Opinion ID: 2613135
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: forced pooling

Text: In Certified Question 1(e), the federal court asks whether a forced pooling action before the Oklahoma Corporation Commission is the only means for adjudicating the rights and equities of ownership in the spacing unit and unit well. The Act confers upon the Commission authority to order forced pooling to protect correlative rights of mineral interest owners within a spacing unit. 52 O.S. 1991 § 87.1(e). This Court has held that the Commission has the sole authority to adjust the equities and to protect the correlative rights of interested parties. Woods Petroleum Corp. v. Sledge, 632 P.2d 393, 396 (Okla. 1981). However, the instant case involves a dispute over ownership of certain oil and gas interests, not a dispute over rights and equities of interest owners within a drilling and spacing unit. Article 7, § 7 of Oklahoma's Constitution provides that the District Court shall have unlimited original jurisdiction of all justiciable matters, except as otherwise provided in this Article, and such powers of review of administrative action as may be provided by statute. Title 52, O.S.Supp. 1988, § 87.1, defines the Commission's authority relative to a common source of supply and well spacing and drilling units. However, we have construed this statute to vest jurisdiction of public right disputes in the [C]ommission, whereas, disputes over private rights are properly brought in the district court. In other words, the [C]ommission's jurisdiction is limited to protection of public rights in development and production of oil and gas. Leck v. Continental Oil Co., 800 P.2d 224, 226 (Okla. 1989) (emphasis in original, citations omitted). The case before the district court is not a situation in which a conflict exists which actually affects [correlative] rights within a common source of supply and thus affects the public interest in the protection of production from that source as a whole. Samson, 702 P.2d at 22. Rather, it is a quiet title action to determine ownership in an oil and gas leasehold interest. Jurisdiction to resolve this dispute involving private rights properly lies with the district court. Should an issue involving correlative rights arise after title is settled, jurisdiction would lie with the Commission.