*1 825 Schrein- the district court motion for new trial.” also, See, er 155 54 224. State, v. Neb. N. W. 894, 2d 118; Miller State State, 268, v. 173 113 W. 2d Neb. N. v. 182 2d Gau, Neb. 153 N. W. 298. sec- under sentenced
Defendant was convicted and fixed tion 28-472.04 S. Supp., R. (3), im- 5 2 nor more years than penalty not less than not reduced to has since been prisonment. penalty 5 than 1 than See years. 28-4,125, § less nor more change of the statutory In view Supp., to the good prior the fact defendant’s record was modified the sentence offense, nor 1 year less than imprisonment reduced to 5 more than years. as affirmed district court judgment
modified. modified.
Affirmed Application Irrigation In re District of Farmers entry compulsory Company Sun Oil Lot as to Sec Government Range Township 53 tion North, West in the North County, Nebraska, 6th Bluff P.M., Scotts Minatare Field. Irrigation Leo v. al., appellants, et
Farmers District appellees. al., et Schumacher 2d 788 N. W. February 18,
Filed 1972. No. 37956. *2 Bulger, appellants.
Robert J. Lyman Glebe, Olsen, & Howard P. and Frank Meister, appellees. J., Heard before White, Spencer, Boslaugh, Smith, C. and JJ. McCown, Newton, Clinton, Newton, J. application appel-
This case arises out of Irrigation lants, Farmers District et to the Nebraska ah, entry Oil and Gas Conservation compulsory pooling of a Commission for production to oil from Gov- as' Range Township^ ernment Lot North, Section 18, County, Nebraska, West of P.M., the 6th Scotts Bluff located in what is Field. known as North Minatare application January The filed asks 16, 1967, was that the made to October order be retroactive production 15, 1964, date of commencement of from a Company, well, known as White Feather Petroleum Inc., drilled Lot 2,No. on Government 3. commission allo- order; entered determined separate cation leases which cover between two separate portion 3; of Government Lot made the alloca- subsequent tion effective as to all to October charged working 15, 1964; and interest owners the two leases their of all allocated shares completion, storage, supervision, transportation, ap- necessary appellees other costs to the well. The pealed County, Bluff which court for S'cotts the district court after trial reversed the order of the Irrigation District and determined that the Farmers prove Company, its did not the facts lessee, Sun Oil allegations application contained their to the com- mission and that minerals the Farmers owned Irrigation pooled.” District and lessee “cannot be judgment We reverse of the district court re- mand cause to the district court with directions to affirm the order of the commission. Irrigation strip
The Farmers District is the of a extending part of land 150 feet wide across the south appears strip of Government Lot approximately This contain 3. Company 4.19 acres. Oil holds an Sun covering oil and lease No drilled this tract. well was appellees, Feather Petro- thereon. other White than Company, Inc., leum balance of owners containing Government Lot White about 43.92 acres. the holder of the lease on that Feather is producing tract. White Feather drilled a approximate center of Government Lot 3 became productive On about October about December gave Feather and 22, 1964, notice White others Sun *3 proportionate pro- itsof lease and a of the claimed share Appellees then duction from dis- well. No. ques- puted ownership appellants’ thereby of land right produced. tioned their of the oil This re- filing August of an 27, 1965, sulted in the on action ownership determine The action was de- of land. appellees appeal to cided favor of and reversed on Emery, 793, 183 Neb. this court. Sun Oil Co. v. See January 1969. Proceeds 644, 31, 164 W. 2d decided N. have been held back and from of litigation. outcome of this distribution awaits questions presented. the interests First, Two are were “pooling”? subject parties Second, retroactively to the effective date order be made production commenced? questions require a de- these will determination of
A purpose and intent of Oil and of termination Chapter 57, 9, article Act found Conservation Gas adopted in 1959. See Laws The act was R. S. p. 262, of c. 899. Discussions of the on the floor act 1959, Legislature transcript not a available, are of but proceedings before the re- Committee Public Works Geologist, veals statements Reed, made E. C. State representative industry. Monroe, Ken of oil supported Both a act. When asked for definition of rights, they correlative as answered “Mr. Reed: follows: only thing going give It isiabout the that is to> the land- any degree protection. open It different interpretations. protection It has do with the of each rights opposed rights man’s con- as in fair another’s rights everyone. pro- sideration You tecting rights you producer correlative if take let one adjoining person’s oil criminately. out under the land indis- goes early days “Mr. It Monroe: all back to the industry capture way the oil you when law was the operated field. that this was soon learned infringing rights was on the had mutual others who rights interest in field. Correlative ‘mutual means ” interest.’ Legislature protection It is clear that the understood the rights,” provided of “correlative meant a act, “capture.” restriction common old rule of law To' requires ascertain to extent what this was done a de- language tailed consideration contained in the act. It must also be borne in mind that under the law capture, there no were restraints on the He produced. wells. drilled who was entitled to the oil land, protect neighbor himself, To under whose pool extended had to, and drill could, his own well.
