Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1940 )

OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUITIN
Iionorable sob0 IL Wlor
chhr suprrlror
Annotated Tox
~0 hme rour letter
oploion rith rrf*renco to Ar
Terar Cirll Statut46. titer
our oplnloawith r8rOrsnOe t
ad la the rlrrt
latlng to an6
iOn with ,b4tiO66
Statute, or i6 the
ouo aa to lntall6atr
t of tb, 8tatut.ohrroin-
0 ourtaiLthe production or
t rorth in .%OtiO66 r6r, “b’,
tat4 15 wart8 a5 a 66tter or
Conaiioion haye tha powr to
a the
on or wllr dsrorlbed la Ssotlonr
* and "en Ol the Statute, ii 6UOh OUrtail-
ia neormary to pretent warts 88 prodded in other
Statutes of t&ir'Stats?
l
?hb'd. '-'~,~OU have RtlSr@l%bBeOtiOn (6) Or '&e&tiOSi
Tw6 In the arr~iaitlve, then ploam mIti@rr whether or not
the Iangiilatu$e had the pow4r to 64 drolare and ~~0~164.
ROD. John I. Taylor, hga 2
” Fhrth. Do46 the Statute prohlblt the ComI~slon
from reotLng the produotion or well8 of depth4 and
haying th4 produohg eapaoltlea as ret forth in Seotlons
.ar *b”, “o”, "d- and "0" only wh4n ouch wall5 would be
da&ad or rerult In 1048 or produotion ultimately r4ooT4r-
able or oau54 premetur4 abandonment of IMUJ, iI the wll
or ~411~s dally produotlon wre lrtIflaIally curtell4d?
8 Fifth. Should lt be htld br Jour Department that
iutlom9b Is not Inralld beoau54 ot any enblgulty In
the language 6446, then I8 ma4 Intalld for any other
r4a5on?
*Sixth. Should it be held that Articl4 6049b 16 a
yalldTfa5tt4, then la a flndlng by the Railroad Commission
or Texar of iaato whloh brings a well with any of the
4la54ltIoatlons or a mar&ml wll final, concluslre and
blndlng upon the Court67
'84T4nth. It Artlolo 6049b I8 a rslid Statute, aan
the Rm C~mmlrslon In a proratlon ord4r rlx th4 dally
allowabls oi any pumping or ilowing ~411 haring a potential
oapaoltr greater than that ot R marginal ~411, undsr your
dot4mLnatIon or ths meaning or marglaal ~116, bolos the
unount allowsd ror a smrglnal wll ot eWlar depth?
.
Ii the lanyPg4 us46 In the Statute to th4
~mbrglnal wsll' as U64d h4reIr m45ns a
puaplag all well oapablr, undsr norm6lamr46trlated operatlng
aondltlona, or produolnc~rubh dally pumtltiss of 011 ae
her4Io #t out a6 would k d6mag4d, or result in 6 loss or
the produotIOo u~tlmet4ly rcroorerabla or aaase the pmmature
it it8 dall. production wre artlfl-
**$%%&4~i6 nOt 60 Imb&6Ou6 whrn u44d 16 4Om44-
tion with the rekt at the Statute 60 as to invalidate -4
16 it8 4ntlr4ty, th4n plaa5e ady164 what, in your opinion,
ir the Qr4OlM nmanlng OS the l~guage quoted?-
...
SO zk%3 haTO your suppbmental request of January 15,
1Oa, in which YOU ark ths following question:
flmne. Doe5 the Sailroad COil3lB16iiO6 Or T4X66 h4Y8 the
&Ow4r=4r Art1014 6049b. Rerised Clril Statut46 of the
State of Texae, to art~rldall~ ourtail the production or
a pu5tpIngwellharicg a producing oapaolty or more than 80
bun16 p4r day 66d produolng irOa hOrizOna iand at 6 depth
between 8,000 and 4,000 -et,, b414w 820barrels per day a5
84t forth in Seotlon *bi? or tb4 abom’rehrrca to Artiale?*
fiO& John E. Taylor, P4g4 3
s6r0re 8tatl6g our anewer to your qu44tlon5, w
b8116ra that It 801 be halpful t.06et out brletly the legl6-
latlte hI5tOry Of the ~YargIMl W411 Statute,’ and the depart-
mental pnd JodIaJal 4OC6truOtlon whloh it haa r4OeiWd up to
thlr time.
The &!argInalX411 Statute n8 first laaotrd aa Seaat.
a11 Ho. 339, AOt8, 4gnQ I*gI61atW4, B4gular sb64iOA, Chapter 58,
Page 98, which beoams 4rreOtiT4 April 16, 19Sl. Ths oaptlon of
thi6 at&&e read8 aa follasr
'An Act
to derln4 mrglnal wellr) drolarlng it to
4OA6titUt4 wa6te to lrtlfIoI6lly rcrtrlot the nor&
proauotlon thsrefmm; dIr4otlng that no rub or order or
the Bailroad COarmi58ionor other eonrtituted lrgal authority
6h5l1 bs mtued requirifag th4 r46triotioa of the production
or arry marglaal w4lll 64olarlng ea.ohprwlrlon lnd4pendent
ot each other provlrloni and 64oluIng a6 emerg4aoy.w
The fIrrt two seotlonm of Senate Bill pi'o.
337 mad aa
rOilOn :
“SECTIOP 1. Th4 term Wuglnal Roll* a8 u84d herein
meaaa a pumping oil well produoW such dally quantities
or 011 a6 hueln set ovat a5 would be damaged, or r46ult IA
a 1066 ot thr production ultlnatoly reoworablr, or oau66
the premature 6banbonment of -8, ii it8 daily prOdUOtiOn
wre artI?loIally ourtaIled. The rOllOwlng 648orlb46 ~118
shall be besad *Yarginal Eellr* in thl8 Stat4:
"(a) Any puaplng 011 wll wlthln th16 State baring a
dally produotloa of tea barr418 or 1488, araraged wu the
preoeding thirty 0066OOUtiT4 day6, producing rr00 a depth
or 8000 r44t or 14588
O(b) Any pumping 011 well rithla this State aring a
dally production or treaty barr418 or 1485, aTua6sd owr
the praordlng thirty oon8eoutIv4 days, produaing from a
horleon deeper than 2000 r4et and 1486 in depth than 2WO
r44tt
-(o) &iy paaplcg oil wll la thl6 State haying a dally
production oi forty b6rr418 or 1456, averaged mar the
preordiag thirty ooaeeoutits dayr, produolng fmx~ a horizon
deeper than 5500 feet.
