Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forced Pooling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court presses on whether SWN’s offers met forced‑pooling ‘good faith’ requirement
Summary
In Hotland Resources v. SWN Production, appellate judges probed whether the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission adequately applied the forced‑pooling statute’s good‑faith requirement after SWN obtained a unitization order affecting 13 nonconsenting landowners. Petitioner's counsel said the commission failed to analyze the substance of offers; SWN counsel said the record contains sufficient evidence to support the commission’s factual finding.
Counsel for Hotland Resources told the court the commission’s order contains only a conclusory sentence finding good faith and did not examine the substance of offers made to 13 nonconsenting mineral owners. "The commission did not review any of the actual offers," Carrie Sturm said, arguing the record shows one documented offer to Hotland was less than half what the statutory code formula would yield and therefore the decision should be vacated and remanded for fuller fact‑finding.
SWN’s lawyer, Robert Stone Street, countered that the administrative record includes affidavits, correspondence, and testimony that support the commission’s factual finding and that the appellate court should not create new procedural requirements the legislature did not adopt. "If there is evidence in the record that supports a factual finding by the commission, it is conclusive," Street told the panel, urging deference to the agency’s role as finder of fact. Judges pressed both sides on whether "good faith" is a purely legal standard, what burdens the statute places on an operator before filing, and whether market‑value comparisons are required by the commission to show good faith.
The court’s questioning focused on two central themes: (1) whether the commission’s short finding satisfied the statute and administrative‑law principles requiring a reasoned decision, and (2) whether the absence of a statutory definition of "good faith" means the commission may rely on applicant testimony and correspondence unless other evidence rebuts that showing. Counsel for Hotland urged vacatur and a remand so the commission can articulate its reasoning; SWN countered that the record contains correspondence and offer amounts supporting the finding. The court took the arguments under submission.
