This is a suit to cancel two anoint, natural gas and mineral leases. Plaintiffs are the owners of the nation. Defendants are the owners of the leases. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiffs appeal. The principal issue is whether the defendants complied with the lease provisions requiring that they commence “ reworking operations ” within 90 days after the cessation of output in regulate to continue the leases in effect beyond their elementary terms. The two leases in motion were granted in July of 1954, for elementary terms of five years, to Mr. F. J. Muller, covering a sum of about 310 acres in St. Landry Parish. They were assigned by Muller to Tidewater Oil Company. During the primary terms of the leases, portions of the leased premises were included within a whole from which accelerator was being produced by Tidewater from a well located on lands owned by Robert L. Waterbury. The well produced gas and condensate in paying quantities until August 6, 1960, at which time Tidewater abandoned it due to excessive amounts of salt water. Robert L. Waterbury, on whose lands the well was located, was an have independent anoint operator. He decided that he could restore the well to production. accordingly, he acquired the leases and on September 5, 1960, he commenced operations to restore production. From September 5 through October 1, 1960, he and a crowd of men repaired approximately one sea mile of dining table road across a boggy area to the well site. They replaced some boards, repaired others and reset the necessary cattle gaps. then he built completely newfangled triple mat around the well question to support heavy equipment which he planned to use.

On October 30, 1960, a “ wire agate line service unit ”, mounted on a three long ton truck, was moved to the well locate. This equipment consists of a wire rope, about the size of an ordinary clothes channel, to which are attached doughnut bars, jars and a paraffin scraper. This was lowered into the tube of the well to a depth of about 10,300 feet. After about 8 1/2 hours of shape, pulling the methane series scraper in and out of the hole, an accumulation of paraffin and debris was removed and the well began to flow gasoline and condensate. This was on October 30, 1960, which was the eighty-fifth day after the cessation of production on August 6, 1960. production was sporadically flared to the hell, to keep the well clean, until new flow lines and a cooler battery could be installed. These were completed on November 25, 1960, from which date accelerator and condensate have been produced and saved in paying quantities. This was the 111th sidereal day after cessation of output. Waterbury testified he spent about $ 65,000 to restore the well to output. The lease provisions in interview are contained in paragraph 6, which reads as follows :

“After the discovery and production of oil, gas or any other minerals in paying quantities, either on the leased premises or on lands pooled therewith, the rights granted shall be maintained in effect during and after the primary term and without the payment of the rentals herein above provided for so long as oil, gas or some other mineral is being produced in paying quantities, or Lessee is carrying on operations with reasonable diligence looking to the production thereof. It is provided, however, that if, after the discovery and production of oil, gas or other minerals in paying quantities, the production thereof should cease from any cause, this lease shall terminate unless Lessee resumes or restores such production, or commences additional drilling, reworking or mining operations within ninety (90) days thereafter and continues such operations without the lapse of more than ninety (90) days between abandonment of work on one well and commencement of reworking operations or operations for the drilling of another, in an effort to restore production of oil, gas or other minerals. * * *”

It is not disputed that there was a cessation of production, within the intendment of the above quoted rent provisions. Plaintiffs ‘ principal contention is that within the ensuing period of 90 days there was neither ( 1 ) restoration of production in paying quantities nor ( 2 ) commencement of reworking operations in an attempt to restore production. Plaintiffs argue that the things done by Mr. Waterbury amounted to nothing more that everyday alimony, as distinguished from reworking operations. I. cost PRODUCTION IN PAYING QUANTITIES RESTORED WITHIN 90 DAYS ? We pretermit the question of whether production in paying quantities was restored within the 90 days. For, careless of this doubt, we find hereinafter that reworking operations were commenced within this time period. II. FAILURE OF LESSORS TO GIVE NOTICE THAT THE WORK BEING DONE BY WATERBURY DID NOT CONSTITUTE REWORKING Defendants contend that the follow notice provisions of the rent are applicable here :

“In the event that lessor at any time considers that the operations are not being conducted in compliance with this lease, Lessor shall notify Lessee in writing of the facts relied upon as constituting a breach hereof, and Lessee, if legally required to conduct operations in order to maintain the lease in force, shall have sixty (60) days after receipt of such notice in which to commence the necessary operations to comply with the requirements hereof.”

