Kenai Oil and Gas, Inc. v. Department of Interior of U.S., 81-2141

Decision Date16 March 1982
Docket NumberNo. 81-2141,81-2141
Citation671 F.2d 383
PartiesKENAI OIL AND GAS, INC., a corporation, Bow Valley Petroleum, Inc., a corporation for themselves and for all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The DEPARTMENT OF the INTERIOR OF the UNITED STATES; James G. Watt, individually and as Secretary of the Interior; The Bureau of Indian Affairs; Thomas Fredricks or his successor, individually and as Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs; Curtis Geiogamah, individually and as Acting Area Director of Indian Affairs, Phoenix Area; L. W. Collier, Jr., individually and as Superintendent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Uintah and Ouray Agency; Ute Indian Tribe, a federal corporation; and Ruby Black, Charles Redfoot, Antone Appawoo, Floyd Wopsock, Leon Perank, Ouray McCook, Sr., individually and as members of the Ute Tribal Council, Defendants-Appellees, Reading & Bates Petroleum Co., Amicus Curiae.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

F. Alan Fletcher, Salt Lake City, Utah (Lawrence S. Skiffington, Salt Lake City, Utah, with him on the brief) of Pruitt & Gushee, Salt Lake City, Utah, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Martin E. Seneca, Jr., Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellee Ute Indian Tribe.

David C. Shilton, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Carol E. Dinkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Francis M. Wikstrom, U. S. Atty., D. Utah, Barbara W. Johnsen, Asst. U. S. Atty., D. Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Anne S. Almy, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., with him on the brief), for defendant-appellee Dept. of the Interior.

James C. T. Hardwick, Kent L. Jones and Mark K. Blongewicz of Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Collingsworth & Nelson, P. C., Tulsa, Okl., for Reading & Bates Petroleum Co. as amicus curiae.

Before BARRETT, McKAY and LOGAN, Circuit Judges.

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

Appellants are lessees of several oil and gas leases from Ute Indians 1 on lands within the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation. The leases were approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) on various dates beginning March 23, 1971. By their terms, the leases would expire ten years from the date of BIA approval unless at that time wells on each lease were producing oil or gas in paying quantities. Prior to the expiration date of the leases, appellants had drilled producing wells on only some of the land leased from the Indians. They had also completed at least one well in March, 1981, on non-tribal land that was within the boundaries of a "communitized area" proposed by lessees. Under a communitization agreement, operations conducted anywhere within the unit area are deemed to occur on each lease within the communitized area and production anywhere within the unit is deemed to be produced from each tract within the unit. Appellants proposed communitization plans in an effort to keep their nonproductive leases on Indian land in effect beyond the primary ten-year lease term by including these nonproductive leases in a communitized area containing at least one producing well.

All communitization agreements on restricted Indian land must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, or his designate, in this case, the Superintendent of the BIA. Appellants' proposed communitization plan was presented to the Superintendent's office shortly before the leases were to expire. The Superintendent refused to approve the proposed communitization agreements because he determined they did not serve the best interests of the Indians. The Superintendent's refusal to approve the proposed agreements would result in immediate expiration of all nonproductive leases at the end of ten years.

On March 23, 1981, the date the first nonproductive leases were to expire, lessees filed a complaint in federal district court seeking a declaration that the Superintendent's action was invalid and an injunction ordering the Superintendent to approve the agreements. The district court entered a temporary restraining order suspending the terms of the leases to prevent their immediate expiration pending a decision on the motion for preliminary injunction. After a hearing, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. Thereafter, the district court also denied plaintiffs' motion for an injunction pending appeal, but continued the interim relief for two weeks, to keep the leases in effect while plaintiffs appealed. This court further extended the suspension of the lease terms pending an expedited review of the district court's denial of injunctive relief.

