Breaux v. Apache Oil Corporation
240 So. 2d 589, 37 Oil & Gas Rep. 221, 1970 La. App. LEXIS 4877 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Substantial surface preparations to drill, such as constructing a board road to the well site, constitute 'commencement of operations' under an oil and gas lease, provided these preparations are followed in good faith and with due diligence by the actual spudding in of the well.
Facts:
- On March 18, 1966, Agathe Guidry Breaux and other lessors (Breaux) entered into an oil, gas, and mineral lease with Apache Oil Corporation and other lessees (Apache) covering 302.55 acres in Acadia Parish.
- The lease stipulated it would terminate on March 18, 1967, unless Apache either 'commences operations for the drilling of a well' or pays a specified delay rental.
- Effective March 1, 1967, the Louisiana Commissioner of Conservation established a drilling unit that included a portion of the land covered by the lease.
- On March 13, 1967, the Department of Conservation, at Apache's request, amended its order to change the designated location of the unit well.
- On March 16th or 17th, 1967, Apache began constructing a board road and turn-around to the newly designated well location.
- By the end of the day on March 18, 1967, the deadline date, the board road and turn-around were completed.
- Apache did not pay any delay rentals to Breaux on or before the March 18, 1967 deadline.
- Actual drilling at the location commenced on March 22, 1967, and the well was eventually completed as a producer.
Procedural Posture:
- Agathe Guidry Breaux and other lessors (Plaintiffs) filed suit against Apache Oil Corporation and other lessees (Defendants) in the district court for Acadia Parish to cancel an oil, gas, and mineral lease.
- Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the undisputed facts showed they had complied with the lease terms.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do substantial surface preparations, such as the construction and completion of a board road and turn-around to a well site, constitute 'commencement of operations for the drilling of a well' under an oil and gas lease, even if no drilling equipment is on the location by the lease's primary term deadline?
Opinions:
Majority - Culpepper, Judge
Yes, substantial surface preparations are sufficient to constitute 'commencement of operations for the drilling of a well.' The court held that actual drilling is not necessary to satisfy a lease provision requiring the commencement of operations. Relying on precedent from Hilliard v. Franzheim, the court found that substantial surface preparations, such as building a road and turn-around to the well location, are sufficient if those preliminary operations are continued in good faith and with due diligence until the well is spudded in. Since it was undisputed that Apache completed the board road by the deadline and thereafter diligently continued operations until the well produced, the requirement was met. Therefore, the factual dispute over when the drilling equipment arrived was not material, and summary judgment was appropriate. The court also held that the plaintiffs' challenge to the validity of the Department of Conservation's amended order was an impermissible collateral attack, as such suits must be filed directly against the Commissioner in East Baton Rouge Parish.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal standard in Louisiana that 'commencement of operations' is a broader concept than 'commencement of drilling.' It provides lessees with a degree of flexibility, confirming that significant, tangible preparatory work at the well site satisfies the lease obligation, protecting their investment from forfeiture if the drilling rig itself is delayed. The ruling reinforces the principle that courts will look for good faith and continuous, diligent effort following these initial steps. Additionally, the case strongly reaffirms the procedural requirement that challenges to conservation orders must be made in a direct action in the specified venue, preventing such issues from being litigated collaterally in ancillary disputes like lease cancellations.