Under this lease provision, defendants argue that plaintiffs were required to notify Mr. Waterbury of any dissatisfaction with the reworking operations. This argument has been answered by the jurisprudence. See Taylor v. Buttram, 111 So.2d 576 ( La.App. 2d Cir. 1959 ) where the court held, with citation of previous cases : III. COMMENCEMENT OF REWORKING OPERATIONS Plaintiffs contend the shape done by Mr. Waterbury constituted routine care and not “ reworking ”. They introduced the testimony of three adept witnesses who stated, in perfume, that “ reworking operations ” are limited to those which affect the ability of the producing formation to feed into the well wear. These witnesses stated further that paraffin frequently accumulates in accelerator wells and the removal thereof with a wire cable service unit is act alimony. They concluded that in the present shell the combined operations conducted by Waterbury constituted maintenance and not “ reworking ”. More detail as to the testimony of plaintiffs ‘ expert witnesses is as follows : Mr. Ben H. Freeman, a petroleum mastermind with experience in the industry since 1940, testified :
Q. Mr. Freeman, in your opinion, what constitutes a re-working or work over operation ?
A. As I understand it, a work over process is doing influence on a well that has produced, which work affects the reservoir from which your product comes or from moving in function over equipment to do mechanical work on the well.
Q. Mr. Freeman, you have heard the testimony of Mr. Waterbury, and Mr. Thistlethwaite relating to the operations that were conducted with citation to the Waterbury well which is now in controversy, and I ask you, in your opinion, would you consider those operations as a work over or re-work operation ?
A. No.
Q. To be more specific, do you consider the run of a paraffin scraper on a wire channel whole into a well as a work over or re-working mathematical process ?
A. No, sir, I feel that any thing that can be handled by the pumper in the field who is at the well each day is production maintenance. That would include changing charts, changing chokes on wells, keeping his production records, keeping the tubing cleanse, tanks clean, anything minor that the pumper can take wish of without supervision other than the pumper is just production alimony, you are maintaining production on those wells.
Q. In early words, in your opinion, the mere linear of a scraper on a wire tune unit is something that can be supervised by a gauger and consequently is a care operation ?
A. Yes.
Mr. Richard Steinhorst, Jr., besides a petroleum engineer with practical experience since 1942, testified :
Q. now, Mr. Steinhorst, would you please define for the Court your understand of a work over or re-working operations, if you find those two words synonymous ?
A. They are synonymous. We consider those types of operations — any operation which affects the ability of the producing formation to feed into the well bear. * * *
Q. nowadays, what type of operations may become necessary to affect the producing horizon ?
A. Well, first and basically of naturally, if the well is cased, would be perforating or putting holes in the encase.
Q. That ‘s your initial ?
A. That would be initial, yes, sir.
Q. And you would consider that initial perforation at the producing horizon to be a re-working operation or work over operation ?
A. A re-perforation of the same area would be a make over process.
Q. And what else, that would be count one ?
A. There would be acidizing, embrace cement, respective types of well stimulation, operations to control water production, or to control excessive flatulence anoint ratio, and any other operation which actually affects the ability of the good to feed in.
Mr. Paul Montgomery, a petroleum engineer with experience since 1941, stated :
Q. now, Mr. Montgomery, would you define for the Court your understand of what a re-working operation or work over is ?
A. I would say that a work over mathematical process is an operation that is planned to affect the producing characteristics of the well, the ability of the well to produce hydrocarbons.
* * * * *
Q. What type of activities or operations are there in the petroleum industry which could affect the production ability of a well ?
A. Perforating, power play cement, sandpaper consolidation, fracing, versatile squash operations other than cementum, that is squeezing oil for exemplify, all of these could affect the producing characteristics of the geological formation.
* * * * *
Q. now, after hearing all of the facts of this encase as testified to by Mr. Waterbury and Mr. Thestlethwaite, yesterday, do you consider the operations performed by them on the Robert L. Waterbury well a bring over or a re-working operation ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Why, Mr. Montgomery ?
A. What they did actually was to go into the hole with a methane series scraper and remove what in my opinion was an obstruction in the tube. They did not do anything that had any hold on the generative capacity of the well, that is the ability of the good to produce into the well bore hydrocarbons, salt urine or whatever. actually what they did was a mechanical operation, that is, a share of normal housekeep in a well that does have a methane series problem. Defendants called two technical witnesses who testified that although the habit of a wire line service unit entirely is alimony, the wire line operations performed here were a part of an overall work-over operation. These experts were of the public opinion that work-over operations can not be limited, under all circumstances, to those which affect the ability of the formation to feed into the well bore. They gave a much broader definition to the condition “ reworking operations ” and concluded that the oeuvre done by Mr. Waterbury in this case fell within that category. The beginning of defendants ‘ experts is Mr. Fred L. Bates, who has very impressive qualifications. He graduated in mining engineering from Princeton University in 1933 and is a member of the Advisory Council of the School of Geological Engineering of that institution american samoa well as being a member of the staff of the University of Southwestern Louisiana as a lecturer in petroleum geology and petroleum engineer. Mr. Bates besides has an impressive setting of practical experience as a consulting petroleum engineer. He testified as follows :

