Imperial Oil of North Dakota, Inc. v. Industrial Com'n of State
Decision Date | 28 May 1987 |
Docket Number | A,No. 2818,No. 11222,2818,11222 |
Citation | 406 N.W.2d 700 |
Parties | IMPERIAL OIL OF NORTH DAKOTA, INC. and Target Energies, Inc., Appellants, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF The STATE of North Dakota In the Matter of a Hearing Called On a Motion of the Commission to Consider the Application of Flying J Exploration and Production, Inc. for an Order Resolving a Dispute as to the Reasonable Actual Cost of Drilling and Operating the # 4-35 Skjelvik Well, located in the N/2 of Section 35, Township 150 North, Range 97 West, McKenzie County, North Dakota, as Provided in Orderppellee, and Flying J Exploration & Production, Inc., Intervenor & Appellee. Civ. |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Rolfstad, Winkjer, McKennett & Stenehjem, Williston, for Imperial Oil of North Dakota, Inc.; argued by Dean Winkjer.
Marvin L. Kaiser, Williston, for Target Energies, Inc.
Lawrence Bender, Asst. Atty. Gen., Industrial Com'n of North Dakota, Bismarck, for Industrial Com'n of the State of N.D.
Fleck, Mather, Strutz & Mayer, Bismarck, for Flying J Exploration & Production, Inc.; argued by John Morrison.
Imperial Oil of North Dakota, Inc. (Imperial), and Target Energies, Inc. (Target), appealed from a district court judgment affirming an Industrial Commission (Commission) order determining that interest is a reasonable actual cost of drilling and operating a well and that Flying J Exploration and Production, Inc. (Flying J), was entitled to recover interest from Imperial and Target at an annual rate of 12.72 percent on their proportionate shares of the cost of drilling and operating the Skjelvik # 4-35 well. We reverse and remand.
In September 1981, the Skjelvik # 4-35 well was completed as a Red River producer. On November 17, 1981, the Commission entered an order setting temporary spacing for the development of the North Fork-Red River Pool at one well to 320 acres. Imperial and Target did not agree with Flying J, the operator of the well and spacing unit, to share in the cost of drilling and operating the well.
On July 1, 1982, the Commission entered an order pooling all interests for the development and operation of the spacing unit for the Skjelvik # 4-35. In resolving a dispute as to whether or not interest is an actual cost of drilling and operating the Skjelvik # 4-35 well, the Commission entered an order on May 17, 1985, in which it found:
"(10) That the applicant [Flying J] presented evidence that from May 1, 1981, to October 10, 1984, during the time period of the drilling, completing and pay-out of the Skjelvik # 4-35 well, the applicant had an average outstanding debt obligation of $2,228,718, incurring an average interest expense of $283,478, yielding a weighted average annual interest rate of 12.72 percent."
The Commission also found:
The Commission ordered that Flying J was entitled to reimbursement of interest from Imperial and Target at an annual rate of 12.72 percent on their proportionate shares of the cost of drilling and operating the well.
Imperial and Target appealed to the district court, which affirmed the Commission's order. Imperial and Target appealed from the district court judgment and have raised issues relating to (1) failure of Commission members to hear the evidence and to specify the evidence relied upon; (2) retroactivity of pooling orders; (3) whether or not interest is an actual cost of drilling and whether or not there was evidence that Flying J was charged or paid any interest; and (4) a remand for consideration of new evidence.
In our view, the dispositive issue is whether or not Sec. 38-08-08, N.D.C.C., allows the operator of a well to recover interest from nonconsenting owners as part of the reasonable actual cost of drilling and operating a well. We conclude that it does not.
The standard of review applicable to the Commission's order is stated in Sec. 38-08-14(4), N.D.C.C.:
"Orders of the commission shall be sustained if the commission has regularly pursued its authority and its findings and conclusions are sustained by the law and by substantial and credible evidence."
Whether or not the Commission has the authority to order a nonconsenting owner to pay interest to the operator of a well under Sec. 38-08-08, N.D.C.C., is a question of law. "Administrative agency decisions on questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal." Slawson v. North Dakota Industrial Commission, 339 N.W.2d 772, 774 (N.D.1983).
Section 38-08-08, N.D.C.C., provides in relevant part:
Neither the Commission nor Flying J has asserted a longstanding Commission practice of awarding interest as a cost in contested proceedings. The Commission relies upon Wood Oil Co. v. Corporation Commission, 268 P.2d 878 (Okla.1954) for the proposition that the operator of a well may recover interest from nonconsenting owners as part of the reasonable actual cost of drilling and operating a well. The Commission argues that the court in Wood Oil Co. "correctly held that interest on the operator's own funds should not be charged since there was no evidence that interest was paid or that the incurring of interest was necessary to obtain production." The Commission also argues that the court in Wood Oil Co. "recognized that if the operator had been required to pay interest to develop the well and presented evidence of this cost, as in the present case, such costs could be recovered from the carried interest owners." We disagree. The court in Wood Oil Co. decided only that an operator who did not show that it was charged or paid any interest or that such expense was necessary to obtain production could not recover interest from a carried owner:
Wood Oil Co. v. Corporation Commission, supra, 268 P.2d at 885.
