OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUITIN 

Iionorable sob0 IL Wlor 

chhr suprrlror 

Annotated Tox 

~0 hme rour letter 

oploion rith rrf*renco to Ar 

Terar Cirll Statut46. titer 

our oplnloa with r8rOrsnOe t 

ad la the rlrrt 

latlng to an6 

iOn with ,b4tiO66 

Statute, or i6 the 

ouo aa to lntall6atr 

t of tb, 8tatut.o hrroin0 ourtaiL the production or 

t rorth in .%OtiO66 r6r, “b’, 

tat4 15 wart8 a5 a 66tter or 

a the Conaiioion haye tha powr to 

on or wllr dsrorlbed la Ssotlonr 

* and "en Ol the Statute, ii 6UOh OUrtailia neormary to pretent warts 88 prodded in other 

Statutes of t&ir'Stats? 

l ?hb'd. '-'~,~OU have RtlSr@l%b BeOtiOn (6) Or '&e&tiOSi 

Tw6 In the arr~iaitlve, then ploam mIti@rr whether or not 

the Iangiilatu$e had the pow4r to 64 drolare and ~~0~164. 
ROD. John I. Taylor, hga 2 

” Fhrth. Do46 the Statute prohlblt the ComI~slon 

from reotLng the produotion or well8 of depth4 and 

haying th4 produohg eapaoltlea as ret forth in Seotlons 

.ar *b”, “o”, "d- and "0" only wh4n ouch wall5 would be 

da&ad or rerult In 1048 or produotion ultimately r4ooT4rable or oau54 premetur4 abandonment of IMUJ, iI the wll 

or ~411~s dally produotlon wre l rtIflaIally curtell4d? 

8 Fifth. 

iutlom9b 

Should lt be htld br Jour Department that 

Is not Inralld beoau54 ot any enblgulty In 

the language 6446, then I8 ma4 Intalld for any other 

r4a5on? 

*Sixth. Should it be held that Articl4 6049b 16 a 

yalldTfa5tt4, then la a flndlng by the Railroad Commission 

or Texar of iaato whloh brings a well with any of the 

4la54ltIoatlons or a mar&ml wll final, concluslre and 

blndlng upon the Court67 

'84T4nth. It Artlolo 6049b I8 a rslid Statute, aan 

the Rm C~mmlrslon In a proratlon ord4r rlx th4 dally 

allowabls oi any pumping or ilowing ~411 haring a potential 

oapaoltr greater than that ot R marginal ~411, undsr your 

dot4mLnatIon or ths meaning or marglaal ~116, bolos the 

unount allowsd ror a smrglnal wll ot eWlar depth? 

. 

Ii the lanyPg4 us46 In the Statute to th4 

~mbrglnal wsll' as U64d h4reIr m45ns a 

puaplag all well oapablr, undsr norm6lamr46trlated operatlng 

aondltlona, or produolnc~ rubh dally pumtltiss of 011 ae 

her4Io #t out a6 would k d6mag4d, or result in 6 loss or 

the produotIOo u~tlmet4ly rcroorerabla or aaase the pmmature 

**$%%&4~i6 nOt 60 Imb&6Ou6 whrn u44d 16 4Om44- 

it it8 dall. production wre artlfltion with the rekt at the Statute 60 as to invalidate -4 

16 it8 4ntlr4ty, th4n plaa5e ady164 what, in your opinion, 

ir the Qr4OlM nmanlng OS the l~guage quoted?- 

. 

SO zk%3 haTO your suppbmental request of January 15, 

1Oa, in which YOU ark ths following question: 

fl mne. Doe5 the Sailroad COil3lB16iiO6 Or T4X66 h4Y8 the 

&Ow4r=4r Art1014 6049b. Rerised Clril Statut46 of the 

State of Texae, to art~rldall~ ourtail the production or 

a pu5tpIng wellharicg a producing oapaolty or more than 80 

bun16 p4r day 66d produolng irOa hOrizOna iand at 6 depth 

between 8,000 and 4,000 -et,, b414w 820 barrels per day a5 

84t forth in Seotlon *bi? or tb4 abom’rehrrca to Artiale?* 
fiO& John E. Taylor, P4g4 3 

s6r0re 8tatl6g our anewer to your qu44tlon5, w 

b8116ra that It 801 be halpful t.0 6et out brletly the legl6- 

latlte hI5tOry Of the ~YargIMl W411 Statute,’ and the departmental pnd JodIaJal 4OC6truOtlon whloh it haa r4OeiWd up to 

thlr time. 

The &!argInal X411 Statute n8 first l aaotrd aa Seaat. 

a11 Ho. 339, AOt8, 4gnQ I*gI61atW4, B4gular sb64iOA, Chapter 58, 

Page 98, which beoams 4rreOtiT4 April 16, 19Sl. Ths oaptlon of 

thi6 at&&e read8 aa follasr 

'An Act to derln4 mrglnal wellr) drolarlng it to 

4OA6titUt4 wa6te to l rtlfIoI6lly rcrtrlot the nor& 

proauotlon thsrefmm; dIr4otlng that no rub or order or 

the Bailroad COarmi58ion or other eonrtituted lrgal authority 

6h5l1 bs mtued requirifag th4 r46triotioa of the production 

or arry marglaal w4lll 64olarlng ea.oh prwlrlon lnd4pendent 

ot each other provlrloni and 64oluIng a6 emerg4aoy.w 

The fIrrt two seotlonm of Senate Bill pi'o. 337 mad aa 

rOilOn : 

“SECTIOP 1. Th4 term Wuglnal Roll* a8 u84d herein 

meaaa a pumping oil well produoW such dally quantities 

or 011 a6 hueln set ovat a5 would be damaged, or r46ult IA 

a 1066 ot thr production ultlnatoly reoworablr, or oau66 

the premature 6banbonment of -8, ii it8 daily prOdUOtiOn 

wre artI?loIally ourtaIled. The rOllOwlng 648orlb46 ~118 

shall be besad *Yarginal Eellr* in thl8 Stat4: 

"(a) Any puaplng 011 wll wlthln th16 State baring a 

dally produotloa of tea barr418 or 1488, araraged wu the 

preoeding thirty 0066OOUtiT4 day6, producing rr00 a depth 

or 8000 r44t or 14588 

O(b) Any pumping 011 well rithla this State aring a 

dally production or treaty barr418 or 1485, aTua6sd owr 

the praordlng thirty oon8eoutIv4 days, produaing from a 

horleon deeper than 2000 r4et and 1486 in depth than 2WO 

r44tt 

-(o) &iy paaplcg oil wll la thl6 State haying a dally 

production oi forty b6rr418 or 1456, averaged mar the 

preordiag thirty ooaeeoutits dayr, produolng fmx~ a horizon 

deeper than 5500 feet. 

