Sun Exploration and Production Co. v. Jackson
783 S.W.2d 202, 1989 WL 129365 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Texas, there is no implied covenant to explore in oil and gas leases independent of the implied covenant of reasonable development; the latter covenant encompasses all drilling activities after production is achieved, whether developmental or exploratory, and is judged by the "prudent operator" standard, requiring a reasonable expectation of profit for both lessor and lessee.
Facts:
- In March 1938, Ocie R. Jackson and other interested members of the Jackson family (the Jacksons) executed an oil, gas, and mineral lease covering their 10,000-acre Jackson Brothers Ranch to Sun Oil Company, now Sun Exploration and Production Company (Sun).
- Sun Exploration and Production Company (Sun) and Amoco Production Company (Amoco) collectively own the working interest under the lease, with Sun owning the majority.
- The Jacksons own the entire surface of the ranch and retain a majority of the outstanding nonparticipating royalty interest under the lease.
- In 1941, Sun drilled its third well on the Jackson Brothers Ranch, leading to the discovery of the Oyster Bayou Field.
- Production from the Oyster Bayou Field continues to this date, but this field only produces from a small part of the 10,000-acre tract covered by the lease.
- The Jacksons believed Sun neglected to explore and develop the larger remaining part of the lease outside the Oyster Bayou Field.
Procedural Posture:
- Sun Exploration and Production Company and Amoco Production Company (Petitioners) filed an action for declaratory judgment and an injunction against Ocie R. Jackson et al. (Respondents) in the trial court (court of first instance) to establish the validity of their oil, gas, and mineral lease and to enjoin the Jacksons from denying Sun entrance to the leased property.
- The Jacksons counterclaimed, alleging breach of implied covenants to reasonably develop and explore the entire lease, and sought cancellation of the lease.
- The jury found that Sun had not failed to reasonably develop the Jackson lease but had failed to reasonably explore the portions of the lease outside the Oyster Bayou Field.
- Based on the jury's findings, the trial court rendered judgment for the Jacksons, unconditionally cancelling a portion of the lease and conditionally cancelling another portion below 8480 feet in a developed area.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's unconditional cancellation of one portion of the lease and reversed and remanded the conditional cancellation.
- Sun (as appellant from the court of appeals' decision) then sought review by the Supreme Court of Texas (highest court).
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 an implied covenant to explore exist in Texas oil and gas leases as a legal duty separate from the implied covenant of reasonable development?
Opinions:
Majority - Ray, Justice
No, an implied covenant to explore does not exist as a separate legal duty in Texas oil and gas leases; instead, the implied covenant of reasonable development encompasses all drilling activities, whether exploratory or developmental, after production is achieved. The Court referenced Clifton v. Koontz, which held that the covenant of reasonable development includes drilling additional wells in both existing producing formations and different strata, and that the critical factor is whether a "reasonably prudent operator" would have drilled with a reasonable expectation of profit for both lessor and lessee. The Court found that the court of appeals' analysis of the jury questions distorted their meaning, as the jury's explicit finding that Sun had not failed to reasonably develop the entire Jackson lease was dispositive. The term "reasonably develop" in the jury instruction was broad enough to cover all known producing formations and activity across the whole lease, not just limited to the Oyster Bayou Field. Since the jury found no failure to reasonably develop, the lease remains valid, making it unnecessary to rule on the validity of the cancellation remedies.
Concurring - Spears, Justice
Justice Spears concurred with the majority's judgment but wrote separately to express that the trial judge, Carroll Wilborn, Jr., should have recused himself due to his familial relationships (first cousin to an attorney for the Jacksons and related in the fourth degree to the Jacksons themselves). He emphasized that Rule 18b mandates recusal where a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, and public policy demands that judges not only be impartial but appear to be impartial to maintain public trust. Justice Spears argued that Sun could not have waived its right to request recusal because it did not know of these familial relationships until after the trial, and the judge and the Jacksons' attorney had a duty to disclose them. He suggested that on remand, Sun should be permitted to present a motion for recusal.
Concurring - Gonzalez, Justice
Justice Gonzalez concurred with the court's main opinion and judgment but disagreed with Justice Spears regarding the trial judge's recusal. He asserted that under the law at the time of the trial, Judge Wilborn was not precluded from presiding. Disqualification is based on the Texas Constitution (Art. V, § 11) and state statute, limiting relationships to the third degree of affinity or consanguinity. Judge Wilborn's relationship to the Jacksons was fourth degree, and an attorney is not considered a "party" for disqualification purposes. Justice Gonzalez argued that Judge Wilborn's conduct did not contravene the existing Code of Judicial Conduct and criticized Justice Spears for making unauthorized factual findings about Sun's knowledge of the relationships and for relying on proposed rule changes not yet in effect. He suggested that if knowledge of familial relationships is acquired after trial, an appellate court should determine if the record shows a clear pattern of favoritism, or the case should be remanded for a recusal hearing to fully develop the record on this issue.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for Texas oil and gas jurisprudence, as it definitively rejects the existence of a separate implied covenant of further exploration. It reinforces that all post-discovery drilling obligations, whether for additional development in known fields or exploratory drilling in new areas, fall under the singular implied covenant of reasonable development. This interpretation solidifies the "prudent operator" standard as the sole determinant for a lessee's duties, requiring lessors to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of profit for any alleged breach. This ruling provides greater certainty for lessees against demands for lease cancellation based solely on a lack of exploration in unproven areas, impacting future litigation by streamlining the scope of a lessee's implied duties.
