## Facts

- Virgil Worth and Frieda M. Webb owned the surface estate of six quarter sections of farmland in Texas County, Oklahoma; the mineral estate was severed and owned by third parties.
- Enron Oil & Gas Co. sought to conduct seismic testing across a multi-section prospect that included the six quarter sections.
- Enron held oil and gas leases under three quarter sections and obtained “seismic permits” from certain owners of unleased, undivided mineral interests under the remaining tracts.
- Worth refused Enron’s offer of payment for surface access and denied entry for seismic operations.
- Enron sued for declaratory and injunctive relief; a TRO issued, then was dissolved.
- The trial court granted temporary injunctive relief only for the leased tracts and denied a permanent injunction for the tracts where Enron held only seismic permits, reasoning that geophysical exploration rights could not be separated from the right to develop and produce minerals; it also found no irreparable harm and questioned the reasonableness of the planned operations’ duration.
- Enron appealed the denial of injunctive relief as to the seismic-permit tracts.

## Issues

1. Whether an owner of an unleased, undivided mineral interest may authorize a third party to enter the surface estate to conduct seismic operations.
2. Whether the mineral estate’s implied surface-use rights for exploration may be severed and assigned independently of broader development and production rights.
3. Whether Enron established grounds for injunctive relief, including irreparable harm and reasonable, nonexcessive use of the surface.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed and remanded with directions.
- It held that a mineral owner may sever and assign to a third party the implied right of reasonable surface use for geophysical (seismic) exploration, including where the mineral interest is unleased and undivided.
- It rejected the view that the right to conduct geophysical exploration cannot exist unless coupled with rights to drill and produce.
- It concluded that consent from all mineral cotenants was not required for seismic exploration where authority was obtained from at least one undivided mineral owner.
- It found the evidence supported irreparable harm from interference with a time-sensitive, coordinated seismic program and that denial of an injunction was erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- When the mineral estate is severed, the mineral estate is dominant and carries an implied easement of reasonable ingress, egress, and surface use necessary for mineral exploration, development, and production.
- The rights comprising the mineral estate are divisible and may be conveyed or granted in part without surface-owner consent, including limited rights for geophysical exploration.
- A mineral cotenant may authorize reasonable exploration activities; unanimous consent of all mineral cotenants is not required for a third party acting under authority of at least one cotenant, subject to limits of reasonable use.
- A surface owner may not categorically exclude authorized, reasonable mineral exploration, but retains protection against unreasonable use and may recover for proven surface damages.
- Injunctive relief may be appropriate where interference threatens noncompensable harm to coordinated exploration efforts and the operator’s proposed access can be conditioned to remain reasonable.

## Conclusion

The court held that unleased, undivided mineral owners may grant a third party limited surface-access rights for seismic testing as part of the mineral estate’s implied easement, and it directed entry of injunctive relief preventing surface owners from interfering with reasonable seismic operations.


Enron Oil & Gas Co. v. Worth, 947 P.2d 610 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997)