Opinion
No. 24131
September 12, 1933. Rehearing Denied October 10, 1933.
(Syllabus.)
1. Oil and Gas — Restriction of Production Under Proration Law — "Production of the Well or Wells."
The term "production of the well or wells," as used in section 11568, O. S. 1931, means the actual amount of oil or gas that such well or wells would be, capable of producing in the absence of any restrictions upon production imposed by the enactment and enforcement of proration laws.
2. Same — Allowable Production of Well to Be Based Upon Potential Production Without Use of "Choke."
Where the operator of an oil or gas well voluntarily reduces the amount of its production by the use of a "choke" or other similar mechanical appliance for the purpose of avoiding the possible physical waste of oil or gas that might attend production without the use of such mechanical appliance, the amount of the production of his well, for the purpose of determining its permissible production under proration laws, should be based upon the amount of oil or gas it would be capable of producing in the absence of such "choke" or other mechanical appliance.
Appeal by W. R. Dodson et al. from an order of the Corporation Commission. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Ledbetter, Stuart, Bell Ledbetter, for plaintiffs in error.
E.S. Ratliff, for defendants in error.
This is a companion case to cause No. 24132, Oils Incorporated v. Corporation Commission et al., this date decided. ( 165 Okla. 202, 25 P.2d 703.) The same property is involved as well as the same period of production. The cases differ only in that the plaintiffs in error in this case are owners of fractional interests in and to the 7/8 working interest covered by the lease of the producing property involved, whereas, in cause No. 24132 the plaintiff in error was the operator. The legal questions involved which are material to a determination of the issues are identical. The causes have been considered together in this court, and the ultimate rights of the parties in this case have been determined in accordance with the views expressed in the opinion in cause No. 24132.
The opinion in cause No. 24132 is therefore adopted as the opinion in this case, and this cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to proceed in a manner not inconsistent with the views announced.
RILEY, C. J., CULLISON, V. C. J., and SWINDALL, ANDREWS, McNEILL, OSBORN, BAYLESS, and WELCH, JJ., concur.