A. The division shall have, and is hereby given, jurisdiction and authority over all
matters relating to the conservation of oil and gas and the prevention of waste of potash
as a result of oil or gas operations in this state. It shall have jurisdiction, authority and
control of and over all persons, matters or things necessary or proper to enforce
effectively the provisions of this act or any other law of this state relating to the
conservation of oil or gas and the prevention of waste of potash as a result of oil or gas
operations.
B. The commission shall have concurrent jurisdiction and authority with the division
to the extent necessary for the commission to perform its duties as required by law. In
addition, any hearing on any matter may be held before the commission if the division
director, in his discretion, determines that the commission shall hear the matter.
History: Laws 1935, ch. 72, § 4; 1941 Comp., § 69-205; Laws 1949, ch. 168, § 4; 1953
Comp., § 65-3-5; Laws 1965, ch. 58, § 2; 1977, ch. 255, § 41; 1979, ch. 175, § 1.
ANNOTATIONS
Compiler’s notes. — The term "this act," referred to in this section, means Laws 1935,
ch. 72, §§ 1 to 24, which appear as 70-2-2 to 70-2-4, 70-2-6 to 70-2-11, 70-2-15, 70-2-
16, 70-2-21 to 70-2-25, 70-2-27 to 70-2-30, and 70-2-33 NMSA 1978.
Cross references. — For powers and duties under Statutory Unitization Act, see 70-7-
3 NMSA 1978.
For the Natural Gas and Crude Oil Production Incentive Act, see Chapter 7, Article 29B
NMSA 1978.
Basis of commission's powers. — Commission is a creature of statute, expressly
defined, limited and empowered by laws creating it. It has jurisdiction over matters
related to conservation of oil and gas in New Mexico, but the basis of its powers is
founded on the duty to prevent waste and to protect correlative rights. Prevention of
waste is its paramount power, inasmuch as this is an integral part of the definition of
correlative rights. Sims v. Mechem, 1963-NMSC-103, 72 N.M. 186, 382 P.2d 183.
Judicial powers. — Commission was acting in a judicial capacity when it approved a
proposed unitization plan; its decision was therefore entitled to preclusive effect. Amoco
Prod. Co. v. Heimann, 904 F.2d 1405 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 942, 111
S. Ct. 350, 112 L. Ed. 2d 314 (1990).
Authority held not exceeded. — When an oil well was located so that it could produce
oil from the top portion of the pool, thereby avoiding waste that would have occurred
unless the well was allowed, but the well was located so that it could effectively drain
the entire pool, and the oil conservation commission, charged with the protection of
correlative rights of the other lease owners in the pool, placed a production penalty on
the well to protect these rights, the commission did not exceed the broad statutory
authority granted by the Oil and Gas Act. Santa Fe Exploration Co. v. Oil Conservation
Comm'n, 1992-NMSC-044, 114 N.M. 103, 835 P.2d 819.
Restrictions on commission's powers. — The power and authority of the commission
is general in nature but commission is restricted to the end that it cannot act arbitrarily,
unlawfully or capriciously in carrying out administrative functions imposed upon it. 1959
Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59-186.
Use of rental funds for commission's aircraft. — Commission, when it rents its
department aircraft to other state agencies, may retain rental payments, when made, in
a fund to be used by commission to defray expense of continued operation of the
aircraft by placing rental payments in a working capital fund set up in department for the
purpose of defraying operating expenses of aircraft. 1959 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59-186.
Law reviews. — For note, "State Regulation of Oil and Gas Pools on State, Federal,
Indian and Fee Lands," see 2 Nat. Res. J. 355 (1962).
For article, "Constitutional Limitations on the Exercise of Judicial Functions by
Administrative Agencies," see 7 Nat. Res. J. 599 (1967).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 38 Am. Jur. 2d Gas and Oil §§ 145 to
163.
58 C.J.S. Mines and Minerals § 229.
Notes of Decisions
Marbob Energy Corp. v. New Mexico Oil Conservation Comm'n, 206 P.3d 135 (N.M. 2009).
· cites it 10× “The Commission argues that Sections 70-2-28 and -31 are silent about who may assess penalties and that the Division and the Commission may therefore assess penalties by virtue of the broad statutory authority granted to them in Sections 70-2-6 and -11 to enforce the Act.”
SWEPI, LP v. Mora Cnty., 81 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (D.N.M. 2015).
· cites it 6× “N.M. Stat. Ann. § 70-2-6 . Ms. Stephenson focused on the language that says the Oil and Gas Division has "jurisdiction and authority over all matters,” and over "all persons, matters or things necessary or proper to enforce effectively the provisions of this act.”
Johnson v. New Mexico Oil Conservation Comm'n, 978 P.2d 327 (N.M. 1999).
· cites it 4× “Section 70-2-6(A). The Commission has “concurrent jurisdiction and authority with the [Division to the extent necessary for the [C]ommission to perform its duties as required by law.”
