Court Opinion

ID: 9629446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:43:05.770021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:19.462778
License: Public Domain

Holmes, J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent. Lack of time precludes an extended dissertation of my interpretation of the *741“free gas” and “unitization” clauses of the various Form 88 Producers leases used in Kansas. Suffice to say it is my opinion that the general language of the unitization clause to the effect that “Any well drilled on such unit shall be for all purposes a well under this lease . . .” does not override and is not inconsistent with the specific language of the free gas clause stating “. . . the lessor to have gas free of charge from any gas well on the leased premises . . . .” There being no well upon the northwest quarter of the section (the leased premises), the defendants are not entitled to receive free gas from the well on the southwest quarter even though the properties may have been unitized for purposes of development.
“[OJnly the owner of the surface where the well in question is located is entitled to free gas from such well and . . . he is not entitled to free gas from any well which is not located on his land.” Kuntz, Discussion Notes, 17 O. & G. Rep. 777-778 (1963).
I would reverse the decision of the trial court.