"SEC. I!. TO 6rwi0i6iiy ourtall th4 production 0r
any Qarglnal .mll* below the marginal litit a# 8et out
abow prior to it8 ultImt4 DlW@Q& and abandonment i6
hereby~#rol6zwI t&be waute, and a0 rule or order of the
Ballroad cOiMIi6dOC-nor 94x88, or other constituted lee&al
-_-LC_-*L- -Le.. c_ --* aa-1 -,,..a-,..- u-,-*a.*rr r* ,kr
199
Hon. John IE.Taylor, Fag0 4
6eOtiOA s Or 8eMt0 till KO. ssv deolared laoh pro-
Tinion Or the rtatuts _.. of eaoh other provision
iAd4Qendsrit
_-._
and deolar4d the leglrlatlT4 latent to have p6884d la o h
prwisioa l~epeadeatly of all other prori5loa8. SectIon 4
was an emergenay olau54, whIah r4ad a8 ~OilOUEt
*six. 4. The raat thatth4r4 I8 no law derlnlxig
a Wugiml Eell* aQd none whloh pnreata the utlrIolal
ourtmltient 0s the produotlon 0r 866l1 pomPiIl&jW0116, the
artltlelal restrlatlon of whloh would oauso their damage,
a Mallor ultisato reoorery of 011 thererromand th6ir
premattu% abandonment, oreates an lnugonoy and an impera-
tive public B4o468ity ZeqUiriAg that the COAEtitUtlOAal
Rule which r4quir48 bills to be road on three sereral day5
be 5uspende6, and such Rule is horoby 8u8p4n606, and that
this kot taks 0rr0ct iron and arter lta QR65Rge, and it
18 60 eaaoted.*
PLtt4r the parrsagsor the Marginal W411 Statute, th4
L4glslature 4~aoteU Bourn Bill Ro. ed, Ads, 42ad Legi6latur0,
First called session; Ch4ptrr 86, P4go 46, whioh beoam orrro-
tin Augurt l.2,lOS1, acd ao8t of vhloh 18 now mbraoed la
hrtloh 60490 of VBrAOA'EAnnotated T4X48 cl~ll. Statutes.
Section 16 of thi6 statute (now Seotioa lb oi titlale 60490
or V4rnon*r Annotated Taxa* CiTil Statate6) cOAtRIA6 the
r0ii0dg provl6lon wlth rstereaa4 to Sh4 Marginal xell Statut4r
%othl.ry in thl5 Act Oontained 6h611 BOditf or 4haAg6
in any ray th4 terms and Q~OTIE~OAE or S666t6 Bill-Ro. 399,
pa6846 by th4 Forty-seoond L0gf8lRtUr0 Rt it6 r0gtIlar
S~E~~OA, oomrao~lyluiovo06 the Eargllul %a11 Bill.*
Sub6equcrntly,the L8girlatUro eaaated &mate Biu
NO. 1, Rot6, Fousth Called S486iOA, Forty-84ooad ~giEhtUr4,
Chapter S, 4ff0OtiT0 t?OremberlSe,L982. 64OtiOA le Of thi#
statute oontalaad the follming prori~onr
“. . . aad this Act Shall AOt be con&rued t0 top481
or modify S4Aate Bill So. 337, pa6606 by the forty-84aoAd
Legislature, at its Regular Sdllbion,known a6 the Kugiaal
3411 BIl1.r
On january 1.7,193?1,the Attorney fJ4A4ral*sDC+pUtmeAf
con5trucd the plargIAe.l
~411 Statute ln a~ opinion written by
Assistant Attorney Oeaeral Yaurlce Cheek to El?.R. D. Parker,
Who WE th41i Chi4r St&xwTi6Or Of the oil & Oa8 DiTiEiOR Of
the Railroad CoE&ii88ioA. with r4fUr4cO4 to th4 OOA8trUCt~OA Of
the mrgIAa1 wll statute, a6 It then read, the opl~io~ contalnsd
the following ltat&aant:
‘200
Bon. John E. Taylor, Feg4 5
wit i6 my oplnlon that under the tcrzs of thla act
the fiailroadCO0mlSSlOD 18 expraaslg denled the rl&t to
pea6 any order which curtail6 the praductlon of eny
wglnnl well below the &ergincrllimit6 ret out in the
sot.
. . . . .
*Phi6 aot oonatltutso e deflnlte llaltation on the
authority of the FUlroad Commlsafoa. lmer ita teal4
oemot curtail the productlen or 4 pumping
the Coma.lasiot~
011 ~411 pr&uolng irox a 4.e;thof 2000 feet or 1468 below
10 barrala psr day. It cannot ourtail the production of
suoh e ~411 producing fron a horizon deeper then 2O@G feet
and 1466 than 5500 feet below 2.0barrel4 per day, or l
pumpLog oil 1x411produciw from e horizon deeper then
3500 feet below 40 berm16 per dey.
*The faot that a acll is a pumping wall dour not wlth-
draw iron the Cammlasion the powr to curtail its produotion
to prevent waste tlllderthe 6trtutea 6owz to the lialta art
forth. In other uerda, a pumplne 011 ~11 lo aubJeot to
the rulea, rsgulatiors md orders of the Zallroud Commiaaion
just the same ea any other oil well in Texeo, l ubjeot to
;;&le~ttet1OI.l6fapoaed On the ~Owera OS the Cosroiaal~nbr
The Comnla6lon may, to prevemt waste, ourtall
the prodictlon of auoh we116 down to the lfxito set forth
in the aof, but it ney not ourtall their production below
the limittrr."