"SEC. I!. TO 6rwi0i6iiy ourtall th4 production 0r 

any Qarglnal .mll* below the marginal litit a# 8et out 

abow prior to it8 ultImt4 DlW@Q& and abandonment i6 

hereby~#rol6zwI t&be waute, and a0 rule or order of the 

Ballroad cOiMIi6dOC-nor 94x88, or other constituted lee&al -_-LC_-*L- -Le.. c_ --* aa-1 -,,..a-,..- u-,-*a.*rr r* ,kr 
199 

Hon. John IE. Taylor, Fag0 4 

6eOtiOA s Or 8eMt0 till KO. ssv 

Tinion Or the rtatuts iAd4Qendsrit of eaoh _-._ _.. 

deolared l aoh proother provision 

and deolar4d the leglrlatlT4 latent to have p6884d l a o h 

prwisioa l~epeadeatly of all other prori5loa8. SectIon 4 

was an emergenay olau54, whIah r4ad a8 ~OilOUEt 

*six. 4. The raat thatth4r4 I8 no law derlnlxig 

a Wugiml Eell* aQd none whloh pnreata the utlrIolal 

ourtmltient 0s the produotlon 0r 866l1 pomPiIl&j W0116, the 

artltlelal restrlatlon of whloh would oauso their damage, 

a Mallor ultisato reoorery of 011 thererrom and th6ir 

premattu% abandonment, oreates an l nugonoy and an imperative public B4o468ity ZeqUiriAg that the COAEtitUtlOAal 

Rule which r4quir48 bills to be road on three sereral day5 

be 5uspende6, and such Rule is horoby 8u8p4n606, and that 

this kot taks 0rr0ct iron and arter lta QR65Rge, and it 

18 60 eaaoted.* 

PLtt4r the parrsags or the Marginal W411 Statute, th4 

L4glslature 4~aoteU Bourn Bill Ro. ed, Ads, 42ad Legi6latur0, 

First called session; Ch4ptrr 86, P4go 46, whioh beoam orrrotin Augurt l.2, lOS1, acd ao8t of vhloh 18 now mbraoed la 

hrtloh 60490 of VBrAOA'E Annotated T4X48 cl~ll. Statutes. 

Section 16 of thi6 statute (now Seotioa lb oi titlale 60490 

or V4rnon*r Annotated Taxa* CiTil Statate6) cOAtRIA6 the 

r0ii0dg provl6lon wlth rstereaa4 to Sh4 Marginal xell Statut4r 

%othl.ry in thl5 Act Oontained 6h611 BOditf or 4haAg6 

in any ray th4 terms and Q~OTIE~OAE or S666t6 Bill-Ro. 399, 

pa6846 by th4 Forty-seoond L0gf8lRtUr0 Rt it6 r0gtIlar 

S~E~~OA, oomrao~ly luiovo 06 the Eargllul %a11 Bill.* 

Sub6equcrntly, the L8girlatUro eaaated &mate Biu 

NO. 1, Rot6, Fousth Called S486iOA, Forty-84ooad ~giEhtUr4, 

Chapter S, 4ff0OtiT0 t?Orember lSe, L982. 64OtiOA le Of thi# 

statute oontalaad the follming prori~onr 

“. . . aad this Act Shall AOt be con&rued t0 top481 

or modify S4Aate Bill So. 337, pa6606 by the forty-84aoAd 

Legislature, at its Regular Sdllbion, known a6 the Kugiaal 

3411 BIl1.r 

On january 1.7, 193?1, the Attorney fJ4A4ral*s DC+pUtmeAf 

con5trucd the plargIAe.l ~411 Statute ln a~ opinion written by 

Assistant Attorney Oeaeral Yaurlce Cheek to El?. R. D. Parker, 

Who WE th41i Chi4r St&xwTi6Or Of the oil & Oa8 DiTiEiOR Of 

the Railroad CoE&ii88ioA. with r4fUr4cO4 to th4 OOA8trUCt~OA Of 

the mrgIAa1 wll statute, a6 It then read, the opl~io~ contalnsd 

the following l tat&aant: 
‘200 

Bon. John E. Taylor, Feg4 5 

wit i6 my oplnlon that under the tcrzs of thla act 

the fiailroad CO0mlSSlOD 18 expraaslg denled the rl&t to 

pea6 any order which curtail6 the praductlon of eny 

wglnnl well below the &ergincrl limit6 ret out in the 

sot. 

. . . . . 

*Phi6 aot oonatltutso e deflnlte llaltation on the 

authority of the FUlroad Commlsafoa. lmer ita teal4 

the Coma.lasiot~ oemot curtail the productlen or 4 pumping 

011 ~411 pr&uolng irox a 4.e;th of 2000 feet or 1468 below 

10 barrala psr day. It cannot ourtail the production of 

suoh e ~411 producing fron a horizon deeper then 2O@G feet 

and 1466 than 5500 feet below 2.0 barrel4 per day, or l 

pumpLog oil 1x411 produciw from e horizon deeper then 

3500 feet below 40 berm16 per dey. 

*The faot that a acll is a pumping wall dour not wlthdraw iron the Cammlasion the powr to curtail its produotion 

to prevent waste tlllder the 6trtutea 6owz to the lialta art 

forth. In other uerda, a pumplne 011 ~11 lo aubJeot to 

the rulea, rsgulatiors md orders of the Zallroud Commiaaion 

just the same ea any other oil well in Texeo, l ubjeot to 

;;&le~ttet1OI.l6 fapoaed On the ~Owera OS the Cosroiaal~n br 

The Comnla6lon may, to prevemt waste, ourtall 

the prodictlon of auoh we116 down to the lfxito set forth 

in the aof, but it ney not ourtall their production below 

the limittrr." 