“Q. Mr. Bates, I think you stated that using a paraffin scraper was a work over or reworking operation?

“A. No, sir, I did not. I stated that wire line operations such as were performed here were a part of a work over operation.

“Q. Because it restored production?

“A. No, sir, because it was a logical step in proceeding with a work over. As Mr. Montgomery stated, the repair of the board road and the entering of the well with wire line tools were the first steps that a reasonable and a prudent operator would have taken.

“Q. Mr. Bates, what do you mean work over, what does that mean, what are you working over?

“A. Mr. Montgomery was asked to define the term, and I think he defined it rather well. With the exception that he said it was an operation to affect the production from a well. My definition would take exception with the work affect, and say that a work over is an operation to improve or restore production, not merely to affect, but an attempt to improve and restore production.

I believe that the physical operations which are performed in this case and as admitted by Mr. Montgomery did have the effect of restoring production for whatever reason, and believing that and seeing the evidence, I would consider this as a part of a work over operation.”

Mr. William G. Blackwell, the early technical witness called by defendants, has a degree in geological technology from the Colorado School of Mines in 1939 and across-the-board practical know. He testified as follows :

“Q. Now, what is the principal purpose of a reworking or work over operation?

“A. The principal purpose of a work over is to ultimately restore oil or gas production.

“Q. If you had been in Mr. Waterbury’s place and you had a farm out agreement under which you had undertaken to re-work this well or to engage in reworking or work over operations, would you have proceeded the way Mr. Waterbury did?

“A. Exactly.

“Q. And after you had gotten the production that Mr. Waterbury got, would you have discontinued the reworking operations as he did?

“A. Yes.

“Q. Would you state whether you believe that these activities of his in restoring the board road and in engaging in the wire line operations were conducted with reasonable diligence looking toward the production of minerals?

“A. I think so.”

There are at least three Louisiana cases which have considered the question of “ reworking ”. Most authoritative of these is Texas Company v. Leach, 219 La. 613, 53 So.2d 786 ( 1951 ). The facts showed that the well gradually decreased in production to five barrels of petroleum per day. finally, the tubing burst. The operators closed the well down and contracted with a bore party to work the well over. During the 60-day delay, provided by the habendum article, the trace operations were conducted in preparation to restore production : Relegged derrick ; pulled tube ; strengthened and reinforced bridge ; doped tube and rods ; repaired gas lines ; racked and doped tube ; repaired roads and bridges ; prepared for cable joyride. After the 60-day time period, the operations continued until the well was brought back into product. In holding that the operations conducted by the Texas Company constituted reworking operations sufficient to maintain the rent beyond its primary term, the court held :

“We believe that the operations conducted by the Texas Company between September 10 and November 26, 1947, were sufficient to conform with the provisions of their contract. Operations of a similar nature under a lease which obligated the lessee to ‘commence operations’ within a certain period of time ‘by drilling, boring or mining for oil’ have been held to be the commencement of work ‘which satisfied the condition of the lease’. See Hudspeth et al. v. Producers’ Oil Co., et al., 134 La. 1013, 64 So. 891, 893.”

In Johnson v. Houston Oil Company of Texas, 229 La. 446, 86 So.2d 97 ( 1956 ), the lease provided for end point unless petroleum or natural gas was being produced in paying quantities or “ drill or reworking operations ” were being conducted on June 27, 1954. A well drilled during the latter separate of 1953 showed the presence of oil, but it was plugged with concrete. On the crucial day, June 27, 1954, the operator moved a drill rig, pump, rotary and kelly joint to the well site, assembled them, and commenced to drill out the cement punch. production was actually obtained. The court held :

“Under these circumstances we would not be warranted in disturbing such findings of fact; and we hold, as did the trial judge, that plaintiff was actually engaged in reworking operations on June 27. See Texas Co. v. Leach, 219 La. 613, 53 So.2d 786.”