It is well settled that the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and may be set aside only if it is based on an error of law or constitutes an abuse of discretion. Lundgrin v. Claytor, 619 F.2d 61, 63 (10th Cir. 1980). In deciding the motion for preliminary injunction, the district court properly placed the burden on the lessees to establish:

(1) (a) substantial likelihood that the movant will eventually prevail on the merits; (2) a showing that the movant will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues; (3) proof that the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) a showing that the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest.

619 F.2d at 63. The district court determined that the lessees had carried their burden of proof with respect to the last three points, but denied injunctive relief because the lessees had not demonstrated a substantial likelihood that they would eventually prevail on the merits. We agree with the district court's determination that the lessees would be harmed by losing the 1971 leases, that this harm outweighed any potential injury to the defendants, and that an injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. The sole issue on appeal, therefore, is whether the court properly denied injunctive relief based on its determination that lessees had failed to show that they were likely to prevail on the merits.

When all other prerequisites to injunctive relief have been established, plaintiff need only raise "questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult and doubtful as to make them a fair ground for litigation and thus for more deliberate investigation" to satisfy the requirement of showing a likelihood of succeeding on the merits. Lundgrin v. Claytor, 619 F.2d 61, 63 (10th Cir. 1980) (quoting Continental Oil Co. v. Frontier Refining Co., 338 F.2d 780, 781-82 (10th Cir. 1964). Clearly, the issues presented in this case are serious and substantial. However, in our opinion, there is little doubt as to the proper resolution of the legal issues involved, and the district court correctly determined that lessees had little, if any, chance of succeeding on the merits of their claim.

Approval of communitization agreements is within the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior or his delegate. Section 396d of Title 25 of the United States Code states:

All operations under any oil, gas, or other mineral lease issued pursuant to the terms of any act affecting restricted Indian lands shall be subject to the rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior. In the discretion of the said Secretary, any lease for oil or gas issued under the provisions of sections 396a-396g of this title shall be made subject to the terms of any reasonable cooperative unit or other plan approved or prescribed by said Secretary prior or subsequent to the issuance of any such lease which involves the development or production of oil or gas from land covered by such lease.

(Emphasis added). The regulations promulgated pursuant to this statute require approval of cooperative agreements before they become effective.

All such leases shall be subject to any cooperative or unit development plan affecting the leased lands that may be required by the Secretary of the Interior, but no lease shall be included in any cooperative or unit plan without prior approval of the Secretary of the Interior and consent of the Indian tribe affected.

25 C.F.R. § 171.21(b) (emphasis added).

The district court determined that under these statutory and regulatory provisions, a decision not to approve the communitization agreements was "agency action ... committed to agency discretion by law" pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2), and hence unreviewable. Alternatively, the court stated that even if the agency action was reviewable, the Superintendent's refusal to approve the communitization agreements was neither arbitrary, capricious nor an abuse of discretion. While we disagree that the Superintendent's actions are not subject to judicial review, we agree that the Superintendent acted within his discretion when he refused to approve the proposed communitization agreements.

