Hunt Oil Co. v. Kerbaugh

283 N.W.2d 131 (1979)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

This case involves geophysical exploration for oil and gas over approximately 1000 acres of land. Ds acquired around 480 acres in 1966 by way of a warranty deed reserved in the grantor '. . . ALL of the minerals, including oil and gas, in and under or that may be produced and saved from said lands, together with the right of ingress and egress.' The owners of the mineral estates leased their oil and gas interests to Edward Mike Davis for a period of five years in 1974 and 1975, respectively. Davis then conducted seismic exploration over the property in the early part of 1976. D testified that after the 1976 seismic activity, the flow from a spring that supplied water to his home and livestock, gradually decreased until it stopped in November 1976. D said he restored the flow although at a reduced rate, at his own expense. D also testified, that as a result of the 1976 exploration, open holes were left in his property, along with various types of debris. Davis assigned the oil and gas leases to Williams Exploration Co., who assigned a share of the same leases to P. The oil companies contracted with Pacific West Exploration Co. to conduct seismic exploration activities. Pacific West Exploration contacted Ds for permission to conduct the exploration, offering to pay $50 per hole plus additional amounts for damages to growing crops. Ds counteroffered with a request of $200 per hole, plus $1 per rod of tracks on the land, a commitment to cement shut any holes, and a guarantee of continued water supply. D requested the surveyors to leave until an agreement was reached as to compensation for damages to his surface rights. Ps filed a summons and complaint seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief restraining the Ds from interfering with the oil companies in the exercise of their rights under the oil and gas lease. The court issued a temporary injunction against, D. Ds filed a motion to vacate the ex parte temporary injunction. Eventually, the court issued a permanent injunction against D. Ds appealed the order contending the record was inadequate to grant injunctive relief, and that Ps did not have an unlimited right under the mineral leases to enter the property for extensive exploration activities, particularly in light of prior harm to Ds from such activities. Ps contend that because they have concluded their exploration activities, the issues are moot.