On nprll 1, 193S, tcmferrnot Opinlct Xo. 2916 of the
Attorney C%oerel*sDipartmnt, addressed to the aallroad Cowala-
rion ot T4184, and written by haai6tant Attormpa General Neal
Power8 and Xaurloa Cheek, was laitued,4ontel.nlng144 Sollowing
stat404nt:
Wnder the marg.lccltrelllcw (Acta, 1931, 42nd Leg.,
p. 92, c-h.56 - Row Art. 6049b, R. 9.1, pumping ~4116 whloh
pr&uoe Sro0 the torizot whlbh rxiats in the Eart Texas
field may not be ourtailed by a proration order of the
Kellrocd Comzisslon to a dally ellowable of 1466 than
forty berrela, althoqh they asy be curtail44 to that figure
to prevsnt weate.*
Subs4gusnt to the rtndelng of the :oregolng opiniona,
the ~eglsleturs paaaed Kouae Bill Ea. 678, Aote, 4&d Iaeiala-
ture, RegztlarSeaalo~, Chapter 97, Faga 215, rhloh beoaam effeo-
tlvrcApril 27, 1933. Thfs atatute pslsndetl Ssotlon 1 or the
marginal well statute so ~a to read a8 tol~owa:
Eon. John E. Teylor, Teijs6
'S4otloo 1. The tsra *&rglcel Lell' as used hdr8ln
amma a p@plrrp;oil well capebl4, under rort4l unreatrleted
operatingdonditlona, oxfproduolng such dally quactltlsa
of oil es hareln ret out a6 would be demged, or result in
e loss of produotioc ultl&ately reooverable, or cause the
?ren6t$W ebandocaent of ~4, if its dally production
w4r4 ertl?lolelly ourt4ll44. The followl~g deaoribad roll6
ahall be deemed Werelnel Yi4116' 1Sithis Stats:
*v(e) Any pumpl~g 011 well wlthln this State hevlng
e deily oepaolty for ?roductlor.OS ten (10) barrels or lees,
ayeraged ova: the prccadln~ thirty (30) eoc4aoutivs days,
producing fro5 a depth of two tizouaenb(E,OGO) feet or 1466:
*t(b) any pumpln~ 011 we13 tithln tiilsStat.4h&vi=
e daily oepeolty ror produotlon OS twenty (20) barrels or
leas, eroregcd over the prcoedlng thirty (30) conaaoutlre
dw*, rothelng Sroa a horizon derp4r than two thousand
(2,OCOP feet and less ln 44pth then four thousand (4,000)
feet:
“Q(c) xny pusiplnl:
011 well within this Set4 having
a dally cepaolty for~productlon of twenty-fim (2s) barrel8
or leas, orsra.gt%over the preoedlng thlrty (30) oonatoutirc
daYa # roduolng from a horizon deeper than four thousand
(C,OOOP feet ant! leas ln depth then 61x thourand (6,000)
feet:
m*(d) imy pumplug 011 ~011 within thl8 State harln&~
dally oapeoity for produotlon of thirty (30) barrels or l&66,
everegad Otsr th4 prscsdicg thirty (30) oon646utlYe day6
produolng froi a horlton deeper than 6lr thoucand (S,OOO!
feat end 1486 in depth then clght thousand (8,000) feet:
~'(4) my pumping 011 ~11 tithln this State having
e dally oepeolty for pro%uotion of thirty-flte 38) barrels
or leas, hrareged over tba proosding thirty (30I conwoutlre
deya, producing rroz e horlron deeper than eight thousand
(6,000) feet."
The ener&enoy oleus4 of liouse %I11 618. aupre, reed
aa rollowa:
*SEC. 2. The feot that the present %s?inlt&on of the
t4rm ‘~ekglnal X411* operates a6 BE lnipeCl04ntto the 6dnlhi6-
tretlon of the conservation laws or the State of ~4x44 in 4a
*wtable dlatrl~utlbn of the allowable production in the
Oil *141%* of tbla State oreater aa emergency and en impare-
UT4 pub114 necssalty rrquuirlngthat the conetitational mls
wu@h r4Wlr46 blllr to be reed OE t~eqhmir&~~~~~ be
Eon. John H. mylar, Fage 7
~u~ptn&ed, and such Rule 1s h e r eb
lurponded
y and that thle
;i;c;~~mafreot rr0= and after its pasragt, and it 16 80
CR Ootober 9, 1933, Bonoruble tlaurloeCheek, xm.lstant
Attorney Contral, rrott a latter oplAot to the Cmalttte on
Oil k Car Of the ~OUW Of RtRrtaentatlvtr of the Tesar Ltglrla-
ture. +lth refuenoe to the marginal well law, the opinion
eontalned the following &atamentr
"The mm&ml well lag whloh llmita the powr ot the
Comn~I~don to ourtail the produotloa oi well6 below a
oertain Us&t i@ aimply a llrzitatloa011the authority of
the adaihl8trativt body to which has been entrusted the
duty ot oarrying lnta tZi6ot the oonmervatlon laws of thl8
otatt with retortme t3 011 findgas. It 113Amply a legln-
latlvt dtolaration that, even though mate Bight reeult, if
all the Utll6 10 this t&ate are petitted to product at the
llmits set by the nsrglnal wall'karc, that otverthtlese that
rate or produotlon wiil not be unlawful and operator8 OPII
oonduot their opsrrtloar aooordlagly without fear o? lnter-
tarenot tro?rthe Railroad Comineloa.
e'Speclfioallyamwerlag your lnpulry, the Legislature
ha8 the powar to fir the limits o: produotlon ot marginal
wella at any point that It 6ees tit, mince t& marginal well
law la a limltatlon not on the rlghtb or the operttor but
on the powers of the Codralon. This, of oourre, 18 not
the aamt as naylng, assuming that there were QO marginal
well lam, that an order of the Cosmleaior or;rtaUlw the
produotlon of wells to a rldloulously low llmlt would be
a valid order. In that oa8e the order of the Cofmlralon
would be unoonetltutioml aa deprivln&the operator of hi8
property without due prooersor lay but the llmitr whioh
are met on the authority of the Cmnlrsloa by the Legirla-
ture la a law of this oheraoter ut 8oltly wlthla the
discretion or the Iaglrlature and the courts will not
&Intubb msh a law, however much they my rtrikt down an
order ot the Comlrslon vhlch weaoonably ourtalls the
produotlon OS operatoro beyond the neotcmltitr of the
prevention or w68te.w
Eouso Bill 80. 9%&, 44th IBgislattuue,EegUlar SeWlon,
Chapter 96, Page 180, arfeotlvt hprU 16, 19%. oontalntd a
nmber or mendnentrr to the statutes providing for the rtgula-
tioa Or the produotlon or 011 and gab by the Railroad Corsmisslon.
