Trout v. Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
721 P.2d 1047, 92 Oil & Gas Rep. 420, 1986 Wyo. LEXIS 569 (1986)
Rule of Law:
An administrative agency's approval of an oil and gas unitization plan and its allocation formula will be affirmed if supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, even if a minority interest owner disputes the formula's equity, as long as it protects correlative rights and prevents waste.
Facts:
- The Teapot Formation, an oil-bearing area in Converse County, Wyoming, was the subject of proposed unitized secondary recovery operations.
- Intervenor, Mitchell Energy Corporation, proposed the Teapot Unit, covering approximately 7,385 acres, and owned thirty-five percent of the interest.
- Kye Trout, Jr. owned working interests in leases in three wells located within the proposed Teapot Unit.
- Working interest owners formed a technical committee in January 1982 and held numerous meetings and discussions through 1983 to study unitization feasibility and discuss potential allocation formulas, including one proposed by Kye Trout, Jr.
- In December 1983, during a meeting to vote on allocation formulas, Kye Trout, Jr.'s proposed formula (relying heavily on oil-in-place) was rejected, and a large majority of operators substantially agreed on a different formula after five votes.
- At the subsequent Commission hearing, Kye Trout, Jr.'s counsel stated opposition only to the allocation formula, not the unitization itself, acknowledging that failing to unitize would constitute waste.
- Before the Commission's final approval, 82.39% of the operators and 93.06% of the royalty interest owners voluntarily joined the unit proposed by Mitchell Energy Corporation.
- The unitization production formula that was eventually approved allocated production based on: Last six months production (47.5%), Remaining proved developed producing reserves (47.5%), and Original oil-in-place (5.0%).
Procedural Posture:
- The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (Commission) approved a plan of unitized secondary recovery operations for the Teapot Formation by an order dated August 16, 1985, and a nunc pro tunc order dated September 1, 1985.
- Kye Trout, Jr. (appellant) appealed the Commission's unitization plan.
- The district court certified the appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court according to Rule 12.09, Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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 administrative agency's decision to approve an oil and gas unitization plan, including its allocation formula, meet the substantial evidence standard and adequately protect correlative rights, or is it arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, when a minority working interest owner objects to the formula?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brown
Yes, the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's decision to approve the unitization plan and its allocation formula was supported by substantial evidence and protected correlative rights, and was not arbitrary or capricious. The court applies a high degree of deference to administrative agency decisions, reviewing them to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence and are not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law, as per W.S.1977 § 16-3-114(c). Substantial evidence is defined as relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support the agency's conclusions, being more than a mere scintilla of evidence. The Commission heard testimony from consulting geological engineers, Norris and Pawlik, who concluded that the selected formula was fair and equitable to all parties, effectively protecting correlative rights. Pawlik testified that original oil-in-place was not heavily weighted because that oil was not considered recoverable, and that an overwhelming majority of interest parties favored the chosen formula. The court noted that it is practically impossible to devise a formula that perfectly satisfies all interests and echoed its previous decision in Gilmore v. Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where a compromise formula was upheld despite some dissatisfaction because it was the most feasible and could secure the requisite statutory approval. The court reiterated that in striking a balance between conservation of natural resources (preventing waste) and protection of correlative rights, the former is secondary and must yield to a reasonable exercise of the former. Appellant's claims of a 'threat' from Mitchell Energy Corporation were dismissed as a 'realistic appraisal' of negotiations. Issues not raised before the administrative agency, such as the size of the unit or the initial lack of evidence concerning waste (which appellant had effectively stipulated to), were not considered on appeal.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the high deference courts give to administrative agency decisions, particularly in complex technical areas like oil and gas conservation and unitization. It establishes that an agency's unitization plan and allocation formula do not require universal agreement to be upheld; rather, they must be supported by substantial evidence, prevent waste, and protect correlative rights 'so far as can be practically determined.' The decision underscores a pragmatic approach to unitization, prioritizing the overall conservation and recovery of natural resources while limiting the ability of minority interests to veto or significantly impede beneficial conservation efforts based on minor grievances with allocation equity.
