Court Opinion

ID: 9444298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 20:55:43.873617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:48.237809
License: Public Domain

PHILLIPS, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure imposes as a condition to the granting of relief thereunder that good cause be shown therefor. The plaintiffs below, other than Paul S. Williams, are the owners of the SW% of the SE ¼ of S. 25, T. 8 N., R. 6 E. The Continental Oil Company is the owner of Munnah Cosar Well No. 1. The surface point of the well is located 330 feet north of the section line between Sections 25 and 36, and 333 feet west of the boundary line between the SE% of the SW% and the SW% of the SE3/4 of Section 25. The well has produced in excess of 700,000 barrels of oil and it is estimated that it will produce an additional 100,000 barrels of oil. The plaintiffs below sought an order for a directional survey of the well for the purpose of determining whether it is bottomed in the SW|4 of the SE& of- Section 25. After a very full hearing, the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs below had failed to show good cause for such survey.
It is my opinion that in determining whether good cause has been shown, the district court is necessarily vested with a wide discretion, and that its determination of such question should not be disturbed, in the absence of a showing of a clear abuse of discretion.
Here, the trial court concluded, and, I think, correctly, that the geological facts disclosed by the drilling of other oil and gas wells in the area, including a non-commercial producer drilled in the SW1/^ of the SE3^ of Section 25. and other indisputable physical facts established by the evidence showed that the presence of oil bearing strata in the SW% of the SE3/4 of Section 25 was, at most, a very remote possibility. Since Munnah Cosar Well No. 1 had been and still is a very large producer of oil, it followed that the possibility that such well was bottomed in the SW3/4 of the SE3/4 of Section 25 was likewise a very remote possibility.
At most, plaintiffs’ efforts were in the category of what is commonly characterized as a “fishing expedition,” which should not be countenanced.
Moreover, the evidence established that the making of such directional survey might result in damage to the well and could cause the loss of the well and the bond which the plaintiffs offered to furnish was so conditioned that it would not have afforded full protection to Continental Oil Company.
For the reasons indicated, I would affirm the judgment below.