Thh statute alao contained two txprerr provlalons with reference
to the mrglnal well Statute. Seotion &, which wended Artiole
6014 of the Rovlaed Clvll Statutes, ooatained the following
provialont
Bon. John E. Taylor, Fage 8
*RothIog La this 3aOtloa shall bQ coustrued to authorita
llmltatlon o? prodcotlon 0r mirglnal wells, as such marginal
wells arc,de?lntd by Statute, below the mount ilxea by
stetuto for suoh wellrh*
geotlon 18 or House till Ea. t88, supra, rbloh 1s now
oontalnsd lo Verncn*s Annotated Texas Clrll Statutes as S~O-
tlon 18 o? lirtlcle 6OCQt, oontalned the SollOxlr~&provisions:
". . . and this Aot .shall not be oonstrutd to repeal
or modlly Chaster 49, Aots o? the Forty-third Ltglslatura,
&gular Sessloa knon: as the Q!argloal Xc11 Aot.'*
The rortgoiag statutas oontaia all O? the areandmnts
and referwoes to the Eargfaal Jell Statute ug to th6 present
tima, cantal686 Ln any ~egisiativa anaatElcot6.
\
/ Thwa hna been only one reiwehot to the marginal
well statute in ar?yTexas case. such rtrertnot beLEg oontalned
in the dsolslon of-the Court o? Civil Appeals at Au&in In the
-Ease:o?:iT’idt Fatsr Associated 011 Cowaay v. iiallroadCommls-
slon, l20 5. z~. (2a) 544 iw. a ii doet not undertake
taonstrue the Marulnal*rell &a%~.“kotDt to rater to
*tha fact that the ~glrlaturs Itetlr'has tken cogliizaaoe
(sea hrt. 6040b, Vern~a*s X. C. 5. aa amndcd) that a differso-
tiatlon should be made betweon mm$nal wells and the more
produotlro areas or d 11416. . ..*
The laarglnalwell statuta haa also been rtrtrred to
b the ?tdercll Courto In the Rowan k I?lchols oa6t. In the
oiialon in the Dimtrlot Court, own
i? & e;lohol.e Gil Comwmy
v. Railroad Comalsaloa or Texas, Judge Eck xTlzrzi6 (28 P.
SURP. 131, 136, 137)
~Respondtnts, In at t??ort to extenuate the lntpuallty
o? their order, suwat the dlffloulty presented by the
sisrglnalwell law. Artlole C049b, Vernon*6 Ann. Cl+. St.
TeZ. This d0t ralateis to pampfng nella and 60 tar as
xast Tams 1s concerned torblds the artltlolal curtaIlment
ot produotlon below go barrelo a &as ii mioh rmluctloa
mu16 manse damage to ~thtwell, or less o? ultlnhte recovery,
or premature sbandartaitot.
. . . . .
” The Statute orrers no sx~ust ror a rlat a0
barrel~ail&anee to other wells rumIng op to 880 barrel6
par hour.
;I; it’< soaoedtd that the Statute 1s valid (tioh
has been seriously questioned) and that thesa strlotly
marginal wells mumt be allowed 80 barrels a day Ir they
oan maka it, still that tor~lsh68 00 txoum for a6ntIsoatIbg
the property of som other producer better situated.
-5. John 3. Taylor, Pago Q
ru~psng vella of this variety might appear in a rleld
to arch an extent as to rxbaunt the entire allowable,
thereby leavine nothing Sor high potential flowing
wells. l?o such absurd rarultwa8 ever intended. This
StatUt8 ~a8 ObriOu8ly d88i@led t0 kWp tb,W &sell
pwcre fro5 belng all,@tad off, it being oontsmplated
that the bettw ml18 wuld b&we a muoh h&her lllo7eble.
Jf, hOwaTer, thi8 atarginalm.h.&mummuat be oon8ldrred a8
a oomponeot alemcnt of a proration ache&e, thereby ~a8o5-
ably rodwlag th? allowable8 of other better well8, either
the Statute or the scheme mwt fall.*
In Railroad Comia8105 or Texas v. Rowau & Hlohola
oil co., 107 H. Isid)70 imdge Fo8ter or the Ciroat co&art
of kppmla said, with &fsren&e to ths Earglnal Fell Statute:
*The 45i wells referred to in the stipulation a8
allowed to produoe all the7 can ma7 properly be classed
Se &%argintiWell8 under the tarSi t&fa Te~a8 8t?&Uta,
tit. 6OlQb. VetnOn' Ann. ClV. Stat., which, inter aa,
define8 a 5aPgLnti well as any p5plng well having 5 daily
output of produotlon of 20 barrole or leas. The statute
prohibits tha Railroad COa1&88iio5from restrlctini;the
produotlon of a4 marginal well aa thereunder defined.
. . . . .
-. '. . ?lowing We118 produslng 80 barrels of oil a
dax et 1088 could not be ao58ibered RS aarglnal well8
oorpiagdthln the mantletory terms of the rtatute. The
COti 18 uithout SUthoritr t0 80 Ola88 them.*
x%th reference to the &h&al well Statute, the Raihoad
COaE&8dO5 ha8 adopted it8 Rule PO. S under it8 general'pk-
ride Rule8, which read8 a8 follow8~
=5. URGINAL WELL EXEXFTIO~.- Ro rule herein adopted
8hall be eonatcuad a8 Impelring or In anpi8e abrogating
what 18 knoan a8 the %ar&ial tFel1l.ar,* end each well
prcduolng 011 a&all be entitled to produos aithout restrlc-
tlon the amount of 011 fixed br lan for it8 olaa8lfloation
u-n ths baslr of depth."
&wiring in mind tha ?or~&oing 8tStlltS8,an& the depart-
mental and judlolal oonstructionr rrhiohhaare been plaoed upon
the &argbal ml1 statuto, we 8hall prodead to a58wr rour
Q~e8tlona. IA doing 80, w dli, Or QOUICO, m&it 011lOpitiOA
8triOtlJ to a dirOU88iO5 Of the h@il QUE8tiO58 involved, 83.5c.
all ques loaa ~,polloy are out8lde oT mar prorinoe and rest
801e1y 7l tM&&$&.y.q~&sr $lrcretlon of th8 Leagirlaturcl
and the
Railroad COEUIi8aiOLi.
Eon. John E. Tcylor, Eagc 10
FIRST. OUr 058WbCt0 YOU fit8t qWStiO5 18 t&t
15 our oplz all of the Xarglnal Xbl.~~.Statute should be
oonatraed together clod that the laz&uage of the statute 18
5ot 80 ambigUOU8 81 to 1malldat;e it.
