## Facts

- Northern Natural Gas Company operated the Cunningham Storage Field in Kansas under a FERC certificate for underground natural gas storage.
- Northern alleged that injected “storage gas” migrated beyond the certificated boundary into an adjacent “Expansion Area,” where defendants owned and operated production wells.
- Northern asserted defendants were producing Northern’s migrated storage gas rather than only native gas, impairing the storage field’s pressure and operation.
- Northern supported its position with gas-composition comparisons, seismic/geologic testimony, and pressure and production history indicating defendants’ wells were producing mostly storage gas.
- FERC separately determined, on a similar technical record, that defendants’ wells were producing storage gas from the Cunningham Storage Field.
- Defendants denied they were producing storage gas and maintained they believed their production was native gas.
- Northern pursued condemnation in a separate proceeding to acquire storage rights in the Expansion Area and, in this action, sought a preliminary injunction to shut in defendants’ wells pending resolution of its Kansas nuisance claim.
- The court held an evidentiary hearing and considered extensive technical testimony and exhibits.

## Issues

1. Whether Northern showed a substantial likelihood of success on its Kansas nuisance claim based on defendants’ alleged production of migrated storage gas.
2. Whether Northern established irreparable harm absent an injunction due to impairment of reservoir pressure, containment, and storage operations.
3. Whether the balance of harms favored temporarily shutting in defendants’ wells.
4. Whether the requested relief served the public interest in protecting an interstate natural gas storage facility.

## Decision

- The court granted Northern’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
- Defendants were enjoined from operating their gas wells in the Expansion Area, subject to specified conditions, pending final resolution on the merits.
- The court found Northern likely to succeed on its nuisance claim because the evidence strongly indicated defendants’ wells were producing substantial quantities of storage gas and defendants offered little objective rebuttal.
- The court found irreparable harm because once produced the gas could not be restored to the reservoir, and loss of pressure/field integrity could be difficult to remedy and not readily compensated by money damages.
- The court concluded the balance of harms favored Northern given the threatened impairment to storage operations versus defendants’ economic loss from curtailed production, and it imposed conditions to reduce burdens on affected parties.
- The court held the public interest favored protecting reliable operation of a FERC-regulated interstate storage facility.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires: (1) substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable harm absent relief, (3) balance of harms favoring the movant, and (4) no injury to the public interest.
- Under Kansas nuisance law (as applied at the preliminary-relief stage), a plaintiff must show: (1) intent to interfere with use and enjoyment, (2) interference of the kind intended, (3) substantial interference, and (4) unreasonable interference considering the nature, duration, or amount of the interference.
- Technical proof (including gas composition, geologic structure, and pressure/production history) may establish probable subsurface migration and support a finding of substantial and unreasonable interference for preliminary relief.
- Threatened impairment to the physical operation and containment function of a storage reservoir, including unrecoverable withdrawal of stored gas and pressure degradation, can constitute irreparable harm.

## Conclusion

The court temporarily shut in defendants’ Expansion Area wells after finding strong technical evidence that defendants were producing migrated storage gas and thereby substantially and unreasonably interfering with Northern’s FERC-certificated storage operations, satisfying the federal preliminary-injunction factors and showing likely success on a Kansas nuisance theory.


Northern Natural Gas Co. v. L.D. Drilling, Inc., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (D. Kan. 2010)