Briggs v. Sw. Energy Prod. Co.
184 A.3d 153
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- Appellants (Briggs family) own ~11.07 acres; Southwestern Energy operates adjacent wells (Innes and Folger) using hydraulic fracturing and has no lease on Appellants' land.
- Appellants sued for trespass and conversion (and punitive damages), alleging Southwestern’s hydraulic fracturing created subsurface fractures that extracted gas from under their property.
- Southwestern moved for summary judgment arguing no physical entry and that the rule of capture bars recovery for drained gas; it sought declaratory relief; trial court granted summary judgment for Southwestern.
- Appellants appealed, arguing hydraulic fracturing differs from conventional extraction and the rule of capture should not bar trespass/conversion where fractures and proppant cross property lines.
- The appellate court reviewed oil-and-gas precedents and hydraulic fracturing mechanics and concluded hydraulic fracturing can create artificial channels that invade a neighbor’s subsurface estate.
- Court reversed summary judgment, holding the rule of capture does not automatically preclude trespass liability for hydraulic fracturing and remanded for further fact development on whether fractures crossed into Appellants’ subsurface.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the rule of capture bars trespass/conversion claims for gas extracted by hydraulic fracturing | Briggs: HF forces non-migratory shale gas to flow via artificially created fractures, so rule of capture (designed for naturally migratory reservoirs) should not apply | Southwestern: No trespass occurred (no entry); rule of capture bars recovery for drainage even with HF | Held: Rule of capture does not automatically bar trespass where HF creates subsurface fractures/proppant that extend into neighbor's subsurface; summary judgment reversed and remanded to develop facts on fracture extent |
| Whether hydraulic fracturing is legally distinguishable from conventional extraction | Briggs: HF is artificial, creates fractures that would not occur naturally, akin to forcible extraction in Young | Southwestern: HF is a mechanical method to increase permeability and fits within traditional capture principles | Held: HF is meaningfully distinguishable; shale gas is non-migratory absent HF, so different legal analysis applies |
| Whether landowner’s remedy of “go and do likewise” (drill own well) is adequate | Briggs: HF is costly and specialized; small owners cannot practically protect rights by drilling | Southwestern: Traditional remedies and industry practices address harms | Held: Court found “go and do likewise” is often unrealistic for average landowners and not a sufficient reason to bar recovery |
| Whether factual development is required before disposing of trespass/conversion claims on capture grounds | Briggs: Discovery needed to show fracture reach and drainage | Southwestern: Capture doctrine resolves claims as matter of law | Held: Summary judgment was premature; factual issues about fracture reach and drainage must be developed on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Westmoreland & Cambria Natural Gas Co. v. De Witt, 18 A. 724 (Pa. 1889) (recognizes oil and gas fugitive nature and articulates early rule of capture)
- Brown v. Spilman, 155 U.S. 665 (U.S. 1895) (acknowledges peculiar character of oil and gas vis-à-vis property lines)
- Jones v. Forest Oil Co., 44 A. 1074 (Pa. 1900) (permissible use of mechanical devices to produce oil/gas; capture principles applied)
- Barnard v. Monongahela Natural Gas Co., 65 A. 801 (Pa. 1907) (reaffirms that owners may locate wells to draw gas from adjoining lands; promotes "go and do likewise")
- Young v. Ethyl Corp., 521 F.2d 771 (8th Cir. 1975) (forcible extraction of a primarily non-fugacious mineral via injection wells constituted actionable trespass)
- Coastal Oil & Gas Corp. v. Garza Energy Trust, 268 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2008) (Texas Supreme Court held damages for drainage by HF precluded by rule of capture; dissent argued HF trespass should be actionable)
- Minard Run Oil Co. v. United States Forest Serv., 670 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2011) (recognizes Pennsylvania law applies rule of capture to reservoirs beneath adjoining lands)
- Butler v. Charles Powers Estate ex rel. Warren, 65 A.3d 885 (Pa. 2013) (explains shale gas is trapped in shale and requires HF to be produced)