On nprll 1, 193S, tcmferrnot Opinlct Xo. 2916 of the 

Attorney C%oerel*s Dipartmnt, addressed to the aallroad Cowalarion ot T4184, and written by haai6tant Attormpa General Neal 

Power8 and Xaurloa Cheek, was laitued, 4ontel.nlng 144 Sollowing 

stat404nt: 

Wnder the marg.lccl trell lcw (Acta, 1931, 42nd Leg., 

p. 92, c-h. 56 - Row Art. 6049b, R. 9.1, pumping ~4116 whloh 

pr&uoe Sro0 the torizot whlbh rxiats in the Eart Texas 

field may not be ourtailed by a proration order of the 

Kellrocd Comzisslon to a dally ellowable of 1466 than 

forty berrela, althoqh they asy be curtail44 to that figure 

to prevsnt weate.* 

Subs4gusnt to the rtndelng of the :oregolng opiniona, 

the ~eglsleturs paaaed Kouae Bill Ea. 678, Aote, 4&d Iaeialature, Regztlar Seaalo~, Chapter 97, Faga 215, rhloh beoaam effeotlvrc April 27, 1933. Thfs atatute pslsndetl Ssotlon 1 or the 

marginal well statute so ~a to read a8 tol~owa: 
Eon. John E. Teylor, Teijs 6 

'S4otloo 1. The tsra *&rglcel Lell' as used hdr8ln 

amma a p@plrrp; oil well capebl4, under rort4l unreatrleted 

operating donditlona, oxf produolng such dally quactltlsa 

of oil es hareln ret out a6 would be demged, or result in 

e loss of produotioc ultl&ately reooverable, or cause the 

?ren6t$W ebandocaent of ~4, if its dally production 

w4r4 ertl?lolelly ourt4ll44. The followl~g deaoribad roll6 

ahall be deemed Werelnel Yi4116' 1Si this Stats: 

*v(e) Any pumpl~g 011 well wlthln this State hevlng 

e deily oepaolty for ?roductlor. OS ten (10) barrels or lees, 

ayeraged ova: the prccadln~ thirty (30) eoc4aoutivs days, 

producing fro5 a depth of two tizouaenb (E,OGO) feet or 1466: 

*t(b) any pumpln~ 011 we13 tithln tiils Stat.4 h&vi= 

e daily oepeolty ror produotlon OS twenty (20) barrels or 

leas, eroregcd over the prcoedlng thirty (30) conaaoutlre 

dw*, 

P 

rothelng Sroa a horizon derp4r than two thousand 

(2,OCO feet and less ln 44pth then four thousand (4,000) 

feet: 

“Q(c) xny pusiplnl: 011 well within this Set4 having 

a dally cepaolty for~productlon of twenty-fim (2s) barrel8 

or leas, orsra.gt% over the preoedlng thlrty (30) oonatoutirc 

daYa # roduolng from a horizon deeper than four thousand 

(C,OOO P feet ant! leas ln depth then 61x thourand (6,000) 

feet: 

m*(d) imy pumplug 011 ~011 within thl8 State harln&~ 

dally oapeoity for produotlon of thirty (30) barrels or l&66, 

everegad Otsr th4 prscsdicg thirty (30) oon646utlYe day6 

produolng froi a horlton deeper than 6lr thoucand (S,OOO! 

feat end 1486 in depth then clght thousand (8,000) feet: 

~'(4) my pumping 011 ~11 tithln this State having 

e dally oepeolty for pro%uotion of thirty-flte 

or leas, hrareged over tba proosding thirty (30 I conwoutlre 

38) barrels 

deya, producing rroz e horlron deeper than eight thousand 

(6,000) feet." 

The ener&enoy oleus4 of liouse %I11 618. aupre, reed 

aa rollowa: 

*SEC. 2. The feot that the present %s?inlt&on of the 

t4rm ‘~ekglnal X411* operates a6 BE lnipeCl04nt to the 6dnlhi6- 

tretlon of the conservation laws or the State of ~4x44 in 4a 

*wtable dlatrl~utlbn of the allowable production in the 

Oil *141%* of tbla State oreater aa emergency and en impareUT4 pub114 necssalty rrquuirlng that the conetitational mls 

wu@h r4Wlr46 blllr to be reed OE t~eqhmir&~~~~~ be 
Eon. John H. mylar, Fage 7 

~u~ptn&ed, and such Rule 1s her el urponded b y and that thle 

;i;c;~~mafreot rr0= and after its pasragt, and it 16 80 

CR Ootober 9, 1933, Bonoruble tlaurloe Cheek, xm.lstant 

Attorney Contral, rrott a latter oplAot to the Cmalttte on 

Oil k Car Of the ~OUW Of RtRrtaentatlvtr of the Tesar Ltglrlature. +lth refuenoe to the marginal well law, the opinion 

eontalned the following &atamentr 

"The mm&ml well lag whloh llmita the powr ot the 

Comn~I~don to ourtail the produotloa oi well6 below a 

oertain Us&t i@ aimply a llrzitatloa 011 the authority of 

the adaihl8trativt body to which has been entrusted the 

duty ot oarrying lnta tZi6ot the oonmervatlon laws of thl8 

otatt with retortme t3 011 find gas. It 113 Amply a leglnlatlvt dtolaration that, even though mate Bight reeult, if 

all the Utll6 10 this t&ate are petitted to product at the 

llmits set by the nsrglnal wall'karc, that otverthtlese that 

rate or produotlon wiil not be unlawful and operator8 OPII 

oonduot their opsrrtloar aooordlagly without fear o? lntertarenot tro?r the Railroad Comineloa. 

e'Speclfioally amwerlag your lnpulry, the Legislature 

ha8 the powar to fir the limits o: produotlon ot marginal 

wella at any point that It 6ees tit, mince t& marginal well 

law la a limltatlon not on the rlghtb or the operttor but 

on the powers of the Codralon. This, of oourre, 18 not 

the aamt as naylng, assuming that there were QO marginal 

well lam, that an order of the Cosmleaior or;rtaUlw the 

produotlon of wells to a rldloulously low llmlt would be 

a valid order. In that oa8e the order of the Cofmlralon 

would be unoonetltutioml aa deprivln& the operator of hi8 

property without due prooers or lay but the llmitr whioh 

are met on the authority of the Cmnlrsloa by the Legirlature la a law of this oheraoter ut 8oltly wlthla the 

discretion or the Iaglrlature and the courts will not 

&Intubb msh a law, however much they my rtrikt down an 

order ot the Comlrslon vhlch weaoonably ourtalls the 

produotlon OS operatoro beyond the neotcmltitr of the 

prevention or w68te.w 

Eouso Bill 80. 9%&, 44th IBgislattuue, EegUlar SeWlon, 

Chapter 96, Page 180, arfeotlvt hprU 16, 19%. oontalntd a 

nmber or mendnentrr to the statutes providing for the rtgulatioa Or the produotlon or 011 and gab by the Railroad Corsmisslon. 