In Harry Bourg Corporation v. Union Producing Company, 197 So.2d 172 ( La.App. 1st Cir. 1967, writ refused ), the lease provided for the periodic commencement of operations to drill a new well or “ rework ” an existing well. The operations in question consisted of placing a cement hack at the 14,800 feet depth in an existing well and moving up in the hole and making newly perforations at 14,500 feet. Three experts testified this was “ rework ” and defined the terminus. Mr. Drew Cornell, a petroleum mastermind of 22 years know, defined “ reworking ” as : “ It is to restore or increase production of a well that has been drilled, normally the irregular try. ” Mr. L. C. Aycock, a petroleum geologist, testified : “ The son means to work again on a well. It is used in reference to work on wells that have never produced or cultivate on wells that have produced, used in connection with a well that has never produced. * * * In a well that has produced it would be an operation when the well came off of production or ceased production, and it would be an operation to maintain, restore, improve production. * * * ” Mr. Donald Mast, a geologist, stated : “ My reason of the terminus is any process or procedure which you may undertake to either recover, addition or create new output in a good. ” In the Harry Bourg Corporation case, the court held :

“We find from the testimony of the three experts, quoted supra, that the word ‘rework’ has a definite, even though multiple, meaning in the oil and gas industry, and accordingly we are bound to accept this meaning in the sense in which it was used on this compromise agreement, the subject matter of which was an oil, gas and mineral operation.”