Ir:COA8tnli5g Article 6049b, vc hare followed
certain ~11 rcoognlzed geooral prlnolples of stat&or)- con-
8traotlcn. Prinarlly, we have kept in aind the rule that oo
etatutc should be held to be invalid or lnoperatlvc beccusb
of ambiguity or fOS any Ot&r rba8on u&cc8 t&r@ 18 no
rbasOnabl8 oon8tructioD which oan bb adopted wtioh would
make the 8tatutc valid bnd 8freotlvb; Sbb Yett v. Cook,
115 T&z. 203, ES1 S. Vi.0391 39 Tex. furls. 206 I5 CO58tlW-
ln(;a etatee, the intention o? the Legislbture*ib to be
arrived at by Vievl5g the act a8 a whole, rrolr caption to
bmcrg8noy 0leu8e.~ Spenra v. 3an Antmlo, 110 Ter. 628, 625;
223 S. 2. 166. Our ~Xprbme Court baa deolarad that, “It I8
the lntectlon of the la* which 18 the law; and oooc &uly
asoertaincd, it should prbtil, WC5 SgaiA8t thb 8trht letter
of the lar," , 110 Tax. SO, 214 S. X. 295, sod
that the oour 8trlot grcmatlcal rule8 in
lnterrmctlnr,statutbc. when to do M would Ylolcte the evident
lbgi8ihtiVe iiLt85t."-Fopham V. Fatterson, 121 Tcr. 615,
51 S. X, (2d) 660.
SeOttOE 6 of Article 10 of the Revised Civil &&t&c8
provide8 that, -35 al].intbrpretations, the court 8hbU look
dlllgently for the intention of the Legislature, keeping 15
view at all tlmca the old lav, the 8~11 end the remcdy.m
Our SuQrcfm Court has further 8aid that, WOnoc the laglrlatitc
intent is croertained the duty of the oourt is plain. To rcfucc
to enforce rtatutos %n accordaaoc with the true intent of the
Legislature 1s b5 inbrcasable breach of judicial duty, beoause
an unwarranted lnterfercnce with t&e axaralse of lawful, lagla-
Zatlro authority." Love v.Wilcox,ll9 Tex.256,276; 28 S.w.(2d)515.
Bcari&g in mind the tOra~Ol5~ ocrdlnal r&i&.8of
statutory oomstruction, it is our opition that the la5gucgc
of Article 0049b, vhllc it is Cot perfeotly clear and unambigu-
OU@,'$~ tiuifiolentlyplain to oakc it oaclble to arrive at
thO~~i8l.attivb intent. construing elP of the 8tGtUtetogether,
we thlllkthat it 18 reamnobly plain that the lntcntion of the
Lcglalature in p386i5fithe ~crglnal ml1 Statute wa8 to plaoe
definite llmlt8 upon the powers of the Bailroae C0tPsrL8d0~bo
1-t the produotion of oil from ml18 15 the State O$ TeXb8.
cb Opinion as to thb spbOifi0 i&bb5l5gOf the St&d4 18 8bt
out in our c58wczsto yonr rencini5g qUe8tiOnE, 8tatbd below*
206
x0& John E. Taylor, PWe 11
s?xom* (a) Our anawr to the first subdltlslon OS
pur seco’~tiOn 18 that Section 2 ot Article 6049b, whan
construed together rlth the reaalnlrg portions of tb statute,
msns that.-the E811rOad Conutlssion18 prohibited by the Lagis-
lature from Curtailing the produotlon of oil frosithm wet116
o&ng dthtn the Olas6itloations #t forth ln gection 1 of
the mUgirId Wll 6tfJtUt6. The leglslotlre rostrlction upon
th. purr of the Railroad CbmzsisBiOn16 6t6t66 in Section Z
h ln, ways; rlrst, 66 a daolaratlon that it 16 waste to
curtail artlflclally tho production OS any aarglnal well, and
6ecOndr as an express prohlbltlon agalnSt any rule or ordor
of the Rallroad Conunission requiring restrfctlon of the
production from any marginal rqsll.
(b) Our Bnemmr to tha second 6ubdiYisloo of your
second qwotion is that in our oplnlon th6 Comxlsslon does
not hare the pmuer to mutall the production Of well6 dseorlbed
~IJ6Ub66OtiO66 *a*, *bw, *O*, "d' and *On Of Section 1 0i
Art10ls b049b, even thowh the COd66lOn should be of the
oplnlon that such ourtallment 16 neoe6sary to prevent want6
a6 prwided in other statute6 of tai6 State.
ConslderlnE the leglslatlre hlstorp af the mrglrul
well 6tatute, and the cocstruotlon that it has reosired since
it6 pssraga, it 18 rassoaably plain that the intention bf
the I.egislatureWA6 to designste certain classSs Of 011 w6116
and to provide that the Eallroad Ccmnl66lon should have no
gowr to restrict the production of 011 from such wells. The
speoifio oonsldsrntions tbratimpel a6 to the conoluslons
6t6t6d abor6 6r6 a6 fOllOwSa
(1) Thhe~1aIIgUageOt the StEtUts lt68ii iDdiO6te6
that the Legislature intended to rtrrtrictthe ?3allroadCommls-
61On by removl~ troa its jUd6diOtiOn ttS p0w.r t0 lhit
the production iron aarglnal *8116. The OaptiOn Of ths
orlglnal marginal rell otatute, Senate Bill X0. 537, Acts,
4&d Legislature, Regular Seoslon, Chapter 56, Page SE,
6tattS that It 16 *An Act to define marginal a~lls; deolarlng
it to oozstltute waste to artlflclally restrict the normal
production thsretroa; dlreotlm that no rule or order of the
Railroad Comissioa or other constituted legal authority Shall
kmtsred raqulrlm the r6strl6tlOD Of the &'rodUQtloDfrom
any suu~inal ~11. . ."
HOn. John E. Taylor, Page lf!
S4~ti0D 1 or said aot then prooeeas to aerin0 th9
tezm %uxrglnsl ~e116" by stating three dlfterent speolflo
olas6lrlcatlon6. %CtlOn 2 OO!it6in6the 6pCO1fiC prohlbi-
tiOD6 6g6iD6t the restrlotlon of tha proauotl06 from &argi-
Dd mu6 br the R&llrOSt COZOLi6niOD, which hare b44a
heninb4ror0 84t forth. notion 4 Of the aat rCOlt66 that
a nlmrgenoy eristb bSSS*ae O? %h4 Snot that th4re 16 no
hw defining a *Mrgindl W611’ and son8 which protects
the artlfidul curtalksnt of the produotlon Of~#aLl pumplog
W116.” The68 portions of the t;arglnul Gel1 Statutes can
oaly paint to on4 16t4ntlOn, that la, an lntentlo~ td prohibit
any ourtallmant by the Railroad C~SE~OD of the prOQuctlo6
Of 011 frOa EiEir&bd -116.
