Imperial Oil Of North Dakota, Inc. v. Consolidated Crude Oil Company
100 Oil & Gas Rep. 554, 11 Fed.R.Serv.3d 771, 851 F.2d 206 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under North Dakota statute § 47-16-39.1, the obligation to pay royalties is an essential term of an oil and gas lease, and a court may cancel the lease for breach of this obligation if the equities of the case require it, supplanting traditional common law equity principles that abhor forfeiture.
Facts:
- In 1965 and 1966, Imperial Oil of North Dakota, Inc. (Imperial) acquired mineral interests subject to oil and gas leases that entitled it to a one-eighth royalty on production.
- In November 1971, Consolidated Crude Oil Company (Consolidated), later known as Flying J, acquired the lessee's interest in the leases.
- In early 1973, Consolidated ceased making royalty payments to Imperial without explanation, and this non-payment continued for over four and a half years.
- In October 1977 and again in April 1978, a representative for Imperial met with Consolidated executives to demand payment and warned that Imperial would consider the leases cancelled if royalties were not paid.
- During the April 1978 meeting, a Consolidated vice president, Andrew Morgan, acknowledged it was improper to withhold royalties over a separate working interest expense dispute and promised to pay.
- One week later, Consolidated sent Imperial a letter refusing to pay royalties unless Imperial first paid the working interest expenses, executed a division order, and furnished a costly title opinion.
- Imperial rejected these conditions as unacceptable and made in bad faith, after which Consolidated failed to pay or communicate with Imperial for another three years.
- In 1981, after Flying J (formerly Consolidated) contacted Imperial about drilling a new well, Imperial reiterated its position that the leases were cancelled due to the non-payment of royalties.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 18, 1981, Imperial filed a demand for release of the leases with the McKenzie County Register of Deeds.
- Imperial filed an action in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota seeking cancellation of the leases on January 27, 1982.
- The district court, applying N.D.Cent.Code § 47-16-39.1, determined that the equities of the case required cancellation of the leases.
- The district court entered a final judgment in favor of Imperial.
- Flying J, the appellant, appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with Imperial as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does North Dakota statute § 47-16-39.1 authorize a court to cancel an oil and gas lease for a lessee's prolonged and unjustified non-payment of royalties, even if traditional common law equity principles would disfavor such a forfeiture?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge McMillian
Yes. A court may cancel an oil and gas lease for non-payment of royalties under N.D.Cent.Code § 47-16-39.1, as the statute supplants traditional common law equity with a legislative judgment that cancellation is an appropriate remedy in certain cases. The North Dakota legislature enacted the statute specifically to equalize bargaining power between landowners and oil companies by making the failure to pay royalties a more serious matter than a mere breach of contract reparable by damages. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering cancellation, because Consolidated's failure to pay was intentional, prolonged for several years, and accompanied by bad faith demands, even after Imperial gave repeated notice and warnings. The facts of this case fall squarely within the problem the legislature sought to remedy: the unjustified refusal of a lessee oil company to make royalty payments to mineral owners.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the power of a state legislature to create specific statutory remedies that override general common law principles, such as the traditional equitable abhorrence of forfeiture. The case establishes that under North Dakota's statute, the analysis for non-payment of royalties shifts from the adequacy of a legal remedy (damages) to a statutory balancing of equities. This precedent significantly strengthens the position of mineral owners (lessors) in disputes with oil and gas companies (lessees), providing them with the potent threat of lease cancellation to ensure timely royalty payments. It signals to lessees that a prolonged, bad-faith failure to pay can result in the complete loss of their leasehold interest.
