Briggs v. Southwestern Energy Production Company, LLC is good news for Pennsylvania mineral owners bringing claims for subsurface trespass by fracking.
In 2018 in “Briggs 1”, the Briggs family sued SWN for subsurface trespass by fracking into the Marsellus formation from wells on SWN’s leases that extracted gas from Briggs’ property. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court
In Cactus Water Services LLC v. COG Operating, LLC., a divided Texas court of appeals answered the question this way: The oil and gas producer prevails over the purchaser of the surface owner’s right to own and sell produced water.
The majority discussed the composition of produced water. To
Golden Eagle Resources II LLC v. Rice Drilling D LLC. presents a small step in the development of subsurface trespass law in Ohio. The federal court considered a motion to dismiss, in which it evaluated the sufficiency of the complaint to state a cause of action. Such a motion is not a challenge to
I prepared this post before Ida. It might now be perceived as cynical, or unsympathetic to the plight of those affected in South Louisiana and the Northeast. Is the intensity of hurricanes exacerbated by global warming? Some say it is; some say it isn’t. Regardless, what to know and do about climate change
Co-author Brittany BlakeyAfter a trial court order, two appellate opinions, a dissent, and another appellate opinion, the tension between a well operator and an adjacent mineral owner over whether hydraulic fracturing can constitute a subsurface trespass in Pennsylvania has, for the most part, been resolved. In Briggs v. Southwestern Production Company, several points of Pennsylvania law have been confirmed:
Continue Reading Pennsylvania Rule of Capture Still Bars Subsurface Trespass Claim
Last week’s discussion of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury’s report on alleged failures in enforcement of hydraulic fracturing is worthy of a follow-up. Here, combined into one document, is the Grand Jury’s report, the Department of Environmental Protection’s response (beginning on page 112) and the Department of Health’s response (beginning on page 165).
The Grand Jury recommends
Expand no drill zones, stop the “chemical cover-up”, regulate all pipelines, add up the air pollution sources, transport toxic waste more safely, deliver a real public health response, end the “revolving door”, and use the criminal laws.
The DEP responds
The report is unreliable, legally and factually inaccurate, not informed by applicable law or facts, relies on undocumented assertions, “does the public a disservice”, and the Attorney General failed to give the Grand Jurors accurate information. This, from a Democratic governor.
The former Secretary defends the department
A response from Michael Krancer, Secretary of the DEP from 2011 until 2013, says:
There is “new news” and there is the same-old-same-old. Today is mostly the latter but it seems more “out there” than in it used to be.
The Pennsylvania Attorney General convened a grand jury that slammed regulatory failures in Pennsylvania gas drilling and recommended setbacks that would effectively destroy the ability to develop shale resources.
Is the world hurtling irreversibly toward incinerating, extinction-causing, fossil-fuel induced destruction while we’re doing nothing about it? Maybe not, if you consider overlooked and ignored sources of information.
We You will always have Paris
Despite bailing out of the Paris Climate Accord, the United States led the world in reducing CO2 emissions in 2019.
Co-authors Paul Yale and Rusty TuckerThe concurrence and dissent in Briggs et al v. Southwestern Energy Production Company appears to be of little help to property owners complaining of trespass by fracking where there is no invasion of frack fluids on to the neighbor’s property. Justice Dougherty, joined by Justice Donohue, agreed with the majority that the rule of capture “remains effective in Pennsylvania to protect a developer from trespass liability where there has been no physical invasion of another’s property.” And they believed the majority correctly recognized that “if there is such a physical invasion the rule of capture will not insulate a developer engaged in hydraulic fracturing from trespass liability.”
The dissenters spent most of their time on issues of pleading and procedure, arguing that it was erroneous to suggest that Briggs didn’t allege a physical invasion. They would have affirmed the Superior Court’s disposition insofar as it vacated summary judgment and remanded it for further factual development, in particular completion of discovery on the factual question of physical invasion.
Continue Reading Pennsylvania Says No Trespass by Fracking – the Dissent
Co-authors Paul Yale and Rusty TuckerHerein, highlights from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Briggs, et al. v. Southwestern Energy Production Company. The rule of capture applies to oil and gas produced from wells completed using hydraulic fracturing and precludes trespass liability for drainage from under nearby property, where the well is drilled solely on and beneath the driller’s own property and frack fluids are injected solely beneath the driller’s own property.
Why is this a big deal?
This decision is only the second application by a state supreme court of the rule of capture to hydraulic fracturing (from Texas, Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust was the first). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has reached a similar result – drainage resulting from hydraulic fracturing does not itself constitute trespass.
Continue Reading Pennsylvania Supreme Court Says No Trespass by Fracking