See 1 Summers, "The La?:cf 011 s.nd Gas” (Permanent
sdltlon) a* 96, k&era, Cltiw AFticle 8049b, the leame&
author says, =The UbtiZi.Ss&OC
10 4Xpre66ly denied the power
to lblt or prarate.#muiuotlor of *marginal.wells.*'
The only lanyage lr thr!statute wNch might lead
to a different c0L6tmiotlon in the language aontalned in 8eotlon I,
which refer6 to a marginal ~011 cu belnc a pumping oil uell 6uoh
‘66 would be damaged, or maul 5 ln 8 loas or the production
ultimately recoverable, or cause the presature abandonment of
64m6, if its dally yroductlon were artlfiolally curtal%ed.w
Sirellar&&&age 16 ilsc oonta~med 'ia Sootion 4, whrra
the Lsgl6latum 6608 that 62 l5er g e nQy
rxlsts beoaun of the
fact that there is no lhw d4flning a m6r&inal wall and @o&a
whlohIplev4nts ths artlflclal ourtallment of the produotlon
of 61~11 punipl~ ~4110, Vhc nrtlil~lal restriction of *oh
would OCLULIC
their dluge, a taller ultf.mate rcoorery of 011
th4rerrom end their pr4faaturcabandon5ant. . . ."
It ha6 bsea arb@ad that by the language quoted the
Iagislature intended tQ~ray that ths Railroad Co!mlssiOn should
be prohibited from 1lstUlng th% production of Mrglnal ~4116
only where suck rsstrlotlon of their produotlon would 04~66
wa6t4, and thrctlf ths Railroad Comi6SlOn should find that
In reot waste tould not be uaused by euoh restrlotlon ef produc-
tion, then the Railroad CO~~~S~OD oould llmlt the ProduetiOn
from such S!bllS. tiichconstruotloaz was apparettls adopted by
Judge k!cNllar! in ROWIT,8 Elohola 011 Co. Y. Ballroad Coamisalo~.
26 F. SUFP. 131, 1% but wSS Dot f I.1 C by Judge FO6t4r in
Ballroad Comml~~sion 4. Rowan (i 6ichk6°%l CO-, 107 F.(Zd) 90, 92.
Iion. John 2. Taylor, Pace 13
p;ebelleve however that 8uoh oon8truotloh ia ontumble.
In the first place, lt dlrragar48 tha plainly exme8sed inten-
Moo or the bglolature that the purpore of the statute la to
prohlblt the restriotlon or the produotlon or marginal well&
In the 8eeond plaoe, luoh eon8truotlon WOtid IEakethe &%rgllWd
i?ellStatute praotfoally mo4nlnglo88. Eren li there rers no
marginal well 8tatuto, tho R4llroad Comml88ion olrarly would
h4ve no IawfUl 4uthorlty to rrstrlot the prodnotion from marginal
~ell8, or from My OthOr ~e118, Whom 8Uoh re8trlOtiOn rotid
Oau8e w8tO Or would 04U80 &18~@8 t0 8uOh well8 Or rO8Ult in
tha 1088 or produotlon ultimatelyroooter8blo or In the prana-
tulv abaabonsieat Of 8uOh rS118. The R8ilrOad CormPi881On18
only given power to limit produotloa where 8uoh llmitotlon
18 neoe844ry to pretent ra8te, aAd 0r oourle it uould have no
power to onaot a lldtatlon rhloh would hare sxaotly the
oppo8lte result. The evident lntootloa or tb8 Legl8lature m4s
to nlaka 4 lagl8latlYe detlllltlon or what would oon8Jtltute
"ka8klm in oertsln 8ltUdOn8 fml thereby to place a new restrio-
tlon upon the power4 oi the R4llroad Cor~mieslon,not elsewhere
found in the 8tatuteo. such intention oould not be glren errect
Pnte88 the 8tatuto is oon8trued tq bo 4 positive prohlbltion
agalrut the ourtallmentoi the produotlon of narglnal rello.
18) w think th4t it 18 l8peelally 8igBiriO4ZLtthat
atter the enaotment or the orlgln41 414rglnalwell etatuto, the
L8glrlaturo ha8 deilnltely rtated la rour ssp4rate 8tatutorr
prorlsiono, whloh hare been quoted above, that the power8 ot
the Eallroad Comml88lon.to llmlt produotlon of 011 8hould not
extend to the ourtrilment 0r productiontram mirgin41 -118.
fn raot, it appear8 th4t l4oh time, aStar the pa88agr or tho
original Eargina Tie11Statute, that the bgi814tUre p88ed a
new 8tatUtO cronierrlngbroad power8 on the Railroad Comm.i88lon,
tba ~@18lE&lre WE8 OI3?ON t0 Edte 8peOifiC prOVi8iOll8 4&n8t
an7 eon8truotlon which ~01116#$ve the Railroad Commirelon
authority to cut down the produotlon fron marginal ~0118. We
oannot bollevo that the tigl814turO soti& hare 8honn thl8
8olloitubs for the Uarglnal Ml1 Statnto had lt latended that
8uoh 8tatute would not be a dbfinlte and ponltlvellElt4tlOn
upon the power8 of the Railroad Commisolon, not oontaineb in
other atatute8.
8ae 1 Suuuaer8,*The l.4~ OS 011 and G48),* (Permarwit
?XltlOn) m. 96, note 66, where it lo 8ald, Qmlal Or th0
oomml8don*8 authority to 1Wt and prorate produotlon or
8wh (marginal) uellr 18 rtated'in artiolea 6014 and 60199,
8- 16.m ~8 we bar8 prrrlourlf pointed out, 8uch dsnlal 1S
al80 round in Article 60498, 8. l@.
En. John E. Taylcr , Page 14
(3) The construction cf Article 6C49b by the Attcrney
General’s Department has consistently been that this statute
was a pcsitive limitation upon the powers of the Railroad
Commission, The relevant portions of the former cpinions of
this Department which have considered the question have been
quoted above and need not be repeated here. These former
cpinions contain clear and definite statements of the inter-
pretaticn which is adopted in this opinion. Such consistent
departmental interpretation is in itself highly persuasive.