Referring Chapter now the various sections of pertinent pro- article R. R. S. we find certain provides: visions. Section 57-901,R. R. “It is *4 hereby public declared be in the interest to foster, encourage promote development, production and to gas and natural utilization of resources of oil and prevent in a manner waste; state such as will to au- operation provide development thorize and to for the and gas properties and a of oil such manner that greatest recovery gas of oil and ultimate and had; rights fully protect- the correlative all owners be that ed; of * * *. purpose of “It the intent and sections 57-901 to permit every gas pool each and 57-921 and produced up to be Nebraska its maximum efficient production, subject prohibition to the rate of waste as subject herein defined and to the further enforcement protection rights the correlative the owners gas common source oil or so that each common owner may equitable just production obtain his share of therefrom(Emphasis supplied.) prohibits 57-902,
Section R. R. S. waste and sec- 57-903, tion R.R. defines one form of waste as * * “* follows: waste shall also mean the abuse of the cor- rights pool relative due to nonuniform, disproportionate, unratable or excessive withdrawals of gas causing reasonably oil or avoidable drain- therefrom age resulting between tracts land or in one or more pool producing just in such owners equitable more than his * * pool; share the oil or from (Emphasis supplied.) This section also defines corre- rights rights lative the in a as follows: “Correlative shall mean opportunity afforded to property the owner of each produce,
pool reasonably prac- far it so just equitable ticable so waste, do without his * * gas; pool; share the oil or both, (Emphasis, supplied.) (4), 57-905 R. S. 1943, Section confers prevent Gas Conservation Oil and Commission to drilling, regulate producing, spac- and to waste ing of wells. requires permit R. R. S.
Section from commission before a be drilled. 57-907, R. R. S. 1943, authorizes the Section commis- limit the of oil sion each *5 pool produced to an amount that can be without waste provides: and further the total amount commission limits “Whenever the produced be and pool any in in to less that this state an amount than pool produce which the no- amount could if restriction imposed, or was the commission shall allocate distribute production among the producing properties or the several allowable wells pool on basis,
in the a reasonable minimizing reasonably preventing drain- or avoidable age developed by equalized from counter- each area drainage, property opportunity so that will the each have produce equitable just share, to subject or to receive its and prevention the the
to reasonable necessities for (Emphasis supplied.) of waste.” provides: “(1) .57-908, Section Wfhen R. R. S. prevent required drilling of waste, the un- avoid rights, necessary protect correlative wells, * * pool, spacing for a *. shall units establish (2) shape spacing are to such size units be and development efficient economical as will result in the and as; pool shall and size be the area whole, that by efficiently economically that be drained one can * * * (3) include the order commission shall well. prevent provisions production suitable from equitable just spacing share unit more than (Emphasis supplied.) pool.” oil and' provides: “(1) When R. R. Section separately-owned tracts embraced with- or more two * * * * * * spacing 'unit, shall be the commission in a empowered pooling to enter an order all interests * * * * * spacing shall Each such unit *. * * * just upon reasonable, that are terms be spac- tract each or interest afford * * ing opportunity receive, his *, recover or unit Operations equitable just incident share. portion unit drilling of a aof well pur- deemed, all by order shall be covered sepa- operations upon each poses, conduct such rately-owned drilling by tract the several portion owners thereof. That allo- ** * produced, cated to each tract when deemed shall, purposes produced all to have tract been ” (Emphasis supplied.) a well drilled thereon This provides sharing expense section also producing. conformity In conferred it *6 adopted section 57-911, R. R. S. the commission (b) Rule 313, subsection of which is “All as follows: supply depths wells sources drilled at in estimated (2500) excess five two thousand hundred feet spacing pattern no ex- has been established isting legal wells shall be drilled on 40-acre subdivisions equivalent (500) lots and not less five hundred than legal feet from the boundaries of said subdivisions.” (Emphasis supplied.) pooling requiring pooling order inter- appellants appellees