Thh statute alao contained two txprerr provlalons with reference 

to the mrglnal well Statute. Seotion &, which wended Artiole 

6014 of the Rovlaed Clvll Statutes, ooatained the following 

provialont 
Bon. John E. Taylor, Fage 8 

*RothIog La this 3aOtloa shall bQ coustrued to authorita 

llmltatlon o? prodcotlon 0r mirglnal wells, as such marginal 

wells arc, de?lntd by Statute, below the mount ilxea by 

stetuto for suoh wellrh* 

geotlon 18 or House till Ea. t88, supra, rbloh 1s now 

oontalnsd lo Verncn*s Annotated Texas Clrll Statutes as S~Otlon 18 o? lirtlcle 6OCQt, oontalned the SollOxlr~& provisions: 

". . . and this Aot .shall not be oonstrutd to repeal 

or modlly Chaster 49, Aots o? the Forty-third Ltglslatura, 

&gular Sessloa knon: as the Q!argloal Xc11 Aot.'* 

The rortgoiag statutas oontaia all O? the areandmnts 

\ 

and referwoes to the Eargfaal Jell Statute ug to th6 present 

tima, cantal686 Ln any ~egisiativa anaatElcot6. 

/ Thwa hna been only one reiwehot to the marginal 

well statute in ar?y Texas case. such rtrertnot beLEg oontalned 

in the dsolslon of-the Court o? Civil Appeals at Au&in In the 

-Ease:o?:i T’idt Fatsr Associated 011 Cowaay v. iiallroad Commlsslon, l20 5. z~. (2a) 544 iw. a ii doet not undertake 

taonstrue the Marulnal*rell &a%~.“kotDt to rater to 

*tha fact that the ~glrlaturs Itetlr'has tken cogliizaaoe 

(sea hrt. 6040b, Vern~a*s X. C. 5. aa amndcd) that a differsotiatlon should be made betweon mm$nal wells and the more 

produotlro areas or d 11416. . ..* 

The laarglnal well statuta haa also been rtrtrred to 

b 

o i 

the ?tdercll Courto In the Rowan k I?lchols oa6t. In the 

ialon in the Dimtrlot Court, i? own & e;lohol.e Gil Comwmy 

v. Railroad Comalsaloa or Texas, Judge Eck xTlzrzi6 (28 P. 

SURP. 131, 136, 137) 

~Respondtnts, In at t??ort to extenuate the lntpuallty 

o? their order, suwat the dlffloulty presented by the 

sisrglnal well law. Artlole C049b, Vernon*6 Ann. Cl+. St. 

TeZ. This d0t ralateis to pampfng nella and 60 tar as 

xast Tams 1s concerned torblds the artltlolal curtaIlment 

ot produotlon below go barrelo a &as ii mioh rmluctloa 

mu16 manse damage to ~tht well, or less o? ultlnhte recovery, 

or premature sbandartaitot. 

. . . . . 

” The Statute orrers no sx~ust ror a rlat a0 

barrel~ail&anee to other wells rumIng op to 880 barrel6 

par hour. 

;I; it’< soaoedtd that the Statute 1s valid (tioh 

has been seriously questioned) and that thesa strlotly 

marginal wells mumt be allowed 80 barrels a day Ir they 

oan maka it, still that tor~lsh68 00 txoum for a6ntIsoatIbg 

the property of som other producer better situated. 
-5. John 3. Taylor, Pago Q 

ru~psng vella of this variety might appear in a rleld 

to arch an extent as to rxbaunt the entire allowable, 

thereby leavine nothing Sor high potential flowing 

wells. l?o such absurd rarult wa8 ever intended. This 

StatUt8 ~a8 ObriOu8ly d88i@led t0 kWp tb,W &sell 

pwcre fro5 belng all,@tad off, it being oontsmplated 

that the bettw ml18 wuld b&we a muoh h&her l llo7eble. 

Jf, hOwaTer, thi8 atarginal m.h.&mum muat be oon8ldrred a8 

a oomponeot alemcnt of a proration ache&e, thereby ~a8o5- 

ably rodwlag th? allowable8 of other better well8, either 

the Statute or the scheme mwt fall.* 

In Railroad Comia8105 or Texas v. Rowau & Hlohola 

oil co., 107 H. Isid) 70 imdge Fo8ter or the Ciroat c o&art 

of kppmla said, with &fsren&e to ths Earglnal Fell Statute: 

*The 45i wells referred to in the stipulation a8 

allowed to produoe all the7 can ma7 properly be classed 

Se &%arginti Well8 under the tarSi t&f a Te~a8 8t?&Uta, 

tit. 6OlQb. VetnOn' Ann. ClV. Stat., which, inter aa, 

define8 a 5aPgLnti well as any p5plng well having 5 daily 

output of produotlon of 20 barrole or leas. The statute 

prohibits tha Railroad COa1&88iio5 from restrlctini; the 

produotlon of a4 marginal well aa thereunder defined. 

. . . . . 

-. '. . ?lowing We118 produslng 80 barrels of oil a 

dax et 1088 could not be ao58ibered RS aarglnal well8 

oorpiag dthln the mantletory terms of the rtatute. The 

COti 18 uithout SUthoritr t0 80 Ola88 them.* 

x%th reference to the &h&al well Statute, the Raihoad 

COaE&8dO5 ha8 adopted it8 Rule PO. S under it8 general'pkride Rule8, which read8 a8 follow8~ 

=5. URGINAL WELL EXEXFTIO~.- Ro rule herein adopted 

8hall be eonatcuad a8 Impelring or In anpi8e abrogating 

what 18 knoan a8 the %ar&ial tFel1 l.ar,* end each well 

prcduolng 011 a&all be entitled to produos aithout restrlctlon the amount of 011 fixed br lan for it8 olaa8lfloation 

u-n ths baslr of depth." 

&wiring in mind tha ?or~&oing 8tStlltS8, an& the departmental and judlolal oonstructionr rrhioh haare been plaoed upon 

the &argbal ml1 statuto, we 8hall prodead to a58wr rour 

Q~e8tlona. IA doing 80, w dli, Or QOUICO, m&it 011l OpitiOA 

8triOtlJ to a dirOU88iO5 Of the h@il QUE8tiO58 involved, 83.5c. 

all ques loaa ~,polloy are out8lde oT mar prorinoe and rest 

801e1y 7l tM&&$&.y.q~&sr $lrcretlon of th8 Leagirlaturcl and the 

Railroad COEUIi8aiOLi. 
Eon. John E. Tcylor, Eagc 10 

FIRST. OUr 058WbC t0 YOU fit8t qWStiO5 18 t&t 

15 our oplz all of the Xarglnal Xbl.~~.Statute should be 

oonatraed together clod that the laz&uage of the statute 18 

5ot 80 ambigUOU8 81 to 1malldat;e it. 

