Administrative Law: Scope of Judicial Review Compulsory Pooling and Unitization: Costs

摘要

In 1980, the Board entered a compulsory pooling order for a 640-aere tract of land. Kelly Oil became the unit operator. Anadarko acquired some leasehold interests in the pooled unit but could not reach an agreement with Kelly as to the sharing of pooled unit costs. Kelly then charged Anadarko for its share of more than $1.5 million in well costs. Anadarko disputed more than $900,000 of those costs and petitioned the Board to resolve the dispute as is authorized by Miss. Code § 53-3-7(4). After a contested hearing, the Board confirmed the full amount of the charges. Anadarko requested that the Board make specific factual findings but after several attempts, Anadarko sought judicial review while still complaining about the Board's lack of specificity in its order. Held: vacated and remanded. The only issue discussed by the Supreme Court is the one relating to the Board's lack of specific findings. The scope of judicial review of a Board order is a combination of the substantial evidence and arbitrary, capricious and abuse of discretion standards. In addition, the court reviews to see if the order is ultra vires or in violation of some constitutional or statutory provision. Without the Board disclosing the reason for its decision, the court is essentially stripped of its power to review the Board decision. The court concluded that the Board's final order was insufficient on its face to allow the court to engage in meaningful review since all it contained was a series of conclusory findings.