Federal Crude Oil Company v. Yount-iee Oil Cornan 122 Tex. 21,
52 3. b. (2d) 56; Mocrman v. Terre11 lO~~?‘i& 202 S W
727. In addition to the constructio: of this stat&e in ihe’
opinions of the littcrney General, we again refer to Rule No. 3
cf the State ;;ide Rules adopted by the Railroad Co .mission,
which specifically provides that no rule adopted by the Commis-
sion shall be construed as abrogating the Marginal Bell Law
and that “each well producing oil shall be entitled to produce
without restriction the amount of oil fixed by law for its
classification upon the basis of depth.”
THED. Our answer to your third question is that
it is our man that the Legislature had the power to limit
the jurisdiction of the Railroad Cc.mnission by rohibitin it
from curtailing the prcduc+ion from margin& weY1s. WhetI?er
or not the legislative definition of %aste” contained in
this statute conforms to the
the s atute s a l~~~~t~o”ni~~~‘F~l~o~~~~‘~~ ,tk
i%X?~Ed”&omm~ssEon, an& not a regulation of private rights.
The Railroad Commission has only such authority over the prcduc-
ticn of oil as is specifically vested in it by the Legislature.
Article 16, Section 59a of the Constitution of Texls is merely
a general declaration of policy with reference to the conserva-
tion of the natural resources of the State, and a direction that
“the Legislature shall paas all such laws as may be appropriate
thereto .” The question of what laws shall be “appropriate”
rests exclusively within the discretion of the Legislature.
\ihat laws, if any, shall be passed regulating the production
of oil, and what powers, if any, shall be vested in any adminis-
trative agencies, are questions which the Legislature alone
can decide. The Railroad Co:snission cannot exercise any newer
unless such power has been specifically delegated to it-by the
Legislature. In the case of Danciger Gil PCRefining Co. v.
Railroad Commission, 49 S. lrc. (2d) 837, 841, the court said:
Hon. John L. Taylcr, ?age 15
“;.e recognize the rule th::t, in the regulaticn and
contrcl of pri-r.ite rights -ni ?rn:;erties nf individu:lc
by ad.ainistrati-le agencies of the strte, the interests of
the individual, so far 3s consondnt v:ith The public welfare,
should be jealcusly guarded and protected; and n; authority
not clearly delegated to such agency by tne Legislature,
or nece; warily implied from that expressly delegat.ed, should
be sustained .I’
jee also Co:amercial Standard Inszsnce Co. -I. 3oard of
Insurance Ccmmissioners, 34 3. ;;. (idj 343; &Ate v. Rnbisnn
50 8. it. (kd) 292.
Since ,;rticle 6049b is a restriction on the pcwer cf
the hailrotid Co:dmission to act, there is nc 5.ueotir-n but ::jhat
the Legislature has the power to maze such restriction.
FoUl=iTfi. Our answer tc ycur fourth question is that
the kiarginal !Leli A-tute prchibits the Railroar? Co.rl:ission
from restricting the production cf oil frc.a v:eils coming within
the classification set forth in the statute, ccc! that such
prohibiticn is not dependent u$on the findings of the Railroad
Commission as to whether or net such restriction -Ejould cause
VJaSte cr would damage or cause the aremature abandonment of
such wells. The Legislature has simply taken away frcm the
Rzilroad Co;aissicn dny ?cwer to curtail the lroducticn of
these wells, and whether or not such curtailment would cause
their premature abandonment in f-:ct is wholly kmmaterial. As
we have previously st,ted, the Riilro& Cc?mis;icn can exercise
only such powers as xe specifically delegated tc it by the
Legislature , and in this instance, the Lz+islsture has specifi-
cally withheld this Sov:er Prcm the R.:ilraid Ccmmissicn.
FIFTH. Our answer to ycur fifth questicn is that in
our opinion Article 6C49b is not inv;ilid for acy reason. You
dc not mention any specific constitutional objections, except
the possible a,nbipity cf the statute, ind this has been dis-
cussed under our answer to ycur first question. The caption
of the statute tipjears to be sufficient~, .:r.d it is .:;ell settled
that the Lecislature has the t%‘Ver under the Cznstituticn to
withhold from the Co.&nissicn Any ;owers L;iiich it deems proper
to withhold. See iknciger nil k Refinin: Cc. :‘. >ailroad
Commissicn, 49 5. ;I. (2d) 837; brown v. Iiu:ble Gil .k Refining Co.,
126 Tex. 296, 83 3, ‘A. (,d) 935, 87 S. -,, (2d) Ud3.
SItEI. Our answer to ycur sixth question is that the
~findings of the Railroad Ccmcnission of Texas oi’ facts which
would bring a well within any of the classific-tions cf a
marginal well are presumptively valid; but thAt they are net
conclusive and finally binding upon the courts, and can be
Hon. John R. Taylor, Iare 16
attacked by a proper apye?l to the cou.rt?, ‘::.:ere t?ey will be
sustained unles; suck findin- are foun,: bv t’ e court3 to be
1NithOUt foundaticrl in 3ubst::ntial evidence; :.rticle 6019c,
Revized Civil Xatute;; Gulf L-n3 CO. ---- v. Ttl.:rtiafininu--- C,-
a”. ,
171 ;. -:. (2) 73.
.%w~TT? . .:e cannot an3 Ier yol!r seventh clle.it.ion
categcrica=ceRt to say that tke :‘ar~ir.al Yell Xetute
itself doe3 not prohibit the curtailment by crders of the
Railroad Comzi3 Jion of the producticn of oil fro;,l Ilo-:rino
-Nell 5 or fro-7 Rum~in~ :ell.i having treater dlily caTacitie3
than those 3recified in ;ection 1 of the ::ar:J.nal ‘cl1
jt:~;tute. It is clear that the ::arr,inal “!ell Xatute doe;:
not relate to flo:viny, :lell.j. yurthermore, x.de:r t\e 1033
amendment to the I:arginal :lell .;tatute, 7:. 9. To. 2?2, Act3,
43rd Le,i;lature, Reqlar k:;ion, C’T.-gi.terC?, la-e 215, the
definition of “mar$nal ‘.vell~ i 3 limited tc Rumrinq :vell;
V’c;l:abls, under normal unrestricted operatin.:. condition;, of
producing such daily cuantitie3 of oil.’ a3 are therein ;peci-
fied. In rub-section2 “a*’ throqh .‘eir of .Zection 1, the
definition is limited to pumping oil well; having ‘a daily
capacity for production,’ of a certain nu.;ber of barrel3
“or ie;;,” depending on the depth of the -.vell. Tl,ls 1aquag.e
manifest; an intention to define a3 zzarp,inal v~ell~ only thoae
‘Nhich have a maximara daily capacity of not in excess of the
amount3 3tated, and lumping ?dell; w.?ic:; kve rreater capacities
do not come within t!:e definiticn of marginal yrell;. pi;
interpretation i3 the 3ame a3 that Flsced on tte .meaninq of
the term, “marginal :vell.” by bcth the X3trict Court and the
Circuit Court of A;;ealj-in the ---A_
Rc+ran 9 ?ichcls case. 2E F.