Ir: COA8tnli5g Article 6049b, vc hare followed 

certain ~11 rcoognlzed geooral prlnolples of stat&or)- con8traotlcn. Prinarlly, we have kept in aind the rule that oo 

etatutc should be held to be invalid or lnoperatlvc beccusb 

of ambiguity or fOS any Ot&r rba8on u&cc8 t&r@ 18 no 

rbasOnabl8 oon8tructioD which oan bb adopted wtioh would 

make the 8tatutc valid bnd 8freotlvb; Sbb Yett v. Cook, 

115 T&z. 203, ES1 S. Vi. 0391 39 Tex. furls. 206 

ln(; a etatee, the intention o? the Legislbture*ib 

I5 CO58tlWto be 

arrived at by Vievl5g the act a8 a whole, rrolr caption to 

bmcrg8noy 0leu8e.~ Spenra v. 3an Antmlo, 110 Ter. 628, 625; 

223 S. 2. 166. Our ~Xprbme Court baa deolarad that, “It I8 

the lntectlon of the la* which 18 the law; and oooc &uly 

asoertaincd, it should prbtil, WC5 SgaiA8t thb 8trht letter 

of the lar," , 110 Tax. SO, 214 S. X. 295, sod 

that the oour 8trlot grcmatlcal rule8 in 

lnterrmctlnr, statutbc. when to do M would Ylolcte the evident 

lbgi8ihtiVe iiLt85t." -Fopham V. Fatterson, 121 Tcr. 615, 

51 S. X, (2d) 660. 

SeOttOE 6 of Article 10 of the Revised Civil &&t&c8 

provide8 that, -35 al]. intbrpretations, the court 8hbU look 

dlllgently for the intention of the Legislature, keeping 15 

view at all tlmca the old lav, the 8~11 end the remcdy.m 

Our SuQrcfm Court has further 8aid that, WOnoc the laglrlatitc 

intent is croertained the duty of the oourt is plain. To rcfucc 

to enforce rtatutos %n accordaaoc with the true intent of the 

Legislature 1s b5 inbrcasable breach of judicial duty, beoause 

an unwarranted lnterfercnce with t&e axaralse of lawful, laglaZatlro authority." Love v.Wilcox,ll9 Tex.256,276; 28 S.w.(2d)515. 

Bcari&g in mind the tOra~Ol5~ ocrdlnal r&i&.8 of 

statutory oomstruction, it is our opition that the la5gucgc 

of Article 0049b, vhllc it is Cot perfeotly clear and unambiguOU@,'$~ tiuifiolently plain to oakc it oaclble to arrive at 

thO~~i8l.attivb intent. construing el P of the 8tGtUte together, 

we thlllk that it 18 reamnobly plain that the lntcntion of the 

Lcglalature in p386i5fi the ~crglnal ml1 Statute wa8 to plaoe 

definite llmlt8 upon the powers of the Bailroae C0tPsrL8d0~ bo 

1-t the produotion of oil from ml18 15 the State O$ TeXb8. 

cb Opinion as to thb spbOifi0 i&bb5l5g Of the St&d4 18 8bt 

out in our c58wczsto yonr rencini5g qUe8tiOnE, 8tatbd below* 
206 

x0& John E. Taylor, PWe 11 

s?xom* (a) Our anawr to the first subdltlslon OS 

pur seco’~tiOn 18 that Section 2 ot Article 6049b, whan 

construed together rlth the reaalnlrg portions of tb statute, 

msns that.-the E811rOad Conutlssion 18 prohibited by the Lagislature from Curtailing the produotlon of oil frosi thm wet116 

o&ng dthtn the Olas6itloations #t forth ln gection 1 of 

the mUgirId Wll 6tfJtUt6. The leglslotlre rostrlction upon 

th. purr of the Railroad CbmzsisBiOn 16 6t6t66 in Section Z 

h l n, ways; rlrst, 66 a daolaratlon that it 16 waste to 

curtail artlflclally tho production OS any aarglnal well, and 

6ecOndr as an express prohlbltlon agalnSt any rule or ordor 

of the Rallroad Conunission requiring restrfctlon of the 

production from any marginal rqsll. 

(b) Our Bnemmr to tha second 6ubdiYisloo of your 

second qwotion is that in our oplnlon th6 Comxlsslon does 

not hare the pmuer to mutall the production Of well6 dseorlbed 

~IJ 6Ub66OtiO66 *a*, *bw, *O*, "d' and *On Of Section 1 0i 

Art10ls b049b, even thowh the COd66lOn should be of the 

oplnlon that such ourtallment 16 neoe6sary to prevent want6 

a6 prwided in other statute6 of tai6 State. 

ConslderlnE the leglslatlre hlstorp af the mrglrul 

well 6tatute, and the cocstruotlon that it has reosired since 

it6 pssraga, it 18 rassoaably plain that the intention bf 

the I.egislature WA6 to designste certain classSs Of 011 w6116 

and to provide that the Eallroad Ccmnl66lon should have no 

gowr to restrict the production of 011 from such wells. The 

speoifio oonsldsrntions tbrat impel a6 to the conoluslons 

6t6t6d abor6 6r6 a6 fOllOwSa 

(1) Thhe ~1aIIgUage Ot the StEtUts lt68ii iDdiO6te6 

that the Legislature intended to rtrrtrict the ?3allroad Commls61On by removl~ troa its jUd6diOtiOn ttS p0w.r t0 lhit 

the production iron aarglnal *8116. The OaptiOn Of ths 

orlglnal marginal rell otatute, Senate Bill X0. 537, Acts, 

4&d Legislature, Regular Seoslon, Chapter 56, Page SE, 

6tattS that It 16 *An Act to define marginal a~lls; deolarlng 

it to oozstltute waste to artlflclally restrict the normal 

production thsretroa; dlreotlm that no rule or order of the 

Railroad Comissioa or other constituted legal authority Shall 

kmtsred raqulrlm the r6strl6tlOD Of the &'rodUQtloD from 

any suu~inal ~11. . ." 
HOn. John E. Taylor, Page lf! 

S4~ti0D 1 or said aot then prooeeas to aerin0 th9 

tezm %uxrglnsl ~e116" by stating three dlfterent speolflo 

olas6lrlcatlon6. %CtlOn 2 OO!it6in6 the 6pCO1fiC prohlbitiOD6 6g6iD6t the restrlotlon of tha proauotl06 from &argiDd mu6 br the R&llrOSt COZOLi6niOD, which hare b44a 

heninb4ror0 84t forth. notion 4 Of the aat rCOlt66 that 

a n l mrgenoy eristb bSSS*ae O? %h4 Snot that th4re 16 no 

hw defining a *Mrgindl W611’ and son8 which protects 

the artlfidul curtalksnt of the produotlon Of~#aLl pumplog 

W116.” The68 portions of the t;arglnul Gel1 Statutes can 

oaly paint to on4 16t4ntlOn, that la, an lntentlo~ td prohibit 

any ourtallmant by the Railroad C~SE~OD of the prOQuctlo6 

Of 011 frOa EiEir&bd -116. 

