DocketNumber: No. 8771.
Citation Numbers: 123 S.W.2d 423
Judges: McCLENDON, Chief Justice.
Filed Date: 6/18/1938
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023
The writer dissents from the majority judgment striking down the prima facie and presumptive valid permit of the Commission to drill the oil well in question. Such permit order is not only made "prima facie valid" by statute (Arts. 6042 and 6049c, Sec. 8, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.); but "being an official act, would be presumptively valid without a statute." Railroad Comm. v. Magnolia Pet. Co.,
But notwithstanding the prima facie and presumptive validity of the permit order in question, the majority view has struck it down upon the mere unsupported opinion of a geologist employed as an expert witness by Humble Company, both with respect to whether the well was necessary to prevent physical waste of oil and to prevent confiscation of permittee's property.
Without discussing the testimony of the geologist, the majority dismiss the issue with the statement that "the evidence conclusively showed that the drilling of this well was not only not necessary to prevent waste, but would tend to create waste." This was merely the opinion of the geologist, which was unsupported by any factual data, and was predicated upon his own view and interpretation of the spacing rule as a fact finding that the wells drilled closer than the prescribed distances would cause waste; which view the majority still adhere to notwithstanding it was expressly overruled by the Supreme Court in the Magnolia Case,
By its order of August 26, 1935, the Commission expressly found upon evidence adduced at its many hearings and from its actual experience, and through its experts continuously employed in the administration of the rule, that the closer wells are drilled the greater will be the ultimate recovery of oil and gas from any area so drilled, provided the wells produce equally; and closer spacing is accomplished through the application of the exception to the general rule to prevent waste, or to prevent confiscation. If more oil will be recovered from denser drilling, then failure to so drill will necessarily result in waste of oil and gas left in the ground; and in consequence will also result in confiscation of the oil through failure to enforce the exceptions to the rule so as to recover the greatest amount of oil under any given tract of land or area.
The Commission has developed the East Texas Oil Field in accordance with its aforementioned findings of fact and its interpretation of its own rule to such an extent that only a few of the approximately 25,000 wells are spaced in accordance with the general distances prescribed by the rule. Of these facts and interpretation by the Commission the oil industry may take notice and contract accordingly. That is, if those engaged in the industry are required to take notice of Rule 37 in making and developing oil leases, then equity and fair dealing require that they may also take notice of the interpretation placed on the rule by the Commission and the manner of its enforcement of the rule and the exceptions. Such is in accord with the decision of the Supreme Court in the New Process Case,
The writer's views with respect to the majority interpretation of Rule 37 are expressed by dissenting opinions in the Magnolia Case, Tex. Civ. App.
The administration of the oil and gas conservation laws of Texas and the findings of the Railroad Commission with respect thereto are matters exclusively within the prerogative of the Railroad Commission. The resolving of divergent conclusions arrived at from conflicting opinions and theories of experts in this respect are issues likewise solely within the Commission's jurisdiction. Railroad Comm. v. Royal Pet. Co., Tex. Civ. App.
On the issue of whether the well in question was necessary to prevent confiscation of Flanagan's property rights in the 1-acre tract, the majority recognize the holding of the Supreme Court in the Magnolia Case,
The Humble's geologist testified that in his opinion the entire Della Johnston 58 1/2 acre tract was fully developed and adequately protected from drainage; but he admitted, upon cross-examination, that he did not know the densities of all of the leases adjoining the original Della Johnston 58 1/2-acre tract, nor had he prepared or even seen a map showing the density of drilling within an area eight times that of the 58 1/2-acre tract, either in circular or rectangular form, and had made no calculations whatsoever of the density of an area eight times that of the Della Johnston 58 1/2-acre tract. Humble's plat did not show these densities, merely showing the offset wells to the Humble-Della Johnston lease and to the Humble-McFarland lease.
The geologist also testified that he kept up "in a general way" with the densities of all leases adjoining the Humble leases in the East Texas Field, and "in a general way" knew the densities of such leases, and was of the opinion that the original Della Johnston 58 1/2-acre tract and all adjoining tracts thereto were approximately of the same density. This obviously constitutes merely the estimate or conjectural opinion of a witness upon matters of fact readily susceptible of exact ascertainment and specific proof; therefore, such testimony, even in the absence of objection thereto, is wholly incompetent evidence which must be disregarded by the courts Henry v. Phillips,
The method commonly employed by the Railroad Commission to determine the necessity of a tract for additional development to prevent confiscation of property or to prevent drainage is to compare the density of drilling of the tract in question with the densities of drilling of all adjoining leases thereto, and with the density of drilling within an area eight times that of the tract in question, using both the circular and rectangular eight times area method of comparison. The order granting the well to accomplish such purposes is prima facie and presumptively valid, and the above detailed testimony of Humble in this suit is clearly insufficient to overcome the presumptive validity of the permit order of the Commission authorizing Flanagan to drill and operate the well to prevent confiscation of property and to prevent drainage thereof. *Page 429
The majority hold that the testimony of the witness is sufficient to overcome the prima facie validity of the permit order in suit, in absence of any evidence to the contrary introduced by the Commission and Flanagan. The effect of this holding is to remove from Humble the burden to overcome the presumptive validity of the permit order in suit, and to place upon the Commission and Flanagan the burden of affirmatively sustaining the validity and reasonableness of the Commission's order.
The majority seek to apply to this case the rule of evidence quoted in Pullman Co. v. Nelson,
The quoted rule is clearly inapplicable in this case, because by statute the burden of proof rests upon plaintiff to overcome the presumptive validity of the order of the Commission in question, by clearly showing its invalidity, and the quoted rule is not applicable where the burden of persuasion rests upon the party seeking to invoke the rule. Wichita Falls, etc., Ry. v. Emberlin, Tex. Civ. App.
T. P. Ry. Co. v. Shoemaker , 98 Tex. 451 ( 1905 )
Henry v. Phillips , 105 Tex. 459 ( 1912 )
Galveston, H. S. A. Ry. v. Landeros , 264 S.W. 524 ( 1924 )
Texas Unity Oil Co. v. Dolman , 8 S.W.2d 815 ( 1928 )
Magnolia Co. v. New Process Co. , 129 Tex. 617 ( 1937 )
Railroad Comm. v. Magnolia Co. , 130 Tex. 484 ( 1937 )
Smith v. Triplett , 83 S.W.2d 1104 ( 1935 )
Gayle v. Perryman , 6 Tex. Civ. App. 20 ( 1894 )
St. Louis, S. F. T. Ry. Co. v. West , 174 S.W. 287 ( 1915 )
Texas Co. v. Charles Clarke Co , 182 S.W. 351 ( 1915 )
Woods v. Humble Oil Refining , 120 S.W.2d 464 ( 1938 )
Magnolia Petroleum v. Rd. Comm. , 120 S.W.2d 548 ( 1938 )
Reynolds v. I. G. N. Ry. Co. , 38 Tex. Civ. App. 273 ( 1905 )
Pullman Palace Car Company v. Nelson , 22 Tex. Civ. App. 223 ( 1899 )
Humble Oil Ref. v. R.R. Comm. , 112 S.W.2d 222 ( 1937 )
Davis v. Etter Curtis , 243 S.W. 603 ( 1922 )
Wichita Falls, R. Ft. W. Ry. v. Emberlin , 255 S.W. 796 ( 1923 )
R.R. Comm. v. Royal Petroleum Corp. , 93 S.W.2d 761 ( 1936 )