ests of was entered in con- and formity requirements of the act and under authority expressly conferred in sections 57-908 production R. and allocated pooling therein directed. We conclude that order was valid and enforceable. question primary is the second mentioned. Can allocating production order be made retroactive production
the date commenced? Under the common appellees capture, would have rule been entitled law produced only appellants remedy to all would adoption been to own well. With have drill its Act, a Conservation Oil and Gas landowner could no longer protect necessary so interest. became his contemplates get drilling permit act and the that there only adequately pump if that one one can well shall be pool. appellants entirely Here the in are the oil out pooling protection dependent allocating on the order production pro- and the costs a share to them appellees’ The several well. sections of the duction of rights. protection consistently correlative act stress adjoining designed protect They clearly are land- may pool doTo whose lands a extend. under owners adequate manner, fair, so permit reasonable, adjoining obtain, recover, an and receive owner equitable pooling may just order be share, the his and, time started retroactive to the made concerned, to the as costs start insofar may operations. made effective Unless the be verge retroactively, it on occasion on the con- fiscatory. say that this be done in do not mean should
We pertinent affecting par every factors instance. All case must be considered. There under review ticular good why ordinarily adjoining no an reason voluntary agreement at the ask for a should neighbor thereby share to drill and time starts his production, expense, as whether or not well as clearly proves The statutes intend successful. equitable rights shall resolved an basis. adjoining permit owner to sit back and await the To drilling operations asking without outcome successful agreement place risk entire would *7 for a party drilling expense the in the event entire the operation. ordinarily This would of an unsuccessful justify inequitable a retroactive and not order. Section contemplates adjoining that 57-909, R. S. when voluntary pooling agreement, into a to enter fails owner pooling may ap spacing order be entered on the and party. drilling party may plication interested of expense share of the allocated to ad the the recover deducting by adjoining it from joining the owner’s owner gas produced. This the oil enhances share drilling party by the taken who encounter a risk dry factor must also be and is a considered early equities. weighing In due case, this notice rights given appellees by appel claim of a delaying pursued by obvious tactics and lants, appellees, although proceedings before the commission might early they were been, commenced as as have limiting we inclined to that believe proceedings order to date of commencement of such justified is not and order should be made retro that appellants’ at least active given. date notice claim was completion very This occurred soon after well and of the fact that the view commission’s order drilling, production expense, allocated appellants, as well as equitable. the order
we find to be fair and direct We that be reinstated and adhered to. judgment district court is reversed and the judgment cause remanded with to enter directions as herein directed. and remanded
Reversed with directions. J., dissenting. Clinton, majority opinion seriously I believe erroneous important particulars, in several some of I which will (1) misinterprets, enumerate It forthwith. misreads, misapplies “pooling” provision of the Oil and disregards Gas inapplicable Act Conservation and seems to make statutory requirement of establishment “spacing precondition pooling. units” (2) ignores permits ignore It commission to body’s rules reference to own the establishment (3) “spacing apparently replaces units.” pri unit determination called the statute with a given (4) vately “notice of claim.” It takes from proceeds lawfully produced oil from the own gives it to another guise er’s well under the “pooling” contrary all well-established and funda principles property mental law. 58 C. J. (2), pp. §§ Minerals, b, S., a, 213, Mines principles (5) property It violates fundamental law ownership pertaining to of oil and heretofore an court and nounced property ‘which have become rules of (6) by using It creates confusion
law. *8 “pool” defined which is term statute, when it “spacing pool referring is A