See 1 Summers, 

sdltlon) a* 96, k&era, 

"The La?: cf 011 s.nd Gas” (Permanent 

author says, 

Cltiw AFticle 8049b, the leame& 

=The UbtiZi.Ss&OC 10 4Xpre66ly denied the power 

to lblt or prarate.#muiuotlor of *marginal. wells.*' 

The only lanyage lr thr! statute wNch might lead 

to a different c0L6tmiotlon in the language aontalned in 8eotlon I, 

which refer6 to a marginal ~011 cu belnc a pumping oil uell 6uoh 

‘66 would be damaged, or maul 5 ln 8 loas or the production 

ultimately recoverable, or cause the presature abandonment of 

64m6, if its dally yroductlon were artlfiolally curtal%ed.w 

Sirellar &&&age 16 ilsc oonta~med 'ia Sootion 4, whrra 

the Lsgl6latum 6608 that 62 l 5er genQrxlsts y beoaun of the 

fact that there is no lhw d4flning a m6r&inal wall and @o&a 

whlohIplev4nts ths artlflclal ourtallment of the produotlon 

of 61~11 punipl~ ~4110, Vhc nrtlil~lal restriction of *oh 

would OCLULIC their dluge, a taller ultf.mate rcoorery of 011 

th4rerrom end their pr4faaturc abandon5ant. . . ." 

It ha6 bsea arb@ad that by the language quoted the 

Iagislature intended tQ~ ray that ths Railroad Co!mlssiOn should 

be prohibited from 1lstUlng th% production of Mrglnal ~4116 

only where suck rsstrlotlon of their produotlon would 04~66 

wa6t4, and thrct lf ths Railroad Comi6SlOn should find that 

In reot waste tould not be uaused by euoh restrlotlon ef production, then the Railroad CO~~~S~OD oould llmlt the ProduetiOn 

from such S!bllS. tiich construotloaz was apparettls adopted by 

Judge k!cNllar! in ROWIT, 8 Elohola 011 Co. Y. Ballroad Coamisalo~. 

26 F. SUFP. 131, 1% but wSS Dot f I.1 C by Judge FO6t4r in 

Ballroad Comml~~sion 4. Rowan (i 6ichk6°%l CO-, 107 F.(Zd) 90, 92. 
Iion. John 2. Taylor, Pace 13 

p;e belleve however that 8uoh oon8truotloh ia ontumble. 

In the first place, lt dlrragar48 tha plainly exme8sed intenMoo or the bglolature that the purpore of the statute la to 

prohlblt the restriotlon or the produotlon or marginal well& 

In the 8eeond plaoe, luoh eon8truotlon WOtid IEake the &%rgllWd 

i?ell Statute praotfoally mo4nlnglo88. Eren li there rers no 

marginal well 8tatuto, tho R4llroad Comml88ion olrarly would 

h4ve no IawfUl 4uthorlty to rrstrlot the prodnotion from marginal 

~ell8, or from My OthOr ~e118, Whom 8Uoh re8trlOtiOn rotid 

Oau8e w8tO Or would 04U80 &18~@8 t0 8uOh well8 Or rO8Ult in 

tha 1088 or produotlon ultimately roooter8blo or In the pranatulv abaabonsieat Of 8uOh rS118. The R8ilrOad CormPi881On 18 

only given power to limit produotloa where 8uoh llmitotlon 

18 neoe844ry to pretent ra8te, aAd 0r oourle it uould have no 

power to onaot a lldtatlon rhloh would hare sxaotly the 

oppo8lte result. The evident lntootloa or tb8 Legl8lature m4s 

to nlaka 4 lagl8latlYe detlllltlon or what would oon8Jtltute 

"ka8klm in oertsln 8ltUdOn8 fml thereby to place a new restriotlon upon the power4 oi the R4llroad Cor~mieslon, not elsewhere 

found in the 8tatuteo. such intention oould not be glren errect 

Pnte88 the 8tatuto is oon8trued tq bo 4 positive prohlbltion 

agalrut the ourtallment oi the produotlon of narglnal rello. 

18) w think th4t it 18 l 8peelally 8igBiriO4ZLt that 

atter the enaotment or the orlgln41 414rglnal well etatuto, the 

L8glrlaturo ha8 deilnltely rtated la rour ssp4rate 8tatutorr 

prorlsiono, whloh hare been quoted above, that the power8 ot 

the Eallroad Comml88lon.to llmlt produotlon of 011 8hould not 

extend to the ourtrilment 0r production tram mirgin41 -118. 

fn raot, it appear8 th4t l 4oh time, aStar the pa88agr or tho 

original Eargina Tie11 Statute, that the bgi814tUre p88ed a 

new 8tatUtO cronierrlng broad power8 on the Railroad Comm.i88lon, 

tba ~@18lE&lre WE8 OI3?ON t0 Edte 8peOifiC prOVi8iOll8 4&n8t 

an7 eon8truotlon which ~01116 #$ve the Railroad Commirelon 

authority to cut down the produotlon fron marginal ~0118. We 

oannot bollevo that the tigl814turO soti& hare 8honn thl8 

8olloitubs for the Uarglnal Ml1 Statnto had lt latended that 

8uoh 8tatute would not be a dbfinlte and ponltlve llElt4tlOn 

upon the power8 of the Railroad Commisolon, not oontaineb in 

other atatute8. 

8ae 1 Suuuaer8, *The l.4~ OS 011 and G48),* (Permarwit 

?XltlOn) m. 96, note 66, where it lo 8ald, Qmlal Or th0 

oomml8don*8 authority to 1Wt and prorate produotlon or 

8wh (marginal) uellr 18 rtated'in artiolea 6014 and 60199, 

8- 16.m ~8 we bar8 prrrlourlf pointed out, 8uch dsnlal 1S 

al80 round in Article 60498, 8. l@. 
En. John E. Taylcr , Page 14 

(3) The construction cf Article 6C49b by the Attcrney 

General’s Department has consistently been that this statute 

was a pcsitive limitation upon the powers of the Railroad 

Commission, The relevant portions of the former cpinions of 

this Department which have considered the question have been 

quoted above and need not be repeated here. These former 

cpinions contain clear and definite statements of the interpretaticn which is adopted in this opinion. Such consistent 

departmental interpretation is in itself highly persuasive. 