The court in Wood Oil Co. did not decide the broader issue of whether or not an operator could ever recover interest from a carried owner.
In our view, Sec. 38-08-08, N.D.C.C., does not authorize the Commission to order a nonconsenting owner to reimburse the operator of a well for interest on the nonconsenting owner's proportionate share of the cost of drilling and operating a well. An interest charge is in the nature of a "risk capital charge" , a "nonconsent penalty" [6 H. Williams and C. Meyers, Oil and Gas Law Sec. 944, p. 673 (1986) ], or a "risk penalty" [H.B. 1655, 49th Legislative Assembly (1985) (failed to pass) ], which the legislature has not authorized. 1 Absent a statute to the contrary, we believe that interest expense incurred by an operator in the drilling and operation of a well, like extraordinary royalty interests, is "an additional hazard to the drilling party's payout" [5 Summers Oil and Gas Sec. 974, p. 123 (1966 Ed.) ] in situations where a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Black Hills Trucking, Inc. v. N.D. Indus. Comm'n
... ... NORTH DAKOTA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Appellee No ... they may cause pollution of waters of the state" in violation of N.D.C.C. 612806(1). To resolve ... See Imperial Oil of North Dakota, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n , ... ...
-
Langved v. Cont'l Res., Inc.
... ... CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC., Appelleev.State of North Dakota by and thru the North Dakota ... a judgment affirming an order of the Industrial Commission to grant Continental Resources, Inc.'s ... See Imperial Oil of North Dakota, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n , ... ...
-
Dickinson Public School Dist. v. Sanstead
... ... Instruction, and the State of North Dakota, ... Defendants and Appellants ... Vanderhoof v. Gravel Products, Inc., 404 N.W.2d 485, 488 (N.D.1987); Olson v. Job ... , 373 N.W.2d 413, 415 (N.D.1985)." Imperial Oil of North Dakota v. Industrial Commission, 406 ... ...
-
Gadeco, LLC v. Indus. Comm'n of State
... ... 4052012 ND 33GADECO, LLC, Appellee,v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF the STATE of North Dakota, ... Continental Res., Inc. v. Farrar Oil Co., 1997 ND 31, 10, 559 N.W.2d ... See Imperial Oil of North Dakota, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n, ... ...
-
CHAPTER 16 DEALING WITH UNLEASED OR UNKNOWN OWNERS
...Energy Corp. v. State Oil and Gas Board of Mississippi, 524 So.2d. 569 (Miss. 1988); Imperial Oil of North Dakota v. Industrial Comm'n, 406 N.W. 2d 700 (N.D. 1987).[119] E.g., N.D. Admin. Code § 43-02-06-01 (specifying categories of information that an operator or other payor must include i......
-
POOLING AND UNITIZATION METHODS ACROSS SHALE BASINS (OR LACK THEREOF): OVERVIEW OF POOLING AND UNITIZATION IN NORTH DAKOTA1
...spacing units are necessary to accomplish one or more of those objectives."90 Imperial Oil of N.D. v. North Dakota Industrial Comm'n, 406 N.W.2d 700 (N.D. 1987) was decided prior to the enactment of North Dakota's risk penalty statute. The Court held that Section 38-08-08 "does not authoriz......
-
OPERATIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF AN OPERATING AGREEMENT: CONSIDERATIONS UNDER STATE FORCE POOLING LAWS
...[109] North Dakota Industrial Commission Order No. 3993, Case No. 3348 (May 17, 1985). [110] Imperial Oil v. Industrial Commission, 406 N.W. 2d 700 (N.D. 1987). [111] Form 610-2015, art. III.B. A typical pooling order usually will contain a limited number of terms. See, e.g., Industrial Com......
-
CHAPTER 12 OPERATIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF AN OPERATING AGREEMENT: CONSIDERATIONS UNDER STATE FORCE POOLING LAWS
...[109] North Dakota Industrial Commission Order No. 3993, Case No. 3348 (May 17, 1985). [110] Imperial Oil v. Industrial Commission, 406 N.W.2d 700 (N.D. 1987). [111] Form 610-2015, art. III.B. A typical pooling order usually will contain a limited number of terms. See, e.g., Industrial Comm......