should be unit.” spacing § '57-903(6), 1943. A reservoir. R. R. S. (established by portion pool com is that act by hearing) one mission after can be well drained production to be there and the shared where which is separate ownership exists tracts within interprets gas (7) pre I It the oil and act—or unit. prevent permit requiring to drill—as rule sume the protecting ing of oil and from his interests an drainage. prevent This is nonsense. 313(d). commission Rules 303 Permits See routinely, administratively granted re and where quired hearings are one of the most unorthodox location types hearing. The commission cannot arbi common despite implication permit apparent deny trarily cites, opinion. (8) majority It no for its in the ignores respectable interpretation of the act and weighty authority jurisdictions. (9) ignores from other parties. issues raised some opinion be to create effect will confusion industry industry insofar in- as the oil of the statutes sections discussed volved with attempt way opinion. that the lessen I believe best to- point opinion majority out errors in the the confusion and opinion I it as believe should be. This I an is write dp. now application appel- out
This case arises Irrigation al., District et to the Nebraska Farmers lants., entry Commission for com- of a Gas Conservation andOil pulsory order as to Gov- Township Range 22 North, 18, 3, Lot Section ernment County, Bluff P.M., '6th Scotts' Nebraska, West known the North Minatare as Field. what located January application filed asks was retroactive October be made production from well, of commencement the date Company, Inc., Feather Petroleum the White known Lot on Government The com- drilled 2,No. *9 pooling order; mission entered a determined the alloca- separate tion sepa- between the portions leases two which cover rate 3; of Government Lot made the allocation production subsequent
effective as to all to October 15, charged working 1964; interest owners in the two leases with their allocated shares of all com- pletion, storage, supervision, transportation, and other necessary appellees appealed costs to the well. The County, the district court for Seotts Bluff court which after trial reversed the order the commission and Irrigation determined that the Farmers District and its Company, Oil prove lessee, Sun did not facts allegations application contained their to the com- and that mission Irrigation minerals owned the F'armers pooled.” District and its lessee “cannot be judgment I would reverse the the district court and remand the cause with directions the district court to proceedings remand the commission for further dissenting opinion. inconsistent with this Irrigation Farmers The strip District owner of a extending of land 150 feet part wide across the south strip appears of Government Lot ap- 3. This to contain proximately Company 4.19 acres. Sun Oil an oil holds covering lease No tract. well was. drilled appellees, thereon. other than White Feather Petro- Company, leum Inc., are owners of the balance of containing Government Lot 3, about 43.92 acres. White Feather is the holder of lease on that tract. producing drilled approxi- White Feather inwell pro- mate center of Government Lot 3 which became ductive about October 1964. On about December gave notice to Sun White Feather and others proportionate lease and claimed a share of the production from the No. 2 well. Proceeds from apparently suspense were thereafter held distribution awaited ultimate outcome and other of this and
litigation. right their claim of Farmers Sun base to a retro- application (b) active of subsection of Rule 313 commission. Rule 313 entitled (b) reads WELLS.” Subsection “LOCATION OF n supply drilled to sources of esti- “All at wells follows: depths thousand five of two hundred in excess mated spacing pattern (2500) feet for no estab- has been legal by existing 40-acre wells shall drilled on lished equivalent lots and. not than subdivisions less five (500) legal feet from the boundaries of said hundred supplied.) (Emphasis subdivisions.” appellants contend that this rule establishes *10 purposes spacing unit for the of sections or unit appellees 57-909,R. R. S'. 1943. The contend 57-908 and of commission were not rules the intro- that since court neither that nor evidence the trial duced into notice of the commission can take rules. I court reject appellees of Some both contentions.. would (b) position 313 Rule does have that also take pool establishing a or a the effect already indicated, I As this is portion think thereof. correct. I set forth I would hold that the reasons hereafter,