Federal Crude Oil Company v. Yount-iee Oil Corn an 122 Tex. 21, 

52 3. b. (2d) 56; Mocrman v. Terre11 lO~~?‘i& 202 S W 

727. In addition to the constructio: of this stat&e in ihe’ 

opinions of the littcrney General, we again refer to Rule No. 3 

cf the State ;;ide Rules adopted by the Railroad Co .mission, 

which specifically provides that no rule adopted by the Commission shall be construed as abrogating the Marginal Bell Law 

and that “each well producing oil shall be entitled to produce 

without restriction the amount of oil fixed by law for its 

classification upon the basis of depth.” 

THED. Our answer to your third question is that 

it is our man that the Legislature had the power to limit 

the jurisdiction of the Railroad Cc.mnission by rohibitin it 

from curtailing the prcduc+ion from margin& we Y 1s. Whet I? er 

or not the legislative definition of %aste” contained in 

this statute conforms to the 

i%X?~Ed”&omm~ssEon, an& the s atute s a l~~~~t~o”ni~~~‘F~l~o~~~~‘~~ ,tk 

not a regulation of private rights. 

The Railroad Commission has only such authority over the prcducticn of oil as is specifically vested in it by the Legislature. 

Article 16, Section 59a of the Constitution of Texls is merely 

a general declaration of policy with reference to the conservation of the natural resources of the State, and a direction that 

“the Legislature shall paas all such laws as may be appropriate 

thereto .” The question of what laws shall be “appropriate” 

rests exclusively within the discretion of the Legislature. 

\ihat laws, if any, shall be passed regulating the production 

of oil, and what powers, if any, shall be vested in any administrative agencies, are questions which the Legislature alone 

can decide. The Railroad Co:snission cannot exercise any newer 

unless such power has been specifically delegated to it-by the 

Legislature. In the case of Danciger Gil PC Refining Co. v. 

Railroad Commission, 49 S. lrc. (2d) 837, 841, the court said: 
Hon. John L. Taylcr, ?age 15 

“;.e recognize the rule th::t, in the regulaticn and 

contrcl of pri-r.ite rights -ni ?rn:;erties nf individu:lc 

by ad.ainistrati-le agencies of the strte, the interests of 

the individual, so far 3s consondnt v:ith The public welfare, 

should be jealcusly guarded and protected; and n; authority 

not clearly delegated to such agency by tne Legislature, 

or nece; warily implied from that expressly delegat.ed, should 

be sustained .I’ 

jee also Co:amercial Standard Inszsnce Co. -I. 3oard of 

Insurance Ccmmissioners, 34 3. ;;. (idj 343; &Ate v. Rnbisnn 

50 8. it. (kd) 292. 

Since ,;rticle 6049b is a restriction on the pcwer cf 

the hailrotid Co:dmission to act, there is nc 5.ueotir-n but ::jhat 

the Legislature has the power to maze such restriction. 

FoUl=iTfi . Our answer tc ycur fourth question is that 

the kiarginal !Leli A-tute prchibits the Railroar? Co.rl:ission 

from restricting the production cf oil frc.a v:eils coming within 

the classification set forth in the statute, ccc! that such 

prohibiticn is not dependent u$on the findings of the Railroad 

Commission as to whether or net such restriction -Ejould cause 

VJaSte cr would damage or cause the aremature abandonment of 

such wells. The Legislature has simply taken away frcm the 

Rzilroad Co;aissicn dny ?cwer to curtail the lroducticn of 

these wells, and whether or not such curtailment would cause 

their premature abandonment in f-:ct is wholly kmmaterial. As 

we have previously st,ted, the Riilro& Cc?mis;icn can exercise 

only such powers as xe specifically delegated tc it by the 

Legislature , and in this instance, the Lz+islsture has specifically withheld this Sov:er Prcm the R.:ilraid Ccmmissicn. 

FIFTH. Our answer to ycur fifth questicn is that in 

our opinion Article 6C49b is not inv;ilid for acy reason. You 

dc not mention any specific constitutional objections, except 

the possible a,nbipity cf the statute, ind this has been discussed under our answer to ycur first question. The caption 

of the statute tipjears to be sufficient~, .:r.d it is .:;ell settled 

that the Lecislature has the t%‘Ver under the Cznstituticn to 

withhold from the Co.&nissicn Any ;owers L;iiich it deems proper 

to withhold. See iknciger nil k Refinin: Cc. :‘. >ailroad 

Commissicn, 49 5. ;I. (2d) 837; brown v. Iiu:ble Gil .k Refining Co., 

126 Tex. 296, 83 3, ‘A. (,d) 935, 87 S. -,, (2d) Ud3. 

SItEI. Our answer to ycur sixth question is that the 

~findings of the Railroad Ccmcnission of Texas oi’ facts which 

would bring a well within any of the classific-tions cf a 

marginal well are presumptively valid; but thAt they are net 

conclusive and finally binding upon the courts, and can be 
Hon. John R. Taylor, Iare 16 

attacked by a proper apye?l to the cou.rt?, ‘::.:ere t?ey will be 

sustained unles; suck findin- are foun,: bv t’ e court3 to be 

1NithOUt foundaticrl in 3ubst::ntial evidence; :.rticle 6019c, 

Revized Civil Xatute;; Gulf L-n3 CO. v. ---- tl.:rtiafininu --- 

T C,- a”., 

171 ;. -:. (2) 73. 

.%w~TT? . .:e cannot an3 Ier yol!r seventh clle.it.ion 

categcrica=ceRt to say that tke :‘ar~ir.al Yell Xetute 

itself doe3 not prohibit the curtailment by crders of the 

Railroad Comzi3 Jion of the producticn of oil fro;,l Ilo-:rino 

-Nell 5 or fro-7 Rum~in~ :ell.i having treater dlily caTacitie3 

than those 3recified in ;ection 1 of the ::ar:J.nal ‘cl1 

jt:~;tute. It is clear that the ::arr,inal “!ell Xatute doe;: 

not relate to flo:viny, :lell.j. yurthermore, x.de:r t\e 1033 

amendment to the I:arginal :lell .;tatute, 7:. 9. To. 2?2, Act3, 

43rd Le,i;lature, Reqlar k:;ion, C’T.-gi.ter C?, la-e 215, the 

definition of “mar$nal ‘.vell~ i 3 limited tc Rumrinq :vell; 

V’c;l:abls, under normal unrestricted operatin.:. condition;, of 

producing such daily cuantitie3 of oil.’ a3 are therein ;pecified. In rub-section2 “a*’ throqh .‘eir of .Zection 1, the 

definition is limited to pumping oil well; having ‘a daily 

capacity for production,’ of a certain nu.;ber of barrel3 

“or ie;;,” depending on the depth of the -.vell. Tl,ls 1aquag.e 

manifest; an intention to define a3 zzarp,inal v~ell~ only thoae 

‘Nhich have a maximara daily capacity of not in excess of the 

amount3 3tated, and lumping ?dell; w.?ic:; kve rreater capacities 

do not come within t!:e definiticn of marginal yrell;. pi; 

interpretation i3 the 3ame a3 that Flsced on tte .meaninq of 

the term, “marginal :vell.” by bcth the X3trict Court and the 

Circuit Court of A;;ealj-in the Rc+ran 9 ?ichcls case. 2E F. 

