No. 19-2867 ___________________________

J. B. Turner

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

XTO Energy, Inc.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith ____________

Submitted: January 14, 2021 Filed: February 25, 2021 ____________ Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

J.B. Turner appeals the district court’s1 grant of summary judgment in favor of XTO Energy, Inc. on Turner’s claims of breach of contract and conversion. We affirm.

1 The Honorable P. K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. In 1980, the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission (Commission) permitted XTO Energy’s predecessors in interest to drill a well on Turner’s drilling unit2 in Franklin County, Arkansas. The Turner No. 1 Well was drilled to extract gas from two different geologic formations—the Hale Formation and the deeper Viola Formation—through the casing zone and the tubing zone respectively. The tubing zone consists of a smaller pipe, or string, that runs within the well’s outer pipe or “casing.” The production from the two zones is metered separately at the well head. Under the Commission’s order, the gas from the two zones is not to be commingled because Turner’s interests in the extracted gas differ depending on the formation from which it is extracted.

In 2016, Turner alleged that the gas from the two zones was being impermissibly commingled. The Commission ordered that the well cease production until the alleged commingling could be corrected. After the well was shut in, testing revealed that the pressures between the tubing zone and casing zone were equalized, suggesting that gas was flowing into the surface pipeline from both zones. It is undisputed that the well has continued to extract gas from the Hale Formation through the casing zone since the well was drilled.

As relevant to this appeal, Turner filed suit in Arkansas state court for breach of contract and conversion of payment. He argued that the equalized pressures between the zones are evidence that the Viola Formation is still producing gas through the Turner No. 1 Well and that he has not been paid for those extractions. XTO Energy removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and maintains that the well ceased producing gas from the Viola Formation through the tubing zone in 1982. After the close of discovery, XTO Energy moved for

2 A drilling “unit” is a set amount of acres designated by the Commission that will be impacted by the drilling of a well. Such a designation ensures that all mineral owners potentially impacted by the producing well will receive proper compensation. D. Ct. Order Aug. 6, 2019. -2- summary judgment. The district court determined that there was no genuine dispute that the Viola Formation had not been capable of production after 1982 and thus granted summary judgment in XTO Energy’s favor.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Dick v. Dickinson State Univ., 826 F.3d 1054, 1058 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [XTO Energy] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). As the non-moving party, Turner “is entitled to all reasonable inferences—those that can b