For judi- court can and this and should take court the trial general pro- rules commission notice cial adopted promulgated. they properly Sec- vided part 57-911(5), is in 1943, R. as R. S. follows: “All tion regulations, orders issued commission rules, writing, be entered in full shall and indexed inbe shall kept purpose, by for that commission be books open inspection public at all records be and shall during hours and shall be office 84, filed reasonable times Chapter article 9.” Section provided as part provides in as follows: “No rule re- 1943, R. Secretary with the be filed quired this act under against any person until valid be shall State copy filed; and, shall have been so rule certified provided by specifically law, such fil- otherwise any unless ing except by publica- where notice shall, rule give tion is law, insufficient in be notice sufficient any person subject contents such rule thereto to- of ” thereby or (Emphasis supplied.) affected ascertaining ju “In matters fact or law be dicially judge may noticed, to, resort obtain knowledge information from, which he source of helpful.” p. § feels be Evidence, 12, would J.C. S., My investigation 833. discloses rules were adopted and conformity filed in statutes. with the original (b) part rules of which Rule 313 were filed approved Chapter 84, 9, accordance with article January long R. R. S. 1943, 12, 1960. This court has judicial regula properly promulgated taken notice of agencies. tions of federal Larson First administrative v. National Bank, 66 729; Neb. 92 N. An W. Powell v. derson, 147 Neb. 401; S., 25 N. 2d J. W. Evi C. p. § dence, apply different rule No should regulations agencies. of our own state administrative appear mandatory. The statute cited to make it would may judicial “State courts take notice of rules regulations gov departments state various p. general § ernment.” 31 S., Evidence, J. 980. The C. u properly adopted les of the filed legislative foregoing accordance statutes are judicial facts of which notice v. State taken. (Okla.), *11 Freeman 744; 440 P. 2d Gas H. F. Wilcox Oil & Co. 347, 162 89, v. Okla. 86 L. R. 421. P. 2d A. State, appellants
I now the of examine the contention adoption 313(b) the of of Rule had the effect establish- ing spacing appellants unit virtue of which the compulsory pooling com- were, under the order the of mission entitled share in 22, Emery entered on June as the No. well question requires production. an ex- of date This first Act. One the Oil and Gas Conservation amination of underlying purposes, “enforcement of the act is rights protection of the owners and of correlative oil or so that each common of of a common source may just pro- equitable share of owner obtain and his § 1943. act 57-901, duction therefrom.” S. R. R. prohibits also the abuse waste includes of which rights any §§ 57-908, correlative R. 57-903, owner. of 57-905(4) grants (c), R. S. R. R. S. Section regulate spacing authority to “the commission 57-905(7), gives of wells.” Section R. R. S'. promulgate commission enforce and regulations purposes rules of and to effectuate the act. 1943, are 57-909,
Sections 57-908 and R. R. S. “spacing pertain sections which establishment of “pooling units” and the of The first-men- interests.” prevent provides tioned section waste, that to to avoid unnecessary protect wells, or corre- rights spacing lative shall units the commission establish units, pool, substantially uni- be of shape pool. form size and entire size and shape vary pool may in different zones estab- specify spacing lished A the commission. order must shape the size and location and the each well. 338 of “The Rule the commission is as follows: upon upon Commission own motion or mo- its hearing party tion interested notice after specified approximate spacing establish units shape pool uniform size for each within State.” (Emphasis supplied.) provides R. that when two
Section separately owned are embraced within more tracts may voluntarily pool spacing unit, their a interests owners their pooling, voluntary and, absence au- in the upon application or thorizes the own for the order interests motion to enter states, part: pool- “Each This the unit. section only hearing, ing after shall notice and be made just that are terms and conditions and shall reasonable, that afford to- each opportunity unit the or interest tract *12 recover or unnecessary expense, receive, without his just equitable . . . Each share. order provision shall drilling operation make for the authorized ioell on unit, and for payment of including the reasonable actual thereof, cost charge supervision. a reasonable for As to each owner agree upon who refuses to the terms for operating provide the well, the order shall reim- for only for bursement his share of the of, costs out out of, representing from the unit his interest, excluding royalty any part obligated pay or other interest not (Emphasis supplied.) cost thereof.” It necessary purposes opinion not for the refer this provisions to other of this section. 313(b)
