Monsanto Chemical Co. v. Southern Natural Gas Co.
Citation | 234 La. 939,102 So.2d 223 |
Decision Date | 21 April 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 43467,43467 |
Parties | MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY v. SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY et al. |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Thompson, Thompson & Sparks, Monroe, Morgan, Baker, Skeels, Middleton & Coleman, Shreveport, for defendants-appellants.
Blanchard, Goldstein, Walker & O'Quin, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellee.
The plaintiff-appellee, formerly Lion Oil Company, now merged into Monsanto Chemical Company and continuing in that name, and defendants-appellants, Southern Natural Gas Company et al., 1 as owners of oil and gas leases covering the whole of Section 31, T. 17 N., R. 5 W., Bienville Parish, which is a 640 acre unit in the Bear Creek gas field designated the N. A. Culbertson Unit No. 1, entered into agreements on December 6, 1947, and February 10, 1948, integrating their interests in this section 'for the discovery and production of gas from any and all horizons, formations or zones.' In the contract it is stipulated that 'The leasehold estates consisting of said Section 31 * * * shall be owned, operated and developed as to all gas and distillate production from any one or more horizons, formations or zones, under the terms of this contract, for the joint benefit of Crow, Southern and Lion Oil Company, or their assigns, and all liability, costs and expenses incurred therewith shall be borne by Crow in the proportion of 18.75 per cent, by Southern in the proportion of 70.10 per cent, and by Lion in the proportion of 11.15 per cent, and they shall severally own the working interest in the gas distillate that may be produced from the premises covered by this agreement.' It is further stipulated that 'this agreement is to remain in full force and effect so long as said Section 31 * * * constitutes a unit for the development and production of gas from any horizon, formation or zone, whether under the terms of pooling and unitization agreements, or orders of the Department of Conservation of the State of Louisiana covering said unit, or any extension or renewal thereof, by production or otherwise.' In accordance with the agreement a well was drilled and completed in the Hosston formation of the unit. It is still a commercial producer.
Subsequently, in March of 1955, the Conservation Commissioner issued Order No. 78-F by which 126.4 acres were severed from the southern part of the Culbertson unit in Section 31 and, for the purpose of developing the Pettit formation of the Bear Creek Field, added to a 640 acre unit designated as the Hodge-Hunt Pettit Production Unit No. C-1 that, up until then, had comprized only Section 6 of T. 16 N., R. 5 W. The area thus severed is not affected by any of plaintiff's leases that were pooled in the 1947 and 1948 agreements, but is covered by the leases held by defendants.
Pursuant to the 1947 and 1948 agreements above referred to, Southern Natural Gas Company, as the operator of the Hodge-Hunt unit, is withholding from the proceeds realized in the sale of the production from the well brought in in the Pettit formation of this unit, which well is located in Section 6, that portion allocated under the Commissioner's order to the 126.4 acres severed from Section 31. The plaintiff, availing itself of the provisions of Louisiana's Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (R.S. 13:4231--4246) instituted this suit to secure a judgment declaring it to be entitled to its proportionate share, under the 1947 and 1948 agreements, of the amounts thus realized from the Hodge-Hunt unit well that are attributable to this acreage in Section 31. The defendants prosecute this appeal from such a judgment.
Defendants contend, first, that the suit cannot be maintained as the plaintiff does not question the legality of Order No. 78-F and has not exhausted the administrative remedy afforded it under the provisions of R.S. 30:12, 2 and, second, that the operating agreements on which plaintiff places reliance are inconsistent with, and therefore superseded by, this order in so far as it has reference to the development of the Pettit formation underlying the 126.4 acre tract.
The trial judge, in an able and well-considered opinion, answers both of these contentions adversely to the cause of the defendants, and, we think, correctly so, as demonstrated by his reasons for judgment, from which we quote the following pertinent observations:
3
On the merits the trial judge, continuing, says: 'We agree with plaintiff's counsel that in light of this statutory provision 4 the effect of Order No. 78-F is that that part of the production from the Hodge-Hunt unit allocated to the 126.4 acre tract in Section 31 is considered as if it had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Watson Oil Corp., 55575
... ... authority to use as an underground reservoir for the storage of natural gas, the Pettit Formation in the Lake Bistineau Field, Bienville and ... Watson cites Alston v. Southern Production Co., 207 La. 370, 21 So.2d 383 (1945); Hardy v. Union Producing ... Both parties to this litigation cite and rely upon Monsanto Chemical Company v. Southern Natural Gas Company, 234 La. 939, 102 So.2d ... ...
-
Frey v. Miller
... ... 835, 51 So.2d 87; Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company v. Southwest Natural Production Company, 221 La. 608, 60 So.2d 9, and Monsanto Chemical Company v. Southern Natural Gas Company, 234 La. 939, 102 So.2d 223 ... In ... ...
-
JHJ LTD. I v. Chevron USA, Inc.
... ... Hunter v. McHugh, 320 U.S. 222, 64 S.Ct. 19, 88 L.Ed. 5 (1943); Monsanto Chemical Co. v. Southern Natural Gas Co., 234 La. 939, 102 So.2d 223 ... ...
-
Humble Oil and Refining Company v. Jones
... ... In support of its position, plaintiff relied on the cases of Monsanto Chemical Company v. Southern Natural Gas Company, 234 La. 939, 102 So.2d ... ...
-
CHAPTER 15 FEDERAL ROYALTY ACCOUNTING FOR DISPROPORTIONATE SALES FROM FEDERAL UNITS AND CORRESPONDING STATE ISSUES (TAKES vs. ENTITLEMENTS)
...Petroleum Co., 280 F.2d 235 (10th Cir.) cert. denied, 364 U.S. 912 (1960) 15-43, 15-82Monsanto Chemical Co. v. Southern Natural Gas Co., 234 La. 939, 102 So.2d 223 (La. 1958) 15-73Montana Power Co. v. Kravik, 179 Mont. 87, 586 P.2d 298 (Mont. 1978) 15-62Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co.,......
-
CHAPTER 10 SPACING, FORCED POOLING, AND EXCEPTION LOCATIONS
...at Min. L. Newsletter Vol. 1, No. 1, at 13 (Rocky Mt. Min. L. Found. 1984). [185] See Monsanto Chemical Co. v. Southern Natural Gas Co., 102 So.2d 223 (La. 1958); Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Southwest Natural Production Co., 60 So.2d 9 (La. 1952). [186] See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34-60......