Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE A’ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN nooorable Olin Culboraon, &mber ,'. ~~1lrom.l Co3iission of Texus liustin, Texas . da consoli~atod r is it precluded oing so because of der of June 5, 1941, ding the combination in order to ob- 20, 1941, setting forth ueetion thereunder. The ropounded are copied in full x. .. oil field containing R certain 200~ tie to whioh was held by one person, was subdivided by lease into various tracts. 11 seoured a leaoe on 40.33 aores in 1939. g secured a lease on 20 mras by assignmnt of tho original loase end subsequently 8 by assignntlent transferr said lease to & on Cq20, 1941. $ "On June 5, lVi+l, the Comisslon passed an order in whioh.it inhibited donaolidatlon of treats for the gonorable Olin Culboraon, page 2 purpose of either drilling ox seourlng oonsidsra- ties on allowable8 by reason of lnoreased aoreage. mior to that time the toleranos rule of the Com- tit~issionprohibiting such was not in erreot, but there was a toleranos rule. aOn Eay 28, 194l, A scoured this additional 20 aores asd asked that it be oonsolldated with hla first traot or 40.33 aores and that the Commission allow him oon- sideration for 60.33 aores in setting his allowable. The two tracts mentioned were and are the only aoreage owhed by both & and 2 in this purtioular field, ex- oept for other hnd8 owned by &which are not oon- tiguous to the traots in question. Both~tracts are oontlguous. *QUZSTION “Under the Comission*a order of June 5, l,941, is the Oomriissioa pm&led iron granting 4 the author- ity to oonsolidate these two leases?W In addition to the raota set out above, we deemed it neons- erry to obtain rurther larormatlon in order to properly answer tba question asked ua and 80 we obtained the COmissiOn’s rile @ovaring the leases involved herein, from whfoh we aOqUir8d the ~olowlng additional iniormation: ; (1) The baste In question are iooated in the Pittsbure *f@l& Camp County, Texas. (21 When the tracts in question were subdivided from the erlglnal 2000aors tract there were no special field rules in filstenoe in said area and the ata%ewide spaOin&.rUle in el- :**t then provided for a lo-acre syaoing pattern, therefore, LJ 9ueetion is presented here of a subdivision made in deroga- ~a or the Commission’s spaoing rule. (3) At the time 0r the ooneolidatlon 0r the 40.33-aore lraQt with the 20-acre traot, the Commiseion*s ricld rules in @notable Olin Culberson, page 3. . $h, pitteburg Bield insofar as they are pertinent to our bqdry here provided a8 ,~ollowsa lms 1. Said field end further extensions thereorha3.1 be divided into traats or forty’ (40) aores each, and saoh~produoing treat shall be a proration unit. A tolerance or twenty (20) cores on pxcduolng tract4 0r more than forty (40) aores shell be allowed when the eize and shape or the tract warrants and after the tra.ot has been drilled to its finaldonslty. Por proration pur- posee the amount of acreage ssaigned eaoh vrell shall be the aoreage oontained in aaoh proration unit, whether fraotlonal or not. No unit shall be in length more than twiae its width, where the size culd shape of the tract permits. The daily total field oil allowable as ;+%%$the oonmlssion shall after deductions have been made ror wells inoapible’of making their allow- ablss, be distributed among the producing walls in the field on the followins basis: “I(e) The daily eoreage allowable for eaoh well shall be that proportion or fifty tSff$) per cent ot the dally field allowable whloh the aoreage assigned to the well bears to the tot@ aoreago aosigaed to all the wells in the field., a(b) The da&y per well allowable for eeoh well disll be determined by dividing fifty (5%;) per oent of the total field allowable by the number of pro- duoing wella in the field. The total daily allow- ’ able for aaoh well shall be the sum ot its aoreage end PGC well. allowab1es.e Said speaial field rules further provided that wells should sot be drilled nearer than 1320 feet to enp other completed or Wlll:ng well nor 660 feet to any property line or leaae line, t&la being in effect a forty