The above statutes make it clear that Rule “spacing does not and could not for establish units” producing pools appears the various in the state. merely 57-905(4) a well location rule section under
(c), R. R. S. 1943. R. Section obvi- ously contemplates establishing spacing an order units pool,” general establishing not “a one uniform pools units for all in the state known and unknown. previously Rule 338 of the commission, I have quoted, recognizes statutory An obvious intention. agency by administrative own rules. 73 bound C. S., Procedure, Public Administrative Bodies and J. p. §
In State, Carter Oil v. 240 P. 2d Co. Okla. Supreme it a Court of Oklahoma had before 313(b). rule similar rule held to Rule It there that such “spacing merely unit,” did not establish but es- drilling site, tablished location said: “Unit of a proper procedure.” must be lines pertinent portions established of the Oklahoma statutes suffi- ciently make case valu- similar to our own to the above precedent. able as a why I is, however, another could
There reason appel- 313(b) interpret as contended Rule *13 validity. uphold has The lants and. still its granted Legislature legislative by been both adopting quasi-judicial adjudicatory powers. rules or In only give public legislatively. notice it acts It need Ad- requires 1 Am. Jur. it. extent statute 2d, § Admini- p. 2d, 2 Am. Law, 965; Jur. 162, ministrative seq., p. § 2 Admini- 2d, strative Am. 107; 277 et Jur. Law, deciding involving p. § Law, strative 418. In issues 588, parties, establishing spacing or units as in the case adju- making compulsory orders, it acts in dicatory requires process notice to the manner and due parties opportunity to heard. Wat- interested and an in- The kins terpretation 159 2d 508. Dodson, 745, Neb. 68 N. W. v. regulations function administrative is a § Law, of the 2 Am. 2d, courts. Jur. Administrative p. 656, 517. question com-
The does the be answered is next previously es- no has been where mission, section R. S. have tablished, under retro- 1943, enter a order which is effective actively filing prior application? of the date to grant power. no com- statutes themselves power mission creature au- of statute thority statutory provisions creating is limited Comm., it. Continental Oil Co. Oil Conservation 70 v. supra; 2d 310, N. M. 373 P. Carter Oil Co. v. 809; State, Co., Railroad Commission of Texas v. Rowan Oil 152 173; Tex. 2d 439, 259 W. Union Pacific R. 131 Colo. Co. v. Oil Comm., & Gas Conservation 284 P. 2d 242. determining question cognizance must In we take rights, the vested the owners in the capture, from No. well. “Under the law acquires gas of land title to oil an owner which he produces although part land from wells his migrated gas may adjoining oil or have from wells. may appropriate He have thus oil that flowed adjacent lands without the consent from incurring liability of those and without to him lands drainage.” Baumgartner Corp., v. Gulf Oil 184 Neb. Corporation 168 N. 2d In Co. W. Wood Oil v. Supreme Comm., 205 P. 2d Okla. Court held, of Oklahoma under similar ours, statute right pools of an owner to drill wells take from may below the oil and that he be able to reduce possession, including migrate that which subject others, land of to prevent the reasonable exercise power the state waste and secure landowners, equitable apportionment tory migra- gas underlying oil and the land. held further produced that the lessee had title absolute to prior pooling. prior to the This
it is consistent with the pronouncement Baumgartner of this court in v. Gulf supra. Corp., *14 Oil question Supreme
The here was involved before the Corporation Court of Comm., in Oklahoma Wood Oil Co. v. supra. The court there held that the commis- pooling sion had no enter to a order effective prior spacing to the establishment of the unit. There is language opinion some confusion in the of the because spacing to the court seems refer to establishment of the entry pooling interchangeably. unit the compulsory Statutes authorize which of inter- spacing self-executing. person ests seeking unit in are not A apply to avail himself of the benefits must to appropriate Gruger Phillips the board or commission. v. Appellants 192 135 Co., Petroleum P. 2d Okla. 485. steps no in this case took to avail themselves compulsory pooling provision years. almost reading of our statutes leads me
