/ 

. . 

Honorable D. C. Greer 

State Highway Engineer 

Aus tin, Texas 

Opinion No. C-682 

Re: Applicability of Article 827a-6, 

V.P.C., to question presented; 

Dear Mr. Greer: supplementing Opinion No. C-613. 

Since the release of our Opinion No. C-613 on February 17, 1966, 

there has been a question raised whether the State HighwayDepartment 

may, in its discretion, pursuant to Article 827a-6, under a permit 

granted to an owner and operator of overweight specially equipped mobile 

equipment transporting frac oil in servicing oil wells, allow such a fracing truck the right to transport crude oil from wells which are not connected to a pipeline. 

In order to avoid further confusion on this point, we are issuing 

this letter as a supplement toopinion No. C-613. 

In Opinion No. C-613 (1966), we previously held that the State 

Highway Department had the discretion to grant the owner and operator 

of specially equipped overweightmobile equipmentwhich transports frac 

oil in servicing oil wells apermit for the movement of such equipment 

under Article 827a-6, V.A.P.C. 

This statute was designed to authorize the Highway Department to 

grant to owners and operators of such machinery a.nd equipment a permit 

to use the roads and highways of the state under the conditions specified 

where used primarily for the purposes of servicing, cleaning out, or 

drilling oil wells. The statute does not expressly nor impliedly restrict 

such business purposes to those oil wells connected to a pipeline. As a 

new regulatory and remedial act, Article 827a-6, V.A.P.C., must be given 

The servicing of oil wells, whether or not connected to pipelines, 

necessarily and impliedly includes those activities performed to or about 

the well which are incident to its needs and operation. The removal of 

-32&W- 
Honorable D. C. Greer, page 2 (C-682) 

production from the well is essential to the operation of that well. Many 

wells are required to produce continually or will die, in which latter case 

extensive costly reworking operations often become mandatory. After 

completion operations, the production may be turned into a tank battery 

for temporary storage. The tank must be emptiedfrom time to time, and 

the removal of production in the absence of a pipeline may become an 

absolutely essential element in the production of an oil well and the 

servicing thereof on the lease where operated. A necessary part of the 

primary business of oil well servicing is the removal and transportation 

off the lease of the oil for marketing. Our courts, even in the absence of 

an express obligation, will imply a covenant on the part of the leasee to 

transport and market the oil produced, for the breach of which the remedies 

of liability in damages or termination of the lease may become available. 

See Summers, Oil and Gas, Section 400, page 582; Williams and Meyers, 

Oil and Gas Law, Section 853, page 388. 

It appears to be well established that the backbaul of projects or 

properties performed incident to the primary business purpose or enterprise of the owner and operator will be necessarily implied or authorized 

in the regulation of transportation and movement of vehicles across the 

highways of our country. Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc., v. Shannon, 84 

S.Ct. 1260, 377 U.S. 311 (1964); Brocks Transp. Co. v. U.S., 93 F.Supp. 

517, affirmed 71 S.Ct. 501, 340 U.S. 925 (1951). 

It is the opinion of this office that the Sta.teHighway Department 

may, in its discretion, pursuant to Article 827a-6, V.A.P.C., under its 

permit granted to anowner and operator of overweight mobile equipment 

transporting frac oil in servicing oil wells as described in Opinion No. 

C-613, allow such specially equipped fracing trucks the right to transport 

crude oil from wells which are not connected to a pipeline; provided, 

however, there is a compliance with the conditions required by the Highway 

Commission and the payment of the fees established by it or required for 

registration under Article 6675a. As noted in our Opinion No. C-613, 

supra, the Highway Department has the sole discretion, in determining 

whether to issue the permit, to pass upon whether the movement may be 

made without material damage to the highway, whether it would work a 

serious inconvenience to highway traffic, and whether the vehicle is 

properly registered. 

We are aware that we have placed a liberal construction upon this 

statute. We believe that our conclusions were the intent of the Legislature 

in enacting this remedial statute. If our opinion is not the conclusion intended by the Legislature, such statute can certainly be amended in the 

next session of the Legislature. We feel that the discretion of the Highway 

-3281- 
. 

Honorable D. C. Greer, page 3 (C-682) 

Commission in granting or denying permits affords ample safeguards for 

the protection of the State Highway System. 

Yours very truly, 

WAGGONER CAR R 

Attorney General of Texas 

By: 

KERNS B. TAYLOR 

Assistant Attorney General 

KBT:da 

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: T. B. Wright 

Executive Assistant 

cc: Colonel Homer Garrison 

-3282-