## Facts

- The Humberstons owned about 133 acres in Fayette County, Pennsylvania and executed an oil-and-gas lease in 2006; the leasehold interest ultimately was held by Chevron.
- The lease granted the lessee “exclusive rights as may be necessary or convenient” to explore for and develop gas “from the Leasehold, and from adjoining lands,” using methods “not restricted to current technology.”
- The lease included a pooling/unitization clause allowing the lessee to pool the Humberstons’ tract with other lands into the “Humberston Unit.”
- Chevron, through its contractor Keystone, built an approximately 11-acre freshwater-storage impoundment on the Humberstons’ surface to support Marcellus Shale development requiring large volumes of water for hydraulic fracturing.
- The Humberstons sued to quiet title and for trespass, alleging the lease did not authorize the impoundment, the parties did not contemplate such a facility when contracting, and the impoundment impermissibly served wells on other properties.
- Chevron and Keystone filed preliminary objections; the trial court sustained them and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the Humberstons appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the lease’s “necessary or convenient” surface-use grant, including use of methods “not restricted to current technology,” authorized construction and maintenance of a large freshwater-storage impoundment on the lessors’ surface estate.
2. Whether the lease’s “adjoining lands” language and pooling/unitization clause permitted locating a surface facility on the Humberstons’ land that also supported production from other tracts within the pooled unit.
3. Whether the complaint failed to state claims for quiet title and trespass as a matter of law, warranting dismissal on preliminary objections where the lease was unambiguous.

## Decision

- The Superior Court affirmed the order sustaining preliminary objections and dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
- The court held the lease unambiguously authorized the impoundment as “necessary or convenient” to shale-gas development and marketing, including by modern methods.
- The court held the pooling clause and authorization to develop production “from adjoining lands” allowed facilities on the Humberstons’ surface that benefitted wells elsewhere in the pooled unit.
- Because the lease authorized the challenged use, the quiet title and trespass claims failed as a matter of law at the pleading stage.

## Legal Principles

- Unambiguous oil-and-gas lease language is enforced according to its plain meaning, including broadly worded grants of surface-use rights.
- A grant of rights “necessary or convenient” to develop and market gas, coupled with permission to use methods “not restricted to current technology,” can authorize surface infrastructure associated with modern shale extraction, even if not specifically anticipated when the lease was signed.
- Where a lease permits pooling/unitization and authorizes development from “adjoining lands,” the lessee may place surface facilities on the leased premises that serve production within the pooled unit, not solely wells located on the lessor’s tract.
- On preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, dismissal is proper when the written lease integral to the claims forecloses relief as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the lease’s broad surface-use and pooling provisions to permit a large freshwater-storage impoundment supporting Marcellus Shale operations within the pooled unit, and it affirmed dismissal of the lessors’ quiet title and trespass claims on preliminary objections because the lease plainly authorized the challenged use.


Humberston v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 75 A.3d 504 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013)