We note particularly that not one of the three cited cases, nor any of the experts mentioned therein, limits the term “ reworking ” to operations which affect the ability of the formation to feed into the well bear. In the Harry Bourg Corporation case, which quotes the technical testimony, the definition of “ reworking ” given by these witnesses is well the lapp as that given by defendants ‘ experts in the present case, i. e., it is an operation to obtain product in a well which was completed but never produced or to maintain, restore or improve production in a well which ceased to produce and has been abandoned. Williams and Meyers, Oil and Gas Law-Manual of Oil Gas Terms, at page 338, defines “ reworking operations ” in a manner very like to the testimony of the three experts in the Harry Bourg Corporation v. Union Producing Company case, above, as follows :
“ Work performed on a well after its completion, in an attempt to secure production where there has been none, restore production that has ceased or increase product. Cleaning out a hole that has silted up is a typical rework mathematical process. In Rogers v. Osborn, 152 Tex. 540, 261 S.W.2d 311, 2 O G. R. 304, 1439 ( 1953 ), the trial court defined reworking operations as follows : ‘ “ re-working operations ” * * * means actual work as operations which have theretofore been done, being done over, and being done in good religion enterprise to cause a well to produce oil and natural gas or petroleum or gasoline in paying quantities as an normally competent operation would do in the lapp or exchangeable circumstances. ‘ The appellate court neither approved nor disapproved of this definition. In the same case, the court held that periodic flow ( q.v. ) or bleeding a well could amount to reworking operations, where the jury so find. See besides Johnson v. Houston Oil Co. [ 229 La. 446 ], 86 So.2d 97, 5 O. G. R. 1169 ( La. 1956 ). “ The legal definition of the term is authoritative because many leases contain clauses such as or similar to the adopt :
‘If anterior to discovery of vegetable oil or gas on the land leaseholder should drill a dry hole thereon, or if after discovery of vegetable oil or flatulence the production thence should cease, this rent shall not terminate if leaseholder commences extra bore or reworking operations within sixty days thereafter * * * If at the passing of the primary term, petroleum, accelerator or other mineral is not being produced on the death but leaseholder is then engaged in bore or reworking operations thereon, this lease shall remain in violence therefore farseeing as such operations are prosecuted with no cessation of more than thirty days * * * ‘
“ The terminus ‘reworking ‘ is defined in one agreement form as ‘all operations designed to secure, restore or improve production through some use of a hole previously drilled, including, but not limited to, mechanical or chemical discussion of any horizon, deepening to test deeper class, plugging back to test higher class, etc. ‘ Myers, The Law of Pooling and Unitization 475 ( 1957 ). See Cleaning a well, Redrilling, Workovers. ” Plaintiffs reference several cases from other states which discuss “ reworking ”. not one of them restricts the terminus to operations which “ affect the ability of the geological formation to feed into the well bore ”, as contended by plaintiffs ‘ experts. furthermore, we find no such restricted definition suggested in either the text or the citations in Summers, Oil and Gas, Vol. 2, Sections 305 and 349. In short, plaintiffs have not cited, nor have we been able to find, any authority which supports their definition. Like the courts in the three cited Louisiana cases, we besides will not attempt to give a comprehensive examination definition of “ reworking operations ” applicable in every case. Each lawsuit must depend upon its own facts, in the light of the opinions of the technical witnesses who testify. In our position, the operations conducted by Mr. Waterbury in the give subject distinctly constituted reworking. We attach particular significance to the adopt facts : The well had actually ceased to produce and had been abandoned by the original operator, Tidewater. Mr. Waterbury purchased the leases from Tidewater and, as a new operator, commenced efforts to restore the well to production. He and a crew of men repaired one mile of board road and built wholly modern triple matting around the well to support heavy equipment which might be needed. After the wire line service unit of measurement was successful in removing paraffin and debris from the well, it actually returned to production. Waterbury then had to install new flow lines and a newfangled tank barrage. These operations were all conducted sanely, diligently and in dear religion, and were actually successful in restoring product. surely the operations conducted by Waterbury were more than routine maintenance by an operator to maintain product. IV. THE UNIT WELL DID NOT PRODUCE AS A GAS WELL Plaintiffs contend that since the unit was created by the Conservation Commission for the production of accelerator, and the records show that during the period from January 1, 1961 through October 1, 1961, the well primarily produced liquid condensation, such product did not maintain the non-drilled leases at issue here. Plaintiffs contend that condensate is petroleum, not gas, and they cite Auzenne v. Lawrence Oil Company, Inc., 179 So.2d 533 ( La.App. 3rd Cir. 1965 ) to support their put. The production reports appearance, for exemplify, that during January, 1961, the good produced 991,000 cubic feet of accelerator and 920 barrels of oil, for a gas-oil proportion of 1077 cubic feet of natural gas to each barrel of anoint, which is less than the 2,000 to 1 ratio established by general orders of the Conservation Department for a boast well.
Each of the nine months in doubt the ratio fell below 2,000 to 1. Without discussing the Auzenne case, the short solution to plaintiff ‘s argumentation in the present matter is that Department of Conservation Order No. 257-A-1 effective November 15, 1956, created this unit for the production of “ gasoline and fluent hydrocarbons ” from the sandpaper in question. Liquid condensate is surely fluent hydrocarbon. See LSA-R.S. 30:3 ( 4, 5 ). Hence, the unit was created for its production, american samoa well as flatulence. V. DELAY IN PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES After the Waterbury well was restored to production on November 25, 1961, the whole was revised by the Department of Conservation by ordain dated March 9, 1962. No royalties were paid to plaintiffs until October of 1962. Mr. Waterbury explained that the creation of the new unit caused delays to secure the necessary surveys and accomplish the command style study, execution of division orders, etc. The trial court held under the circumstances that this stay in the payment of royalties was not unreasonable. There was a stay of between six and seven months between the time the whole was revised and the clock time the payment of royalties commenced. For the reasons set forth in Fawvor v. United States Oil of Louisiana, Inc., 162 So.2d 602 ( La.App. 3rd Cir. 1962 ), we do not think this was an unreasonable check under the circumstances. VI. TERMINATION OF LEASES UPON DISSOLUTION OF ORIGINAL UNIT The 1954 leases were maintained beyond their primary terms by being included within a unit created by Department of Conservation Order No. 257-A-1, effective November 15, 1959, establishing Unit No. 21-2, for which the Waterbury well was subsequently designated as the unit well. Order 257-A-4, effective January 1, 1962, dissolved said Unit 21-2. Hence, plaintiffs contend their leases terminated because they were beyond their primary terms and the unit which had served to maintain them was dissolved. however, the defendant points out that when Unit No. 21-2 was dissolved by Order No. 257-A-4, a revised unit was simultaneously established, which existed until Order No. 257-A-5, effective March 9, 1962, created Revised Unit 21-2, for which the Waterbury well is the unit well and which unit includes portions of the leases at write out here. The resultant role is that there was uninterrupted product in which plaintiffs ‘ leases shared. Hence, plaintiffs ‘ leases were not terminated. For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed is affirmed. All costs of this invoke are assessed against the plaintiffs appellants. Affirmed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.