The Pennsylvania ‘rule of capture’ ruling stuns Marcellus drillers article posted on April 12 from Marcellus Drilling News didn’t have the right take on the case, admits Marcellus editor Jim Willis. “An energy attorney alerted us that our initial take wasn’t correct.

"The [Pennsylvania Superior Court decision] is not about a company stretching a lateral too far so that it trespasses under an adjoining property. Instead, the case is about the ‘zone of fracking ... fracking, by its nature, creates cracks that may open up and drain some of the gas under a neighboring property, even though the fracking was done properly within the boundaries of the leased property."

The case says that fracking itself can cause a trespass. Fractures follow Mother Nature’s fault lines in the formation. The attorney still agreed the decision has the potential to negatively affect Marcellus drilling in Pennsylvania — in a big way."

The Superior Court opinion stated: "In light of the distinctions between hydraulic fracturing and conventional gas drilling, we conclude that the rule of capture does not preclude liability for trespass due to hydraulic fracturing." The case goes back to a lower court, which will rule on whether the Briggs are entitled to compensation from Southwestern for taking natural gas without a lease.

Also, there’s no setback for Marcellus wells, only for conservation wells below the Onondaga formation, adds Jacki Root, consultant for R&R Energy Consulting LLC, Lawrenceville, Pa. That setback is 330 feet, not 350 feet.

Laterals, not fractures, can go out as 15,000 feet or more. Root adds that spacings of 700 feet between laterals would mean fractures and “zone of fractures” may extend less than 350 feet.