Denver — The Energy and Carbon Management Commission on July 9 approved Noble Energy’s application to pool all interests within an approximately 2,400‑acre drilling and spacing unit, denying a protest from 5 m Farm Company that argued the company’s lease language precluded pooling without a new lease offer.

Background: Noble sought a statutory pooling order under the oil-and-gas act and ECMC rules after obtaining consents from working-interest owners representing more than the statutory 45-percent threshold. 5 m Farms filed a petition arguing it is a leased mineral owner whose lease (1977 lease as amended in 1994) does not allow pooling at the scale proposed and that its 2012 consents and related agreements showed the lessee previously treated the lease as non‑poolable. The protest asked ECMC to require Noble to provide a new lease offer under Rule 506 or to otherwise deny pooling of 5 m’s acreage.

Hearing and evidence: Noble presented land testimony and evidence that 5 m’s mineral interests are leased (the 1977 lease and 1994 amendment were in the record) and argued that under the civil statute and ECMC Rule 506 a leased owner is not entitled to a new lease offer or a participation election (those obligations apply to unleased owners only). Noble said it had supplied required offers to unleased and working-interest owners and had publicly noticed the application; staff testimony and the application record included a pooling affidavit and an interested‑parties list.

5 m argued the commission should apply equitable doctrines (estoppel, waiver and good-faith duties) and consider the parties’ conduct over time — especially agreements and communications in 2012 — that 5 m says show Noble had previously treated the lease as non‑poolable and that Noble should therefore be precluded from treating the lease as poolable now. 5 m said a literal application of “leased” vs. “unleased” would produce an absurd result by allowing a lessee to change positions to the detriment of the lessor.

Jurisdictional issue: Commissioners reviewed controlling Colorado precedent. The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that bona fide disputes that require contract interpretation are outside ECMC’s jurisdiction; interpretation of lease terms is a judicial function. Commissioners said they were constrained from resolving a pure contract-interpretation dispute in the administrative forum and that the proper test in a pooling hearing is whether the statutory and rule prerequisites for a pooling order have been met.

Commission decision: Commissioners found Noble’s application met Rule 506 and the statutory requirements for pooling; Noble had demonstrated how it secured consents exceeding the statutory threshold, properly noticed interested parties, and tendered lease and participation offers where required by rule. Commissioners voted 4–0 to approve Noble’s pooling application and to subject any non‑consenting interests to statutory cost-recovery provisions. Several commissioners noted factual sympathy for small mineral owners seeking better lease terms, but said the commission cannot substitute administrative action for contract remedies and that 5 m’s contractual remedies remain available in court.

Ending: The commission approved the pooling order; commissioners directed staff to record the order and proceed with the statutory pooling implementation steps. 5 m’s alternative remedies for alleged contract inequities are in the judicial realm, commissioners said.