also said:
* * *
* * *
" " 307 N.W.2d at 842.
The Hystads contend that insofar as the Commission's proper spacing order retained 640-acre spacing units with a second allowable well on the three sections of land, the order was not authorized by law. The Hystads' argument is premised on defining a "zone" as a "stratigraphic interval" 5 and the language of Section 38-08-07(1), N.D.C.C., that spacing units be of uniform size and shape throughout the pool unless the Commission divides the pool into "zones" and establishes spacing units of differing size and shape for each "zone." The Hystads contend that because there was no evidence of different stratigraphic intervals in the Poe-Red River pool, there was no basis for spacing units of a non-uniform size or shape.
Exeter and the Commission assert that the term "zone" as used in Section 38-08-07(1), N.D.C.C., refers to geographic area rather than stratigraphic interval.
Section 38-08-07, N.D.C.C., deals with the Commission's authority to set spacing units and provides in subdivision (2) that "the size and shape of spacing units are to be such as will result in the efficient and economic development of the pool as a whole."
The standard for uniform size and shape spacing units is provided in Section 38-08-07(1), N.D.C.C.:
[Emphasis added.]
The standard of a reasonably uniform spacing plan throughout the pool is also repeated in Sections 38-08-07(3) and (4), N.D.C.C.
The plain language of that statute authorizes the Commission to deviate from spacing units of uniform size and shape only when it finds that such a deviation is necessary to prevent waste, to avoid drilling unnecessary wells, or to protect correlative rights. The existence of different stratigraphic intervals is not a statutory requirement for the Commission to order different size or shape spacing units. The context of the language authorizes the Commission to divide a pool into geographic zones. If a zone were interpreted as a stratigraphic interval, the Commission would have the authority to divide a pool into stratigraphic intervals. However, a stratigraphic interval exists because of the geologic composition of the earth, and the Commission cannot create a stratigraphic interval if it does not exist because of the earth's geologic composition.
We also note that the legislative history supports this interpretation of the term "zone" as referring to a geographic area in this context. Section 38-08-07, N.D.C.C., is part of North Dakota's law for the conservation of oil and gas and was originally enacted in 1953. 1953 N.D.Sess. Laws, Ch. 227, Sec. 8. The legislative materials relating to the enactment of Chapter 38-08, N.D.C.C., state that it was based upon "the model act prepared by the Interstate Oil Compact Commission with amendments up to 1951." 1953 Report of Legislative Research Committee, Senate Bill 32, p. 66. The materials available to the 1953 Legislature included an article discussing the model act. Walker, Discussion: A Model Oil and Gas Conservation Law, 26 Tul.L.Rev. 267 (1952). As pertinent to the Commission's authority to establish spacing units, that article provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Sprynczynatyk v. Mills
... ... Both parties have correlative interests in the shore zone. Cf. Hystad v. Industrial Commission, 389 N.W.2d 590 (N.D.1986) (in determining ... ...
-
Northern States Power Co. v. North Dakota Public Service Com'n
... ... Backes, 437 N.W.2d 848 (1989); Hystad v. Industrial Commission, 389 N.W.2d 590 (1986) ... For ... ...
-
Egeland v. Continental Resources, Inc.
... ... covered by the Cenex leases is within an area designated by the Industrial Commission on June 1, 1995, as the Cedar Hills-Red River "B" Pool. The ... v. Industrial Commission, 448 N.W.2d 621, 624 (N.D.1989) ; Hystad v. Industrial Commission, 389 N.W.2d 590, 594 (N.D. 1986) ; Slawson v ... ...
-
Langved v. Cont'l Res., Inc.
... ... , Appelleev.State of North Dakota by and thru the North Dakota Industrial Commission, and Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General and Commissioner, Jack ... Hystad v. Indus. Comm'n , 389 N.W.2d 590, 595-96 (N.D. 1986) (internal citations ... ...
-
CHAPTER 2 STATE CONSERVATION REGULATION -- SINGLE WELL SPACING AND POOLING -- VIS-À-VIS FEDERAL AND INDIAN LANDS1
...1954); and Wood Oil Co. v. Corp. Comm'n, 239 P.2d 1021 (Okla. 1950). [26] For background on these problems, see Hystad v. Indus. Comm'n, 389 N.W.2d 590 (N.D. 1986); Hystad v. Mid-Con Exploration Co. Exeter, 489 N.W.2d 571 (N.D. 1992); Union Texas Petroleum v. Corp. Comm'n., 651 P.2d 652 (Ok......
-
CHAPTER 11 TERMINATING UNITS: CAN THE LIGHTS BE TURNED OFF?
...a compulsory unitization order. [17] Alaska Stat. § 31.05.110. [18] Haw. Rev. Stat. 182-9.5. [19] See, e.g., Hystad v. Industrial Comm'n, 389 N.W.2d 590 (N.D. 1986). See generally 5 E. KUNTZ, LAW OF OIL AND GAS §§ 77.3(g), (h), and (j) (1991) [hereafter KUNTZ]. [20] Cf. Benion v. Gulf Oil C......
-
CHAPTER 2 STATE SPACING AND JURISDICTION OVER CONSERVATION
...River Basin. [37] 569 P.2d 87 (Wyo. 1977). [38] 569 P.2d at 92. [39] Newman, supra Note 27, at 13-35 -42. [40] Hystad v. Indus. Comm'n, 389 N.W. 2d 590, 596 (N.D. 1986). [41] The importance of well economics in spacing decisions has been emphasized by the IOCC: It is clear that consideratio......
-
CHAPTER 5 HORIZONTAL DRILLING -- THE CHANGING ROLE OF TRADITIONAL CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES
...is clear that "zone" refers to a geographic area and not to a geologic zone or stratigraphic interval. Hystad v. Industrial Commission, 389 N.W.2d 590 (N.D. 1986). [47] N.D.Cent.Code § 38-08-07(4) . [48] In North Dakota, unlike many states, spacing is required to be established for each com......