.Zurp. 131; 107 F. (Ld) 70.
Yhether the Railroad Cc:.::.i;jioz in a proration order
can fix the daily allovable of any puqing cr flo::ving well
having a potential capacity greater than that of a marginal
well, below! the amount allo-red for a marsins ::ell of Similar
depth, will depend uron all of the relevant feet; in connection
with such order and it; ar;lication. It .,cy be that there will
be a jztification in the fact3 for 3ettinc the allo-.vable for
strictly marginal -Jell; at a hipher fieure t%n the allo!vable
a;JiTned to pumpin? or florins well; havin? 2 yc:tentir 1 capacity
Vreater than tte .?arrinal 9el.13. A reasonshle cla i;if ication
i; permitted, and it ha,: been held that the facts .may justify
the granting of a preference to rar.Tinal Tvell:. Xnciger Oil
& Refining Co. v. Smith, 4 7”. ;u,.. . 236. II: renersl, we believe
that the Co.A.is;ion ‘vould be per.nittcd to cut the allo:vable of
other -.;ells belo-r the allO?Jable az~3irned to 3trictly marginal
-Nell;, provided such action TNould not result in either physical
waste of oil or ga;, or in the confi;catioc of the ;roperty of
.
!Ion. Jokn 3:. ‘Taylor, i’nye 17
other owner;. Ro:Javer , any claJ3ificaticn .:cu13 have to ha.Je
a reasonable factual b :zis, end the Co:,-:i ;,icn zould not arbit-
rarily favor one cla;3 as a-ain;t other;. 7!.c.-.-.;on v. Ccnsol-
idated Gas ‘
,‘tili:les Cir!.orLtion, X:: T’. ; . 55. Xr ther:.,ore ,
under the decisions in the ?ederal. Cc:;2t;, t;le relative pro-
ducinc ca;acities of Jell; .rrithin the ;ame pocl or reservoir
constitute a very i.mrort.-nt factor thnz must be considered in
promul~atinr, any proration order, and there ~0~15 have to be
a rational justification. in the evidence befcre the Commit-
Jion would be sustained in. an order :vhi.ch reduced floAne; *vella
or strona cumcinn wells belo:.? the riarcinal allzvnble. :ee
FeoS.lels-F;)tr~le& Ircducers, Inc. v. ;terlino, 60 3. (Ed) 1041;
E 1 ‘S Fetrcleum Producers Inc. v. Smith,- 1 ?. 5~3.. 361;
JV~~,O~Fetroleum Cor&oration’v . Railroad Co.:mis ;ion, 3 -. %pp.
633; PLwhancieer Oil
R- Refinzn:: Co. v. ;mith, 1 F. XIr. 236; :*scI illian v. ?zilroa?i
Commiaaioni511”.40C; Rc.:an - ?ichok Gil Co, v. RAlroad
Co::i-izion, 2& 7. jut. . 131; Railroarl Com:io;ion v. XC’-Xii&
;JicholaQii Co., lC7’k. (2d) 70.
ZIGR’F!. 1.1 your eighth -ue;tion yor asked fcr a
statement byof the .zeaninn. of the I’arTinal ‘lell :~:.tritc.
3e have already stated our vie73 penerally, and -::e s~:;~arize
them as follca3:
Article 6049b defi,nes the :.eaninr cf the term WarEin-
al well,” accordin% to the depth of the -rell and the naximum
yroducin.: capacity of the -dell under normal unrestricted orera-
tine conditions. T-e t=r:. “marfinal well:’ 1~ r=jtricted to
FuapinR, vrel13 ) .and does not aF- ly to flo%nr: .*Jell3. T% tern
“;,zrtinal ;zell” doe; r,cf include all lumpin* ‘sells, but only
those wells whose .maximuil produci.nq csracitie; under normal
unrestricted orerating conditicns do not exceed the amounts
set forth in subsections :lar t’zcu.-2. ,Ie” of 3cctio=. 1. If a
l~V~;in=, well has a maximum producing capacity in excess of the
amount set f !zrth in j,ctic;: 1, then such ::ell i; not a nar-
ginal well *:rlthin the definition of the statute, and it3 ;rc-
ductioc can be curtailed by the R.:llrcrd Cc:mi;;i9n, FroVidin:
the Rzilrcad Coi&;jion finds that such curtailm&nt is reason-
ably necessary . A3 tc *;vells YJhiChccme :‘sithin the definition
of a marginal well, the Railroad Co;,i~L-:sicn i; zvholly .Jithcut
pager to limit the production of oil frcn 39c!1 :;‘ells.
.
Hon. John C. Taylor, Page 18
NI:JTH. Our answer to your ninth ruestion, which is
conta .ined iii-j&r supplemental relusst dated January 15;
19LO. is that the Railroad Commission, depending; upon the
rkievant facts, may have the power to curtail artificially
the production of a pumping well havin; a producing capacity
of more than k:enty barrels per day and producing from
horizons found at a depth between 2000 and 4000 feet, below
20 barrels per day. Under the construction of the law which
we have adopted, a well producing fro.m this depth, and having
a maximum producing capacity of zore than twenty barrels per
day, would not be strictly a marginal well, and the Commission
is therefore not prohibited from curtailing its prOdUCtiOn,
provided such curtailment is reasonably necessar'y under the
facts. Of course, if the facts were such as to show that
such curtaiL!ent would cause waste or would cause confiscation,
the Commission would be without power so to curtail the
production from such a well. A3 we'have already stated in
our an3wer to your seventh question, the relative producing
capacities of wells in the same field are an important factor
that must be considered in any proration order, and a prora-
tion order Siving a strong pumping well a lower allowable than
a marginal well would not be sustained unless it had a reason-
able justification in the relevant facts.
Yours very truly
ATTOREY GEKERALOF TYXAS
By (Simed) James P. Hart
James P. IIart
Assistant
JPH:AKM
APPROVEDJAN. 17, 1940
(Signed) Gerald C. Mann
ATTORNEYGDJERALOF TX&S
This opinion considered and approved in limited conference.