Clifton v. Koontz
79 A.L.R. 2d 774, 160 Tex. 82, 325 S.W.2d 684 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a marginal well, production in paying quantities is determined by whether a reasonably prudent operator would continue to operate the well for profit, not speculation, over a reasonable period of time. Texas law does not recognize an implied covenant to explore separate from the implied covenant to reasonably develop, which requires the lessor to prove a reasonable expectation of profit to compel further drilling.
Facts:
- In 1940, the Cliftons executed an oil, gas, and mineral lease for two tracts of land totaling 350 acres.
- In 1949, during the lease's primary term, a well was drilled that produced primarily gas with a small amount of oil.
- The well was acidized in 1950, but no other significant drilling or reworking operations occurred until 1956.
- For the 16-month period from June 1955 through September 1956, the lease operations showed a net loss of $216.16.
- However, looking at longer periods, the lease operated at a net profit for the full years of 1954 and 1955, and for the first half of 1956.
- The losses in July, August, and September 1956 were partly attributable to the new lessee, Koontz, intentionally withholding oil from sale to accumulate it for use in reworking the well.
- On September 12, 1956, the lessee successfully reworked the well by 'sandfracting', which resulted in an 1800% increase in production.
- There was no geological evidence of profitable production from any other formations or strata under the Clifton lease, with the nearest producing wells in different formations being over two miles away.
Procedural Posture:
- Lillie M. Clifton sued the lease owners in a Texas trial court, seeking cancellation of the oil and gas lease and damages.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court held the lease had not terminated because the well continued to produce in paying quantities.
- The trial court also found that the lessees breached an implied covenant to explore and develop and issued a conditional decree ordering them to drill a new well within 60 days or forfeit the lease rights to undeveloped portions.
- Both the Cliftons and the lease owners appealed to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals.
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that the lease had not terminated but reversed the order requiring the drilling of a new well.
- Clifton, as petitioner, appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
First, does a temporary period of financial loss from a marginal oil and gas well terminate the lease for cessation of production in paying quantities? Second, does Texas oil and gas law recognize a distinct implied covenant to explore that obligates a lessee to drill additional wells without the lessor showing a reasonable expectation of profit?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Smith
No and No. A temporary period of loss does not automatically terminate a lease, and Texas law does not recognize a separate implied covenant to explore. First, the determination of 'production in paying quantities' for a marginal well is not based on a short, arbitrary period of loss but on whether, under all relevant circumstances, a reasonably prudent operator would continue to operate for the purpose of making a profit. Factors include market prices, operating costs, and net profit over a reasonable time frame. Depreciation of original investment costs and overriding royalties are not considered operating expenses for this calculation. Here, the well was profitable over longer periods, and the recent losses were justifiable, so the lease did not terminate. Second, there is no implied covenant to explore that is distinct from the implied covenant to reasonably develop. To compel a lessee to drill additional wells under the development covenant, the lessor must prove that a prudent operator would do so with a reasonable expectation of profit for both parties. The Cliftons failed to provide evidence that drilling to other formations would likely be profitable, so the lessees had no duty to drill an additional well.
Analysis:
This landmark decision solidifies the 'reasonably prudent operator' standard as the test for determining whether a marginal well is producing in paying quantities, giving lessees protection against lease termination due to short-term unprofitability. More significantly, the court's explicit rejection of a separate 'implied covenant to explore' was a major development in oil and gas law. By subsuming any duty for further exploration into the traditional implied covenant of reasonable development, the court maintained the high burden on lessors to prove a reasonable expectation of profit before a lessee can be forced to drill additional wells, thereby protecting lessees from speculative drilling demands.