.Zurp. 131; 107 F. (Ld) 70. ---A_ 

Yhether the Railroad Cc:.::.i;jioz in a proration order 

can fix the daily allovable of any puqing cr flo::ving well 

having a potential capacity greater than that of a marginal 

well, below! the amount allo-red for a marsins ::ell of Similar 

depth, will depend uron all of the relevant feet; in connection 

with such order and it; ar;lication. It .,cy be that there will 

be a jztification in the fact3 for 3ettinc the allo-.vable for 

strictly marginal -Jell; at a hipher fieure t%n the allo!vable 

a;JiTned to pumpin? or florins well; havin? 2 yc:tentir 1 capacity 

Vreater than tte .?arrinal 9el.13. A reasonshle cla i;if ication 

i; permitted, and it ha,: been held that the facts .may justify 

the granting of a preference to rar.Tinal Tvell:. Xnciger Oil 

& Refining Co. v. Smith, 4 7”. ;u,.. . 236. II: renersl, we believe 

that the Co.A.is;ion ‘vould be per.nittcd to cut the allo:vable of 

other -.;ells belo-r the allO?Jable az~3irned to 3trictly marginal 

-Nell;, provided such action TNould not result in either physical 

waste of oil or ga;, or in the confi;catioc of the ;roperty of 
. 

!Ion. Jokn 3:. ‘Taylor, i’nye 17 

other owner;. Ro:Javer , any claJ3ificaticn .:cu13 have to ha.Je 

a reasonable factual b :zis, end the Co:,-:i ;,icn zould not arbitrarily favor one cla;3 as a-ain;t other;. 7!.c.-.-.;on v. Ccnsolidated Gas ‘,‘tili:les Cir!.orLtion, X:: T’. ; . 55. Xr ther:.,ore , 

under the decisions in the ?ederal. Cc:;2t;, t;le relative producinc ca;acities of Jell; .rrithin the ;ame pocl or reservoir 

constitute a very i.mrort.-nt factor thnz must be considered in 

promul~atinr, any proration order, and there ~0~15 have to be 

a rational justification. in the evidence befcre the CommitJion would be sustained in. an order :vhi.ch reduced floAne; *vella 

or strona cumcinn wells belo:.? the riarcinal allzvnble. :ee 

FeoS.lels-F;)tr~le& Ircducers, Inc. v. ;terlino, 60 3. (Ed) 1041; 

E 1 ‘S Fetrcleum Producers 

JV~~,O~ Fetroleum Cor&oration’v 

Inc. v. Smith,- 1 ?. 5~3.. 361; 

. Railroad Co.:mis ;ion, 3 -. %pp. 

633; PLwhancieer Oil 

R- Refinzn:: Co. v. ;mith, 1 F. XIr. 236; :*scI illian v. ?zilroa?i 

Commiaaioni511”.40C; Rc.:an - ?ichok Gil Co, v. RAlroad 

Co::i-izion, 2& 7. jut. . 131; Railroarl Com:io;ion v. XC’-Xii & 

;JicholaQii Co., lC7’k. (2d) 70. 

ZIGR’F!. 1.1 your eighth -ue;tion yor asked fcr a 

statement byof the .zeaninn. of the I’arTinal ‘lell :~:.tritc. 

3e have already stated our vie73 penerally, and -::e s~:;~arize 

them as follca3: 

Article 6049b defi,nes the :.eaninr cf the term WarEinal well,” accordin% to the depth of the -rell and the naximum 

yroducin.: capacity of the -dell under normal unrestricted oreratine conditions. T-e t=r:. “marfinal well:’ 1~ r=jtricted to 

FuapinR, vrel13 ) .and does not aF- ly to flo%nr: .*Jell3. T% tern 

“;,zrtinal ;zell” doe; r,cf include all lumpin* ‘sells, but only 

those wells whose .maximuil produci.nq csracitie; under normal 

unrestricted orerating conditicns do not exceed the amounts 

set forth in subsections :lar t’zcu.-2. ,Ie” of 3cctio=. 1. If a 

l~V~;in=, well has a maximum producing capacity in excess of the 

amount set f !zrth in j,ctic;: 1, then such ::ell i; not a narginal well *:rlthin the definition of the statute, and it3 ;rcductioc can be curtailed by the R.:llrcrd Cc:mi;;i9n, FroVidin: 

the Rzilrcad Coi&;jion finds that such curtailm&nt is reasonably necessary . A3 tc *;vells YJhiCh ccme :‘si thin the definition 

of a marginal well, the Railroad Co;,i~L-:sicn i; zvholly .Jithcut 

pager to limit the production of oil frcn 39c!1 :;‘ells. 
Hon. John C. Taylor, Page 18 

. 

NI:JTH. Our answer to your ninth ruestion, which is 

conta .ined iii-j&r supplemental relusst dated January 15; 

19LO. is that the Railroad Commission, depending; upon the 

rkievant facts, may have the power to curtail artificially 

the production of a pumping well havin; a producing capacity 

of more than k:enty barrels per day and producing from 

horizons found at a depth between 2000 and 4000 feet, below 

20 barrels per day. Under the construction of the law which 

we have adopted, a well producing fro.m this depth, and having 

a maximum producing capacity of zore than twenty barrels per 

day, would not be strictly a marginal well, and the Commission 

is therefore not prohibited from curtailing its prOdUCtiOn, 

provided such curtailment is reasonably necessar'y under the 

facts. Of course, if the facts were such as to show that 

such curtaiL!ent would cause waste or would cause confiscation, 

the Commission would be without power so to curtail the 

production from such a well. A3 we'have already stated in 

our an3wer to your seventh question, the relative producing 

capacities of wells in the same field are an important factor 

that must be considered in any proration order, and a proration order Siving a strong pumping well a lower allowable than 

a marginal well would not be sustained unless it had a reasonable justification in the relevant facts. 

Yours very truly 

ATTOREY GEKERAL OF TYXAS 

By (Simed) James P. Hart 

James P. IIart 

Assistant 

JPH:AKM 

APPROVED JAN. 17, 1940 

(Signed) Gerald C. Mann 

ATTORNEY GDJERAL OF TX&S 

This opinion considered and approved in limited conference.