A to believe that application the date of motion for the establishment spacing beyond pool- the time unit ing may No not be retroactive. doubt the commission application proper spacing and notice establish on can proceeding. same in units This leads of the order of the consideration to specifically purport does this case. It create a consisting spacing Lot 3. how- of Government This, order and techni- intent ever, is the obvious journalization could be cal deficiencies thereof there no case. was corrected the remand of this Since January prior lawfully established emit making pooling order its commission erred in 1967, the retroactive October judgment case does not court in this of the trial Accordingly
give I specific reasons for decision. applica- support examine the would evidence carefully sufficiency. I have re- tion determine its presented testimony expert trial court viewed in ing underly- appellants’ support oil claim that the draining portion their Lot was Government being Emery produced No. 2 well. This clearly supports testimony not contradicted. was underlying appellants’ sands conclusion that Apparently substantially productive tract of oil. were was, the same introduced before the commis- evidence change percentages except calculated sion underlying the two tracts. com- estimated to be allocated based the relative mission percentage originally place oil recoverable under The evidence shows that the each tract. 2 No. high structure, is located on the and that pushing is from the south water drive and west appellants’ tract then onto and across onto appellees produced the well. say we circumstances could not as a Under these matter *15 production law that an allocation the of the well percentages the relative the recoverable based is, place underlying originally each of the tracts erroneous. the cause the district court
I would remand with to the The remand commission. commis- directions just equitable determine the should share sion production of the White Feather Petro- owners Company, No. well from Inc., and after leum January just equitable charges 16, 1967, Company drilling, completion, Sun Oil operation, storage, supervision, transportation, and other costs. I problem now take note aof which would arise 57-909(2), remand the commission. Section R. R. S. provides that the order for to the reimbursement drilling working by nondrilling interest work- ing only owner for shall of, interest costs be “out production.” of, out The statute refers to “reasonable contemplate actual cost” but seems to only the situation where the is established and the before order entered drilled. Where, as compulsory pooling here, there is with reference to an existing producing complex. well, matter is more enough Company It would clear seem that Sun Oil should charged not be with share of costs at- period to the tributable it completion does not share production. As to costs, problem would arise in connection valuation of the well investment. How should costs be deter- (Perm. mined? Section Summers Oil and Gas Ed.), p. question treats this and without citation suggestions makes to how the well in- question vestment should valued. Since the be not lay court, I would not now before undertake down rule, call but would attention to the fact that the stat- completely ute does cover matter. commis- necessary course, sion, of could if receive additional evi- necessary dence make above determination. parties other matter should noted. The
One same Emery, court Oil Co. v. were before this Sun 183 Neb. 2d There 164 N. this W. court determined acquired strip fee title to that Farmers land against the contention that only its deed as it held transcript shown easement. As here the district following quieted court, court, that decision application its then lessee. title of Farmers Gas Conservation Commission Oil and involved here *16 prior apparently commencement to the filed was supra. Emery, In their Co. v. action in Sim Oil involved appel- appellees denied court the in the district answer lants’ complain Appellants of the title. general case which contained district court finding appellees contrary to the decision in for the previously because of quiet mentioned action title appellees. ap- finding general in favor ownership pellees Farmers their concede the brief underlying 4.19-acre tract. the minerals and Sun in case in conflict instant is. the decree If simply judgment appears to have been judgment. quiet it title journalization This oversight by the district clarified corrected and could be matter remand. court on the join JJ., in this dissent. McCown,
Smith appellee Mandelberg, cross-appellant, Harriette appellant cross-appellee. v. Louis Mandelberg, 2d 148 N. W. February 18, 1972. Filed No.