aore spacing pattern* Baorable Olin Culberson, page 4 . The Commission having found in &Seat by the promulga- tion OS its l&-acre spacing rule embodied in its Sield rules POr the Pittsburg Field entered and effective September 16, 1940, that generally specking wells drilled on a apaoing pttern of one well to 40 acres will more efiioiently reoovar the oil in thefield have in eifeot also found by implloation that wells drilled on a larger or smaller pattern will in general oauss physical waste. ., In my instames the Commfsslon is oonfronted with the duty OS determining nthich OS two or more meth,ods .oS production 1s least wasteful, one OS which must be peraltted in order to protect vested rights or for some other valid legal reason. . 1 tho least wasteSul is chosen then the Comiasion~s order in question nust be upheld aa a conservation measure. .Rail- road Commiaaion Y. Earl Fain. et al, 161 5. W. (26) 4987 It seems to us thst we have just such a situation here. The l+0.33-acre tract was subdivided fro3 the original 200-aore traot on Deoember 17, 1939. The 20-acre tract was subdivided ’ Prom the original 200-acre traot June 23, 1938. At the time @id tracts wers so subdivided, the Commission’s applicable epaoing pattern ram that provided in its statewide rules being. one well to 10 aorea as on the dates set out above no apeoial rules had been promulgated in the Pitteburg Yield, henoe, as a matter OS law, said traots were entitled to separate derelop- ment and to at least one well each. Hub&e Gil and petinlng Company v. Aeilrocd Commission, 94 S. V. (2d) l$W; Dailey- v'. iiailroed Commission. 133 tie W. (2d) 212. I.. Vnder‘the above faots it seems olear’lkus that the ouea- tlon or tibether or not less waste will be oaussd by allow&g ~the combined tracts of ,60.33-aores formed by consolidating the 40.33- aare traot with the 20-aore tract, a toleranoe of 20 aorea as Wovided for in its field rules @romulgated September 16, 1940, than would be aaueed b:{ allowing~a well to be drilled on eaoh OP said treats would be one that addressea itseli to the sound discretion of the Commission. @gorable Olin Ctiberson, page 5. , On tune 5, 1941, the Commission entered an order whiah eQ,,ng other things provided that no oombinntion of leases Vlll be oonsldered in determining whether or not toleranoe vill be panted a Given well but we Bee ilo reason why the QdQr of June 5, 1941, enacted subsequent to the oonsolldatlon ef the tract8 In question should deter the Commission from grant- lnb auah tolcranoe allowance to tracts oombined before euoh,order ms ratered. iVe pause here to distin@sh the, faote her&a from those adsting in the Gillespie case (F. A. GlllestAe and sons Oompany V. Rallroed Oommis~l~n, 161 8. \‘1. \2d) 139). In that ease the &w,rt of Civil fippoal~ held that where an operator owned a number Qf fj-aore tracts entitled to aepnrate,developrnent in a field where t&Q rules provided for lo-aore spaoing with a maximum of 150acre tolaranoe on the last unit drilled on a partloular lease, ,oom- blned said 5-aore traotn into units of 15 acres each by’oonsolida- ring three of the .5-sore unite, when said operator could just a8 eerily have oomblned tho traote into lo-aore unlte by oonaolida- tlng two 5-acre tracts thot suoh operator wae not entitled to a tolrranoe allowable when other operatora who had OOnbin8d their 5-Qore tracts into lObacre units to conform to the Conmission’ ipplloable epaoing rule olaimed discrimination and drainage be- taau~ or the larger allowable given the 150aore oombined traots. In that oaae the operator voluntarily oreated a spaoing ttQEP oontrary to the Commieeion~s rule when if would have FQQnfu8t a8 easy to pool the traots in oonformity with the Qxirtin8 apaoing rule@. , I&the present ease the size of the t&to involved pre- *lPdQa the operator rrom oombining them into a unit oonforming tQ the Commission*s present spaolng pat$ern in the Pittsburg IiQld. From the above, it Is a4 parent that our answer to your qUQation is that the Oommiaalon*e order of’ June 5#, 1941, does ll”t PrQVQnt the Oommiseion from firanting n toleranoe allowable in question. - ~, Your8 very truly