K.S.A. » Chapter 55
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 55-223 (2026)

Implied covenant to explore and develop minerals established; burden upon lessee

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

55-223. Implied covenant to explore and develop minerals established; burden upon lessee. As a matter of Kansas public policy, all oil and gas leases and subleases for the exploration, development and production of oil, gas or other minerals, or any combination thereof, which are held by production shall be presumed to contain, in addition to any expressed covenants therein, an implied covenant to reasonably explore and to develop the minerals which are the subject of such lease. Such implied covenant shall be a burden upon the lessee and any successor in interest.

History: L. 1983, ch. 181, § 1; April 14.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1984–2014 · leading case: Farrar v. Mobil Oil Corp., 234 P.3d 19 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Farrar v. Mobil Oil Corp., 234 P.3d 19 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “2d 1010 (1990) (also citing K.S.A. 55-223). Given Smith , however, Mobil argues that whether an implied duty is inherent in each of the subject leases requires a detailed evaluation of each individual lease and the circumstances of lease formation to determine the intent of the…”
David v. Oxy USA, Inc., 822 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (D. Kan. 2011). · cites it 4× “Nevertheless, defendant argues any duty placed upon it to make the free gas useable would conflict with its duty to produce and market the leases diligently as required under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 55-223 . This statute provides: As a matter of Kansas public policy, all oil and gas…”
Amoco Prod. Co. v. Douglas Energy Co., Inc., 613 F. Supp. 730 (D. Kan. 1985). · cites it 3× “K.S.A. 55-223. The statute also creates a presumption that the covenant has been breached where no minerals have been produced from the subsurface formations for which relief was sought and shallow oil, gas or other mineral production on the lease in question had commenced at…”
Thomas Well Serv., Inc. v. Williams Nat. Gas Co., 873 F. Supp. 474 (D. Kan. 1994). · cites it 4× “2d 128 (1975), and that the Kansas legislature recently adopted the Kansas Deep Rights Act, which implies a covenant to develop in all oil and gas leases, see K.S.A. 55-223. 13 The plaintiffs suggest that this public policy is served by invalidating the 1948 and 1949 oil and gas…”
Flight Concepts Ltd. P'ship v. Boeing Co., 819 F. Supp. 1535 (D. Kan. 1993). “See K.S.A. 55-223. The legislature specifically determined that it was against public policy to waive the presumption of such an implied covenant.”
Robbins v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 785 P.2d 1010 (Kan. 1990). “K.S.A. 55-223. In Adolph v. Stearns, 235 Kan.”
Parkin v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 677 P.2d 991 (Kan. 1984). “We agree. Kansas, like Arkansas, has long recognized that there is imposed by law upon an oil and gas lessee an implied covenant to reasonably develop the lease.”
Adolph v. Stearns, 684 P.2d 372 (Kan. 1984). “To insure that end when a lease itself does not contain specific expressions regarding production or development, the law determines the intention of the parties and the court has imposed such duties upon the lessees. The legislature as a matter of public policy has by statute…”
Sieker v. Stephens Trust, 309 P.3d 1 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “The Kansas Deep Horizons Act, K.S.A. 55-223 et seq., codified this common-law principle.”
Thoroughbred Assoc. v. Kansas Royalty Co., 248 P.3d 758 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). “In that circumstance, both operators presumably would be motivated by economic interests to act "prudently" in developing their respective leaseholds.”
Lewis v. Kansas Prod. Co., Inc., 199 P.3d 180 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “That Act, K.S.A. 55-223 et seq., implies in all oil and gas leases a covenant “to reasonably explore and to develop the minerals which are the subject of such lease.”
Novy v. Woolsey Energy Corp., 339 P.3d 392 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “55-224 — it is presumed that Woolsey breached the implied covenant to prudently develop because the leased land was held by production and a new well had not been drilled for over 15 years.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.