Briggs v. Southwestern Energy, Aplt., 224 A.3d 334

Plaintiffs (Briggs family) own ~11 acres adjacent to land Southwestern leased and used for gas production from the Marcellus Shale.
Southwestern drilled and completed wells on its parcel using hydraulic fracturing; Plaintiffs alleged Southwestern extracted gas that originated under their land and sued for trespass and conversion.
Plaintiffs’ complaint and early filings alleged drainage of gas from under their land but did not expressly plead a physical subsurface intrusion (e.g., injection of fluids or proppants beneath Plaintiffs’ parcel).
The Court of Common Pleas granted Southwestern summary judgment, applying the traditional rule of capture; Plaintiffs appealed.
The Superior Court reversed, holding hydraulic fracturing can give rise to trespass (and that the rule of capture does not automatically apply) where subsurface fractures, fluids, or proppants cross property lines or where flow is artificially induced.
The Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court’s decision and remanded, holding the rule of capture still applies to wells completed with hydraulic fracturing absent a physical invasion and disapproving a natural-vs-artificial-flow litmus; it also identified pleading and factual issues about alleged physical intrusion to be resolved on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the rule of capture is inapplicable to wells completed using hydraulic fracturing conducted entirely on the driller’s land, thus permitting trespass liability for drained gas	Briggs: Hydraulic fracturing "extracts" non-migratory shale gas by artificial means, so the rule of capture should not shield Southwestern	Southwestern: Rule of capture remains; hydraulic fracturing conducted wholly on driller’s land does not eliminate the rule or create trespass without physical invasion	The Court: Rule of capture continues to apply to hydraulic-fracturing wells conducted solely on the driller’s property; the Court rejects a per se natural-vs-artificial-flow test and disapproves Superior Court’s contrary reasoning
Whether Plaintiffs adequately pleaded and proved a physical subsurface intrusion (necessary to sustain trespass despite drainage)	Briggs: Later filings and expert references support an inference that fracturing fluids/proppants propagated beneath Plaintiffs’ land, supporting trespass	Southwestern: Plaintiffs never pleaded a physical intrusion and thus cannot survive summary judgment on a trespass theory premised on invasion	The Court: Plaintiffs did not expressly allege physical invasion in their pleadings; whether a physical invasion occurred is a factual question requiring evidence and must be pleaded; remand for the Superior Court to address these pleading/evidentiary issues

Barnard v. Monongahela Gas Co., 216 Pa. 362 (Pa. 1907) (applies rule of capture and recognizes offset drilling as self-help)
Jones v. Forest Oil Co., 194 Pa. 379 (Pa. 1900) (operator may use pumps or other means to enhance production absent physical invasion)
Brown v. Spilman, 155 U.S. 665 (U.S. 1895) (articulation of rule of capture principle)
Hamilton v. Foster, 272 Pa. 95 (Pa. 1922) (oil and gas are part of the land while in place; fugacious nature discussed)
Butler v. Charles Powers Estate ex rel. Warren, 620 Pa. 1 (Pa. 2013) (discusses properties of shale gas and migratory descriptions)
Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust, 268 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2008) (federal/state discussion of hydraulic fracturing and debate over artificial stimulation as a trespass theory)
Young v. Ethyl Corp., 521 F.2d 771 (8th Cir. 1975) (water injected beneath plaintiff’s land to force brine out held to implicate trespass principles)