Superior Oil Co. v. State Oil and Gas Bd., 45405

Decision Date17 March 1969
Docket NumberNo. 45405,45405
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesSUPERIOR OIL COMPANY, a Nevada Corporation and Gulf Oil Corporation, a Pennsylvania Corporation v. STATE OIL AND GAS BOARD of Mississippi and B & D Corporation.

Thomas, Alston, Davis & Coleman, Jackson, Martha Gerald, James A. Boone, Charles C. Hairston, for appellants.

Joe T. Patterson, Atty. Gen., by Martin R. McLendon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, Heidelberg, Woodliff & Franks, for appellees.

ETHRIDGE, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Hinds County affirming an order of the State Oil and Gas Board, and involves primarily an order of the Board amending the field rules and redefining the gas pools in part of the Gwinville Field of Jefferson Davis and Simpson Counties. We hold that there is substantial evidence to support it and two related orders.

In 1952 the Board adopted special field rules for the Eutaw-Upper Tuscaloosa Gas Pool in the Gwinville Field. They defined that pool as follows:

The Eutaw-Upper Tuscaloosa Gas Pool as used herein shall be construed to mean those strata of the Eutaw-Upper Tuscaloosa formation productive of gas from the depths of 7100 feet subsea and 7800 subsea.

B & D Corporation filed with the Board a petition to redefine the Eutaw-Upper Tuscaloosa Gas Pool, by designating two separate and distinct gas pools in a part of the Gwinville Field, to be called 'A' and 'B' Pools. The petition was contested by Gulf Oil Corporation and Superior Oil Company, appellants. At the hearing before the Board, petitioner produced three witnesses: its geologist, a consulting engineer specializing in log evaluation, and a consulting petroleum engineer. Contestants' three witnesses were a petroleum engineer employed by Superior, and a geologist and a production engineer representing Gulf. The testimony of these witnesses is conflicting in many respects.

Careful examination of the record reflects that at least the preponderance of the evidence justified the finding of the Board that the Eutaw-Upper Tuscaloosa 'A' and 'B' Gas Pools are separate and distinct, that they are not connected, and are separated by a substantial interval of shale and three water sands.

At the close of the hearing, the Board entered an order which sustained substantially the petition of B & D Corporation and which amended the rules of the Gwinville Field so as to identify and define the Eutaw-Upper Tuscaloosa 'A' Gas Pool and the 'B' Gas Pool 'as separate and distinct pools in the Gwinville Field, said pools having been encountered in petitioner's well' known as the B & D Corporation, et al.-Wigington No. 1 Well. The order stated:

(a) The Eutaw-Upper Tuscaloosa 'A' Gas Pool as used herein shall be construed to mean those strata of the Eutaw-Upper Tuscaloosa Gas Formation underlying said field productive of gas from the electric log interval of 7950 to 7990 feet in the B & D Corp. et al-Wigington No. 1 Well located 100 feet North of the South line and 100 feet East of the West line of the SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 19, Township 9 North, Range 18 West, Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi, and including those strata productive of gas which are interconnected and which can be correlated therewith.

(b) The Eutaw-Upper Tuscaloosa 'B' Gas Pool as used herein shall be construed to mean those strata of the Eutaw-Upper Tuscaloosa Gas Formation underlying said field productive of gas from the electric log interval of 7990 feet to 8160 feet in the B & D corp. et al-Wigington No. 1 Well located * * * (as described above) * * * and including those strata productive of gas which are interconnected and which can be correlated therewith.

C. The Eutaw-Upper Tuscaloosa 'A' Gas Pool and the Eutaw-Upper Tuscaloosa 'B' Gas Pool as herein defined shall be limited to the segment of the Gwinville Field being North of the most Northern known fault and West of the Southern-trending intersecting fault in which the B & D Corp. et al-Wigington No. 1 Well as previously described in this order is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp. v. State Oil and Gas Bd. of Mississippi, 55071
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • September 5, 1984
    ... ... v. State Oil & Gas Board, 240 So.2d 446, 448 (Miss.1970) (same); Superior Oil Co. v. State Oil & Gas Board, 220 So.2d 602, 603 (Miss.1969) (same) ...         The findings of an administrative agency like the ... ...
  • McGowan v. Mississippi State Oil & Gas Bd., 07-CA-59604
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 24, 1992
    ... ... Crane, 271 So.2d 84 (Miss.1972); Masonite Corp. v. State Oil & Gas Bd., 240 So.2d 446, 448 (Miss.1970); Superior Oil Co. v. State Oil & Gas Bd., 220 So.2d 602, 603 (Miss.1969); California Co. v. State Oil & Gas Board, 200 Miss. 824, 842, 27 So.2d 542, 546 ... ...
  • State Oil and Gas Bd. v. Mississippi Mineral & Royalty Owners Ass'n
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1971
    ... ...         We said in Superior Oil Company v. State Oil and Gas Board, 220 So.2d 602 (Miss.1969): ... 'Moreover, the Board is not bound to adhere to a strata definition made ... ...
  • Masonite Corp. v. State Oil and Gas Bd.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 26, 1970
    ... ... Suffice it to say that the standard in this state for judicial review of the order of the State Oil & Gas Board is well settled. In Superior Oil Co. v. State Oil & Gas Board, 220 So.2d 602 (Miss.1969), we restated the rule first announced in California Co. v. State Oil & Gas Board, 200 ... ...
  • 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