Court Opinion

ID: 6921389
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-23 23:03:01.492239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:06:48.590203
License: Public Domain

BRATTON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Section 2 in each of the several leases provides in conventional form that the lease shall remain in force and effect for a term of ten years from the date of its delivery and as long thereafter as oil, gas, or other minerals are or can be produced from any well “on said premises and as long as hereinafter provided in the event of consolidation.” Section 9 expressly authorizes consolidation of the leasehold estate “or any part or parts thereof” with other leaseholds owned by the lessee. And it further provides in effect that after consolidation, the lease shall continue in force and effect so long as gas is or can be produced from any well “located on any part of the land included in such consolidation (whether on lands covered hereby or not), except as herein otherwise provided, or so long as oil is or can be produced from any well drilled on a portion of the land covered hereby.” In short, each lease provides that it shall be continued beyond the primary period by production as therein specified during such primary period.
But the leases do not speak of horizons. They make no reference in specific language to production from one horizon perpetuating or failing to perpetuate the leases in respect to another horizon. They are silent in respect to partial unitization or consolidation of horizontal structures. They say nothing concerning depths, levels or stratums. They are completely silent as to such terminology. Viewed as a whole, and given a reasonable interpretation, the leases fail to indicate persuasively that at the time of their execution, the parties lessor and lessee were thinking in terms of subsurface separation or segregation of mineral rights by levels, horizons or stratums, in respect to production from one level or horizon failing to continue the leases beyond the primary period in respect to another level or horizon. Instead, they say in general language that production during the period shall continue their existence in force and effect beyond the termination of the primary period. They do refer to consolidation of any part or parts of the leasehold premises. But that reference is to surface separation or division by vertical segregation. It does not refer to subsurface segregation by depth, level, stratum, or horizon. And in the absence of an express provision in the leases relating to production from one level or horizon during the primary period failing to perpetuate the leases in respect to another level or horizon, production during the primary period from a horizon above sea level had the effect of perpetuating beyond the primary period the leases in their entirety. Cf. Martin v. Texas Gulf Producing Co., 223 Miss. 872, 79 So.2d 270; White v. Frank B. Treat & Son, 230 La. 1017, 89 So.2d 883.
It is my view that the judgments should be severally affirmed.