## Facts

- The Briggs family owned an approximately 11-acre tract in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, adjacent to land leased by Southwestern Energy Production Company for Marcellus Shale gas development.
- Southwestern drilled and hydraulically fractured wells on its leased tract; the Briggses did not lease their subsurface oil and gas rights.
- The Briggses alleged Southwestern extracted gas from beneath their property by creating fractures and causing fracturing fluids and proppants to extend into their subsurface, and by inducing pressure differentials that drew gas into Southwestern’s wellbores.
- The Briggses sued for trespass and conversion; Southwestern asserted the rule of capture because its drilling occurred on the leased property and, it contended, without a physical invasion of the Briggses’ subsurface.

## Issues

1. Whether the rule of capture is inapplicable to gas drainage induced by hydraulic fracturing when drilling and fracturing occur on the operator’s own tract.
2. Whether a landowner can state a viable subsurface trespass claim based solely on fracking-induced drainage, or must allege and prove an actual physical intrusion (e.g., fractures, fluids, or proppants crossing the boundary).
3. Whether the intermediate appellate court erred by treating hydraulic fracturing as effectively establishing trespass without developed proof of physical encroachment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania vacated the Superior Court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the rule of capture is not per se inapplicable to hydraulic fracturing conducted entirely within the operator’s property merely because fracking directly or indirectly causes drainage.
- The court held that trespass requires an allegation and proof of a physical invasion of the plaintiff’s property; drainage alone, even if induced by fracking, is insufficient.
- The court directed further consideration of whether the pleadings adequately alleged a physical intrusion and whether amendment should be permitted.

## Legal Principles

- Under the rule of capture, a producer is not liable for drainage of oil or gas from beneath another’s land so long as the producer has not committed a trespass.
- Hydraulic fracturing does not automatically remove a case from the rule of capture; the dispositive line is between induced drainage (protected) and physical encroachment (potentially actionable).
- Subsurface trespass requires actual physical intrusion into another’s property; in the fracking setting, this may include fractures, fracturing fluids, or proppants crossing property boundaries.
- A plaintiff must plead and ultimately prove the elements of trespass with competent evidence; courts should not presume that hydraulic fracturing necessarily causes cross-boundary intrusions.

## Conclusion

The court confirmed that fracking-related drainage remains governed by the rule of capture absent proof of a physical subsurface invasion, and it required landowners asserting fracking trespass to allege and prove that fractures, fluids, or proppants actually crossed into their property.


Briggs v. Sw. Energy Prod. Co., 224 A.3d 334 (Pa. 2020)