Morgan v. Utah Bd. of State Lands
| Citation | 21 Utah 2d 364,445 P.2d 776 |
| Decision Date | 10 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 11219,11219 |
| Parties | d 364 John H. MORGAN, Jr., Justheim Petroleum Company, and J. H. Morgan, Sr., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. UTAH BOARD OF STATE LANDS, Charles R. Hansen, Cecil Thompson, Donald Schowalter, M. V. Hatch, Harold Reese, Whitney J. Floyd, Phillip Christensen and T. H. Bell, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Utah |
Phil L. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Dallin W. Jensen, Richard L. Dewsnup, Asst. Attys. Gen., Salt Lake City, for appellants.
Frank J. Allen, Brigham E. Roberts, Salt Lake City, for respondents.
The plaintiffs commenced this action to enjoin the defendants from issuing to a third party an oil and gas lease covering lands which were already subject to a lease running in favor of the plaintiffs and covering the oil contained in the bituminous sands found on said lands. We are here concerned chiefly with the issue as to whether or not the oil recoverable under the bituminous sand lease is the same mineral as that recoverable under an oil and gas lease.
Evidence was introduced in the court below as to the nature of the oil which could be taken from bituminous sands in rock formations and the oil which was recoverable in its mobile state from a natural liquid reservoir. The court found that the mineral recovered from either source was the same and enjoined the defendants from issuing an oil and gas lease on the lands in question.
Pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1959 the State Land Board had adopted the practice of letting state lands under two separate forms of oil leases. Two types of leases were approved by the Board and were known as 'oil and gas' leases and 'bituminous sands' leases. The oil and gas lease was designed and intended to permit the lessee to recover the mobile oil which would flow to a bore hole in a liquid state. The bituminous sands lease was intended to permit the lessee to recover the oil from the rock formation itself. The Land Board adopted the practice of issuing two leases on the same lands to different lessees, one permitting the extraction of oil in the usual process of drilling and the flow of oil by natural pressure or by pumping; and the second form of lease permitted the extraction of oil from the rock formation. It would appear that at that time the only practical process of recovering oil from the bituminous sands was by mining and quarrying the rock and thereafter processing the same to recover the oil therefrom. With new developments in the extraction and recovery of oil it became feasible to recover oil from the bituminous sands formations by the application of heat, pressure and by the use of certain types of detergents. These never methods permitted the extraction of oil from the rock formations without removing the same by mining or similar process. The new processes did in fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Utah Resources Intern., Inc. v. Utah Bd. of State Lands, 12131
...issuing a lease to others for the purpose of developing the oil shale on the land. In the earlier case of Morgan v. Utah Board of State Lands, 21 Utah 2d 364, 445 P.2d 776 (1968), this court determined that oil recoverable from bituminous sand was the same as that pumped from a natural rese......
-
Utah Resources Intern., Inc. v. Utah Bd. of State Lands, 12131
...the case,--which now we do,--reversing that decision, with no costs awarded. The present case is a sequel to Morgan v. Utah Board of State Lands, 21 Utah 2d 364, 445 P.2d 776 (1968), which we will call the first Morgan case, and which plaintiffs say is dispositive here. In our decision from......
-
CHAPTER 4 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF FEDERAL MINING LEASES
...v. Utah Bd. of State Lands, Utah Sup. Ct., No. 12131 (Sept. 30, 1971) (on rehearing); Morgan v. Utah Bd. of State Lands, 21 Utah 2d 364, 445 P.2d 776 (1968). [107] E.g., Sodium Lease sec. 2(n). [108] 43 C.F.R. § 3503.3-2(c)(1) (1971). [109] Coal Lease, sec. 2(n). [110] 43 C.F.R. § 3503.3-2(......