Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and Denbury Onshore, LLC, 2013 WY 32

Cimarex sought to reinject waste CO2 and H2S into a Madison formation gas pool near Riley Ridge in southwest Wyoming; Exxon objected on waste and correlative-right grounds.
Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission approved the plan except that Cimarex could not inject into Layer 25 without Exxon’s prior consent; the Commission set conditions including a radioactive tracer requirement.
Exxon challenged the decision in district court, arguing the plan would waste gas and impair correlative rights; Cimarex argued it would prevent waste and stabilize reservoir pressure.
A Denbury-Onshore affiliate later acquired Cimarex’s Riley Ridge interests and announced plans to sell CO2, which Exxon argued should trigger rehearing; the Commission denied rehearing.
The district court affirmed the Commission; on review, the Wyoming Supreme Court reversed and remanded for more explicit factual findings, while upholding the denial of rehearing.
The Court ultimately remanded to the Commission for adequate findings of fact to permit meaningful judicial review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Commission made adequate findings of fact regarding waste and correlative rights.	Exxon contends findings were too general to support waste/correlative-right conclusions.	Cimarex asserts the record supports its plan to avoid waste and protect rights.	Remand for more explicit findings; not enough to sustain without explicit basic facts.
Whether rehearing was required due to Denbury’s acquisition and CO2 sale plans.	Exxon claimed newly discovered evidence warranted rehearing.	Denbury’s actions did not compel rehearing; issues could be addressed later.	Rehearing denial affirmed; issues may be addressed if/when Denbury seeks changes.

Union Pac. Res. Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 882 P.2d 212 (Wyo. 1994) (regulatory duties to prevent waste and protect correlative rights)
Larsen v. Oil & Gas Conservation Comm’n, 569 P.2d 87 (Wyo. 1977) (requirement to make findings of basic facts for meaningful review)
Pam Am. Petroleum Corp. v. Wyo. Oil & Gas Conservation Comm’n, 446 P.2d 550 (Wyo. 1968) (findings of fact and conclusions of law must be separately stated)
California Motor Transport Co. v. Public Utilities Comm., 379 P.2d 327 (Cal. 1963) (insight into rational basis for agency review on record)
Fallon v. Wyoming State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 441 P.2d 322 (Wyo. 1968) (reasoned discussion of agency findings and review)
N. Laramie Range Found. v. Converse Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 290 P.3d 1063 (Wyo. 2012) (agency findings required for meaningful judicial review)
Braun v. Ribicoff, 3 Cir. 292 F.2d 354 (2d Cir. 1961) (principle that ultimate facts must be supported by underlying evidentiary facts)