Bass Enter. Prod. Co. v. Mosaic Potash Carlsbad Inc., 238 P.3d 885 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Section 70-2-6(A) confers on the OCD the authority “over all matters relating to the conservation of oil and gas and the prevention of waste of potash as a result of oil or gas operations in this state.”
Edwin Smith, LLC v. Clark, 2011 NMCA 3 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 3× “” Section 70-2-6(A). The O & G Act further empowers the Division “to make and enforce rules, regulations and orders, and to do whatever may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose of th[e] [O & G Act], whether or not indicated or specified in any section [of the O & G…”
Enduro Operating LLC v. Echo Prod., Inc., 413 P.3d 866 (N.M. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, we disagree with the Court of Appeals and hold that when an operator has applied for but has not obtained an approved drilling permit within the commencement period, the operator is not precluded from relying on other activities to demonstrate that it actually…”
Edwin Smith, LLC v. Clark, 247 P.3d 1134 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 3× “" Section 70-2-6(A). The O & G Act further empowers the Division "to make and enforce rules, regulations and orders, and to do whatever may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose of th[e] [O & G Act], whether or not indicated or specified in any section [of the O & G…”
Enduro Operating LLC v. Echo Prod., Inc., 2018 NMSC 16 (N.M. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, we disagree with the Court of Appeals and hold that when an operator has applied for but has not obtained an approved drilling permit within the commencement period, the operator is not precluded from relying on other activities to demonstrate that it actually…”
Marker v. N.M. Oil & Conservation (N.M. Ct. App. 2021).
“See § 70-2-6(B). The Act requires the Commission to be comprised of three members, two of whom must possess expertise in the areas they regulate.”
— N.M. Stat. § 70-2-6(A) — 7 cases
Marbob Energy Corp. v. New Mexico Oil Conservation Comm'n, 206 P.3d 135 (N.M. 2009).
“The Commission argues that Sections 70-2-28 and -31 are silent about who may assess penalties and that the Division and the Commission may therefore assess penalties by virtue of the broad statutory authority granted to them in Sections 70-2-6 and -11 to enforce the Act.”
Bass Enter. Prod. Co. v. Mosaic Potash Carlsbad Inc., 238 P.3d 885 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010).
“Section 70-2-6(A) confers on the OCD the authority “over all matters relating to the conservation of oil and gas and the prevention of waste of potash as a result of oil or gas operations in this state.”
Johnson v. New Mexico Oil Conservation Comm'n, 978 P.2d 327 (N.M. 1999).
“Section 70-2-6(A). The Commission has “concurrent jurisdiction and authority with the [Division to the extent necessary for the [C]ommission to perform its duties as required by law.”
Enduro Operating LLC v. Echo Prod., Inc., 413 P.3d 866 (N.M. 2018).
“Accordingly, we disagree with the Court of Appeals and hold that when an operator has applied for but has not obtained an approved drilling permit within the commencement period, the operator is not precluded from relying on other activities to demonstrate that it actually…”
Edwin Smith, LLC v. Clark, 2011 NMCA 3 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010).
“” Section 70-2-6(A). The O & G Act further empowers the Division “to make and enforce rules, regulations and orders, and to do whatever may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose of th[e] [O & G Act], whether or not indicated or specified in any section [of the O & G…”
— N.M. Stat. § 70-2-6(B) — 5 cases
Marbob Energy Corp. v. New Mexico Oil Conservation Comm'n, 206 P.3d 135 (N.M. 2009).
“The Commission argues that Sections 70-2-28 and -31 are silent about who may assess penalties and that the Division and the Commission may therefore assess penalties by virtue of the broad statutory authority granted to them in Sections 70-2-6 and -11 to enforce the Act.”
Johnson v. New Mexico Oil Conservation Comm'n, 978 P.2d 327 (N.M. 1999).
“Section 70-2-6(A). The Commission has “concurrent jurisdiction and authority with the [Division to the extent necessary for the [C]ommission to perform its duties as required by law.”
Edwin Smith, LLC v. Clark, 2011 NMCA 3 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010).
“” Section 70-2-6(A). The O & G Act further empowers the Division “to make and enforce rules, regulations and orders, and to do whatever may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose of th[e] [O & G Act], whether or not indicated or specified in any section [of the O & G…”
Edwin Smith, LLC v. Clark, 247 P.3d 1134 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010).
“" Section 70-2-6(A). The O & G Act further empowers the Division "to make and enforce rules, regulations and orders, and to do whatever may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose of th[e] [O & G Act], whether or not indicated or specified in any section [of the O & G…”
Marker v. N.M. Oil & Conservation (N.M. Ct. App. 2021).
“See § 70-2-6(B). The Act requires the Commission to be comprised of three members, two of whom must possess expertise in the areas they regulate.”
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.