Northern Natural Gas Co. v. ONEOK Field Services Co.
296 Kan. 906
Kan.2013Background
- Northern owns an underground gas storage field and seeks title to gas migrated from storage to neighboring wells.
- K.S.A. 55-1210 governs ownership: (a) injector owns injected gas, (b) limits on others' rights, (c) exceptions for gas migrating to adjoining property or a stratum not condemned.
- Wells operated by Nash and L.D. are 2–6 miles beyond Northern’s certificated storage boundary before June 2, 2010.
- ONEOK and Lumen purchased gas from Nash and L.D.; Nash and L.D. moved for summary judgment under §55-1210(c).
- District court held migrating gas beyond boundaries falls under rule of capture; pre-June 2, 2010 gas belonged to Nash and L.D.; ordered hold payments.
- FERC expanded Northern’s field on June 2, 2010, bringing most wells within the expansion area and altering the factual landscape.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §55-1210 abolish capture for gas migrating beyond adjoining property? | Northern asserts (a)/(b) abolish capture outright; (c) protects migrating gas. | Nash/L.D. contend (a)/(b) limit apply; (c) limited to adjoining property or uncaptured strata. | Statute abolition limited to adjoining property or strata; capture preserved beyond boundaries. |
| How should §55-1210 be interpreted with respect to 'adjoining property' and 'stratum'? | Northern argues broad geographic reach for (a)/(b). | Defendants argue narrow reading consistent with (c) and Williams. | Court adopts narrow reading; (a)/(b) apply within field boundaries; (c) governs adjoining property/strata not condemned. |
| Was Northern sufficiently aggrieved to appeal the summary judgment? | Northern contends it was dismissed from conversion claims implicitly. | Defendants argue no standing due to lack of aggrievement. | Northern has standing; district ruling effectively dismissed its conversion claim. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion on discovery or modification requests post-judgment? | Northern seeks additional discovery and modification after boundary changes. | Discovery not needed; order limited to pre-June 2, 2010 matters. | No abuse; discovery and post-judgment modification properly limited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams Natural Gas Co. v. Supra Energy, Inc., 261 Kan. 624 (1997) (defining 'adjoining property' for §55-1210)
- Hayes Sight & Sound, Inc. v. ONEOK, Inc., 281 Kan. 1287 (2006) (statutory damages/attorney fees under §55-1210(c))
- Martin, Pringle, et al. v. Trans Pacific Holdings, et al., 289 Kan. 777 (2009) (statutory prospective application of §55-1210)
- Union Gas System, Inc. v. Carnahan, 245 Kan. 80 (1989) (pre‑§55-1210 rule of capture and condemnation context)
- Anderson v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 237 Kan. 336 (1985) (origin of the rule of capture and ownership in place)