The Supreme Court has stated that § 701(a)(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) precludes judicial review "in those rare instances where 'statutes are drawn in such broad terms that in a given case there is no law to apply.' " Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 410, 91 S.Ct. 814, 820, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). This court has recognized that there is a presumption of judicial reviewability, and that exceptions to this general rule are rare. See, e.g., Sabin v. Butz, 515 F.2d 1061, 1065 (10th Cir. 1975); National Helium Corp. v. Morton, 455 F.2d 650, 655 n.12 (10th Cir. 1971). While it is true that 25 U.S.C. § 396d and 25 C.F.R. § 171.21(b) do not detail any specific standards governing the exercise of the Secretary's discretion in approving communitization agreements, those actions nevertheless are limited by the fiduciary responsibilities vested in the United States as trustee of Indian lands. Pursuant to the trust responsibilities of the United States, the ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
55 cases
  • State ex rel. Suthers v. Cash Ad. and Pref.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • April 17, 2008
    ... ... Hardin, Administrator, Oklahoma Department of Consumer Credit; Deb Bortner, Division ... Two corporations, Miami Nations Enterprises, Inc. (MNE), and SFS, Inc. (SFS), filed a joint motion ... not contain sufficient information to allow us to determine the nature of those connections, we ... 1989); Kenai Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Dep't of Interior, 522 ... ...
  • Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma v. State of Okl. ex rel. Thompson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • May 3, 1989
    ... ... (1907); see generally Indian Country, U.S.A., Inc. v. Okla. Tax Comm'n., 829 F.2d 967, 976-81 (10th ... not only have been approved by the Department of the Interior and other Cabinet departments, ... weight in circumstances like those before us. This is not a case involving off-reservation ... Co., 673 F.2d at 320; see also Kenai Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Department of Interior, 522 ... ...
  • Woods Petroleum Corp. v. Department of Interior
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • February 9, 1995
    ... ... Wayne Twins; Tomlinson Properties, Inc., Defendants-Appellees ... No. 92-6053 ... United ... Sec. 396 to disapprove a proposed oil and gas communization agreement that includes Indian-owned mineral ... to be produced from each tract within the unit." Kenai Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Dep't of the Interior, 671 F.2d 383, 384 ... finding that, "[o]n the totality of the record before us," the decision constituted an abuse of discretion. Cotton ... ...
  • United States ex rel. Shakopee v. Pan American Management
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • August 9, 1985
    ... ... HODEL, Secretary United States Department of Interior, and John W. Fritz, Deputy Assistant ... Defendants Pan American Management Co., Inc., 1 New England Entertainment Company, John ... United States as trustee of Indian lands." Kenai Oil & Gas Inc. v. Dep't of Interior, 671 F.2d ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 books & journal articles
  • "A TRAVESTY OF A MOCKERY OF A SHAM": THE FEDERAL TRUST DUTY AND INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Natural Resources Development and Environmental Regulation in Indian Country (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...right." Id. at 537. The reasoning of Gray has been applied to mineral leases. See Kenai Oil and Gas, Inc. v. Dep't of the Interior, 671 F.2d 383, 386 (10th Cir. 1982) (citing Gray in affirming Secretary's refusal to approve communitization agreements); Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma v.......
  • CHAPTER 2 STATE CONSERVATION REGULATION -- SINGLE WELL SPACING AND POOLING -- VIS-À-VIS FEDERAL AND INDIAN LANDS1
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Pooling and Unitization (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...Alaska natives as well as tribal lands. 25 C.F.R. § 211.3 and § 212.3. [76] 76. See, e.g., Kenai Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Dep't of the Interior, 671 F.2d 383 (10 Cir. 1982); Samedan Oil Corp. v. Cotton Petroleum Corp., 466 F. Supp. 521 (W.D. Okla. 1978); and San Juan Citizens Alliance, 129 IBLA 1......
  • CHAPTER 1 BASICS OF SUCCESSFUL NATURAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN INDIAN COUNTRY
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Natural Resources Development in Indian Country (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...F.3d 1315, 1324 (10%gth%g Cir. 1997). [67] .Kenai Oil & Gas. Inc. v. Department of the Interior, 522 F. Supp. 521 (D. Utah 1981), aff'd, 671 F.2d 383 (10%gth%g Cir. 1982). [68] .Ramey v. Construction Co. v. Apache Tribe of Mescalero Reservation, 673 F.2d 315 (10%gth%g Cir. 1982). [69] .Stoc......
  • WAIVING SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY GROWS TRICKIER
    • United States
    • FNREL - Journals Waiving Sovereign Immunity Grows Trickier (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...at issue was unquestioned. 725 F.2d 572 (citing, e.g., Kenai Oil and Gas, Inc. v. Dept. of Interior, 521 (D. Utah), aff'd and remanded, 671 F.2d 383 (10th Cir. Utah 1982)). [19] The Fifth Circuit draws a distinction between actions for damages and suits for declaratory and injunctive relief......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT