The Impact of Drilling on Surface Owner Rights

PBI - Best of OGL Colloquium January 25, 2011

1

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

Prof. Ross H. Pifer, J.D., LL.M., Director

The Impact of Drilling on Surface Owner Rights


2

Overview of Presentation

• Background of The Agricultural Law Center• Surface Impacts Generally• Protections in Lease Agreements• Protections in Statutes and Regulations• Case Law Addressing Use of Surface Estate• Recent Legislation



3





4

The Agricultural Law Center

• Established by Pennsylvania General Assembly on January 29, 1998

• Collaborative enterprise of:– Penn State Dickinson School of Law– Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences– Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture



5

Purpose of The Agricultural Law Center

• Section 2205– “to serve as a resource on agricultural law and related

issues for farmers and agribusinesses, attorneys, officials at all levels of government, community groups, and the public.”



6

Dissemination of Information

• Presentations• Educational Programs• Publications• The Agricultural Law Brief• Web site – www.law.psu.edu/aglaw


http://www.law.psu.edu/aglaw


7

The Agricultural Law Brief

• Monthly e-newsletter• Addresses 5 legal developments from prior

month that impact food and agricultural law in Pennsylvania

• Addresses 1 or 2 natural gas legal developments per month – with emphasis on case law

• Subscription link available on Web site



8





9

Surface Impacts Generally

• General Propositions– Natural gas extraction necessary involves some

disturbance of the surface estate.– Differing interests of parties

• Well operators must have some use of surface estate.• Landowners may desire limitations on the use of surface

estate for drilling operations.



10


• Marcellus wells vs. traditional wells– Larger well pad sites

• Increased use of water• Multiple wells on single well pad

– Fewer well pad sites• Use of horizontal drilling• Surface use not necessary on all parcels.



11


• Severed Estates– Not all surface owners own the corresponding oil and

gas rights.– Impact of oil and gas ownership on value of land.– Protections afforded surface owners of severed

estates in relation to those afforded to owners of intact estates



12


• Definition of Surface Owner Rights– Lease agreement provisions– Statutes and regulations

• Oil and Gas Act

– Court opinions



13





14

Protections in Lease Agreement

• Generally– The lease agreement governs nearly all aspects of

relationship between lessor and gas company.– Surface owner of severed estate likely will receive no

protections.



15


• Limitations on Operations– No Surface Rights Lease– Approval of well site and access roads location– Limit drilling to defined area– Specifically define facilities– Installation of security measures– Restrict transportation of foreign gas



16


• Compensation for Damages– Appropriately address various types of damage that

can occur– Valuation of damages– Protect other business relationships



17


• Restoration of Well Sites– Requirements in excess of statutory mandates– Impact of multiple wells on single well pad



18


• Termination of Lease Agreement– Renewal clauses– Initiation and termination of secondary term– Force majeure clause– Pooling / unitization



19





20

Statutory Protections - Notification

• Permitting Requirement– Permit from DEP must be obtained prior to drilling.– Plat must be included with permit application.– Prior to submission of permit application, plat must be

sent, via certified mail, to surface owner of drilling site.– Similar notice must be provided for water supplies

within 1,000 feet of proposed well location.



21


• Objections to Grant of Permit – Surface owner has right to object to grant of permit.– Bases for objection:

• Siting in violation of locational restrictions• Information in permit is untrue

– Must be filed within fifteen days of receipt of plat– Request for conference



22


• Renewal of Permit– Can be renewed for additional year– Request for renewal must be provided to surface

owner and owners of nearby water supplies.



23


• Commencement of Drilling– 24 hours notice must be provided to surface owner,

political subdivision, and DEP.– Notice not required to be provided to owners of

nearby water supplies.



24

Statutory Protections – Well Locations

• Distance from Buildings– 200 foot set-back from existing buildings– Minimum set-back can be waived by building owner.– Minimum set-back can be waived by DEP upon

showing of additional protective measures.



25


• Distance from Water Wells– 200 foot set-back from existing wells– Minimum set-back can be waived by well owner.– Minimum set-back can be waived by DEP upon

showing of additional protective measures.

• Distance from Watercourses– 100 foot set-back from streams, springs, etc.– Minimum set-back can be waived by DEP.



26


• Restrictions in Oil and Gas Conservation Law– 330 foot minimum set-back from property boundary

where spacing order not issued.– 330 foot minimum set-back from unit boundary where

voluntary unit established.– Minimum set-back can be waived by DEP.


27

The Oil and Gas Conservation Law and the Marcellus Shale


Image by: Robert Milici and Christopher Swezey, 2006, Assessment of Appalachian Basin Oil and Gas Resources: Devonian Shale–Middle and Upper Paleozoic Total Petroleum System. Open-File Report Series 2006-1237. United States Geological Survey.

Depth of Marcellus Shale

Depth of Onondaga Horizon

The Oil and Gas Conservation Law does not apply to wells that do not penetrate the Onondaga horizon, meaning wells drilled into the Marcellus Shale are not covered by this law.


28

Statutory Protections – Restoration Requirements

• Surface Restoration– General restoration requirement– Required compliance with Erosion and Sediment

Control Plans– Restoration of permitted site where well not drilled –

30 days after expiration of permit



29


• Restoration after Completion of Drilling– Well site must be restored and equipment removed

within nine months– Surface owner can provide written consent for

equipment to remain after nine month period.– Nine month period can be extended for additional six

months.– When is drilling completed?



