Court Opinion

ID: 9553610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:32:43.883679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:31:52.588928
License: Public Domain

DAVISON, J.
(dissenting). I concur in the dissent written by Mr. Justice WELCH.
I believe the majority opinion goes much farther than any opinion ever written on the subject of conservation under the police power of the state. If the Act in question and the order of the Corporation Commission thereunder can stand at all, it is only because of the proper exercise of police power for the conservation of oil and gas and the prevention of waste thereof. Many decisions hold, however, that *569such power must be reasonably exercised, and that private rights should not be interfered with to a greater extent than is reasonably required by a proper exercise of the power, taking into consideration the legitimate object to be accomplished. Grison Oil Corp. et al. v. Corporation Commission, 186 Okla. 548, 99 P. 2d 134. Under the record involved herein, I am of the opinion that the power exercised by the Corporation Commission is unreasonable, unjust and unfair.
O. S. A. Title 52, section 286.6 of the Act in question, provides as follows:
“If at any time after the filing of a petition' for the creation of a unit and within sixty (60) days after the entry of an order by the Commission approving the creation of the same, lessees of record of fifteen percent (15%) or more of the proposed unit area, if prior to the entry of the order by the Commission, or lessees of record of fifteen per cent (15%) or more of the unit area as defined by the approved plan of unitization and order of the Commission, if after the entry of such order, shall file written protest with the Commission against the creation of the unit, the Commission shall vacate all action of any kind theretofore taken and dismiss the proceedings for the creation of such unit.”
This provision of the Act denies lessors equal protection of the law. The Act gives a percentage of the lessees alone the opportunity to instigate proceedings for a proposed unit area, and at the same time affords 15 per cent of the lessees the right to nullify the proceedings. It therefore gives the lessees the vehicle to promulgate a unit area, and in the same clause gives the lessees another vehicle with which to backpedal therefrom and annul all proceedings thereunder. By this provision it appears the Act creates an improper delegation of the police power and legislative power of the state to the will and opportunities of oil operators .or lessees. The Act is therefore legislation which benefits the individual lessees and operators rather than being a conservation measure.
The cases relied on in the majority opinion involve the pooling or spacing of small or irregular shaped tracts, while the unit involved herein covers approximately 3,700 acres of land consisting of 72 separately owned tracts with several hundred royalty owners.
I am of the opinion that the Legislature, by the passage of the referred to Act, has created a Frankenstein, under the guise of conservation.