30


• Restoration after Plugging of Well– Well site must be restored and equipment removed

within nine months– Nine month period can be extended for additional six

months.



31


• Restoration of Water Supplies– Requirement to restore or replace water supplies

affected by pollution or diminution– Request for DEP investigation– Presumption of responsibility

• Well located within 1000 feet of well• Pollution occurs within 6 months of completion of drilling• Rebuttal presumption• Does not encompass diminished water supplies



32


• Restoration of Water Supplies– Requirement to provide auxiliary equipment and

facilities necessary for utilization of water supply– Bottled water or tank trucks as temporary restorative

measure– Landowner not precluded from seeking remedies

beyond those provided by DEP.



33





34

Case Law Addressing Use of Surface Estate

• Belden & Blake v. DCNR (Pa. Apr. 29, 2009)– Facts

• Belden & Blake had rights to extract oil and gas within Oil Creek State Park.

• DCNR would not permit surface access without coordination agreement.

• Belden & Blake filed suit, claiming implied easement to use surface estate.



35


• Belden & Blake v. DCNR (Pa. Apr. 29, 2009)– Supreme Court Ruling

• DCNR could not require Belden & Blake to execute coordination agreement.



36


• Belden & Blake v. DCNR (Pa. Apr. 29, 2009)– Supreme Court Opinion

• Subsurface estate is dominant over surface estate.– Chartiers Block Coal Co. v. Mellon (Pa. 1893)

• Subsurface owner entitled to reasonable use of surface estate.

• Burden is on surface owner to challenge reasonableness of use.

• Government holds no greater rights than private landowner re: surface estate.



37


• Minard Run Oil Co. v. Forest Service (W.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2009)– Facts

• Industry plaintiffs challenged terms of settlement agreement entered in prior litigation.

• Under settlement agreement, Forest Service was to perform environmental review of proposed drilling sites within Allegheny National Forest.

• Plaintiffs argued that environmental reviews were beyond Forest Service’s authority.



38


• Minard Run Oil Co. v. Forest Service (W.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2009)– Ruling

• Forest Service did not have authority to require environmental review.

• Forest Service had some ability to prevent degradation of surface estate.

• As holder of servient estate, Forest Service had right to seek judicial intervention to protect rights.



39


• Minard Run Oil Co. v. Forest Service (W.D. Pa. 1980)– Facts

• Minard Run held oil and gas rights within Allegheny National Forest.

• Due to concern about impact on surface estate, Forest Service sought to restrain surface activities.



40


• Minard Run Oil Co. v. Forest Service (W.D. Pa. 1980)– Ruling

• Court granted requested injunction, prohibiting certain activities unless notice was provided.

• Operator cannot determine whether drilling operations will unreasonably impair surface estate. Thus, reasonable advance notice is required.



41


• Minard Run Oil Co. v. Forest Service (W.D. Pa. 1980)– Court Opinion

• Mineral owner has unquestioned right to enter upon property.• Prevent unnecessary surface disturbance• “reasonable use justifiable to related activities essential to

orderly removal of the mineral rights”• Parties should attempt to reach reasonable accommodation.• Tests to measure extent of surface use• Appropriateness of injunctive relief



42


• Gates v. Exco Resources (W.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 2010)– Facts

• Landowners executed lease agreement and pipeline rights of way

• Landowners sought damages for devaluation of property due to improper reclamation after installation of pipelines.



43


• Gates v. Exco Resources (W.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 2010)– Ruling

• Court found that 20 acres was “rendered almost unable to be used again.”

• Court awarded $16,000 in damages due to diminution of property value.

• Court did not rely upon contract as basis for recovery.• Court awarded damages despite evidence that devalued

land was typical of gas production activities.



44


• P.G.W. Assocs. v. Lago de Vita, Inc. (Westmoreland Co. 1991)– Facts

• One acre of trees removed pursuant to lease agreement.• Landowner sought damages based upon replacement value

of trees.

– Ruling• Court awarded damages based upon timber value.



45


• Unresolved Questions:– What is Reasonable Use?– How Does Horizontal Drilling Impact Determination of

Reasonable Use?– What Damages, if any, are Required for Exercising

Right to Reasonable Use of Surface Estate?



46





47

Recent Legislation

• Dormant Oil and Gas Act (2006)– Does not vest surface owner with title to oil and gas

rights that have been severed from the surface estate– The Dormant Oil and Gas Acts of some states do

reunite the surface estate with the subsurface estate under specified conditions.



48

Recent Legislation

• Coal Bed Methane Review Board – House Bill 1847 enacted into law on Feb. 1, 2010.– Establishes three member board to resolve disputes

relating to surface activities associated with coal bed methane extraction.



49

Recent Legislation

• Coal Bed Methane Review Board – Process

• Notification• Objections• Conference• Resolution• Appeal



50

Recent Legislation

• Surface Owners’ Protection Act – House Bill 1155 introduced on March 31, 2009.– No activity after Sep. 11, 2009.– Basic provisions

• Compensation requirements• Surface use and compensation agreement



51

Governments’ Roles in Natural Gas Development

Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

Contact InformationThe Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

Phone: (814) 865-3723

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.law.psu.edu/aglaw

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.law.psu.edu/aglaw

Documents

The Impact of Drilling on Surface Owner Rights