Briggs诉西南能源生产:水力压裂和地下侵入

Q3 Social Sciences
T. Merrill, Henry E. Smith
{"title":"Briggs诉西南能源生产:水力压裂和地下侵入","authors":"T. Merrill, Henry E. Smith","doi":"10.1515/jtl-2023-0026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The tort of trespass to land has proven to be controversial as applied to airplane overflights (and more recently to drones) as well as to oil and gas production using hydraulic fracking technology. The key to applying trespass to intrusions above and below the surface of land is to distinguish between possession of land and the right to possess land. Surface owners have the right to possess the column of space above and below the surface (a kind of option value), but only to the extent that this space is subject to possible effective possession. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Briggs v. Southwestern Energy Production concluded that fracking can result in physical intrusions that can be detected using available monitoring technology. The court further concluded that such physical intrusions should be subject to trespass liability. We argue that these conclusions are correct insofar as such intrusions interfere with a surface owner’s possible effective possession – the action of the intruder necessarily means that the surface owner could also find it economically advantageous to engage in production activity in this portion of subsurface space itself. The decision confirms the utility of the law of trespass to the architecture of property, in that it establishes an indispensable baseline against which exchanges of rights and regulatory modifications of rights can occur.","PeriodicalId":39054,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Tort Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Briggs v. Southwestern Energy Production: Hydraulic Fracturing and Subsurface Trespass\",\"authors\":\"T. Merrill, Henry E. Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jtl-2023-0026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The tort of trespass to land has proven to be controversial as applied to airplane overflights (and more recently to drones) as well as to oil and gas production using hydraulic fracking technology. The key to applying trespass to intrusions above and below the surface of land is to distinguish between possession of land and the right to possess land. Surface owners have the right to possess the column of space above and below the surface (a kind of option value), but only to the extent that this space is subject to possible effective possession. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Briggs v. Southwestern Energy Production concluded that fracking can result in physical intrusions that can be detected using available monitoring technology. The court further concluded that such physical intrusions should be subject to trespass liability. We argue that these conclusions are correct insofar as such intrusions interfere with a surface owner’s possible effective possession – the action of the intruder necessarily means that the surface owner could also find it economically advantageous to engage in production activity in this portion of subsurface space itself. The decision confirms the utility of the law of trespass to the architecture of property, in that it establishes an indispensable baseline against which exchanges of rights and regulatory modifications of rights can occur.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39054,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Tort Law\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Tort Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2023-0026\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Tort Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jtl-2023-0026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要事实证明,侵犯土地的侵权行为在飞机飞越(以及最近的无人机)以及使用水力压裂技术的石油和天然气生产中都存在争议。将侵入适用于地表以上和地表以下的入侵的关键是区分土地占有权和土地占有权。表面所有者有权拥有表面上方和下方的空间柱(一种期权价值),但仅限于该空间可能被有效占有的范围。宾夕法尼亚州最高法院在Briggs诉Southwestern Energy Production一案中得出结论,水力压裂可能导致物理入侵,可以使用现有的监测技术检测到。法院进一步得出结论,此类物理入侵应承担侵入责任。我们认为,这些结论是正确的,因为这种入侵干扰了地表所有者可能的有效占有权——入侵者的行为必然意味着地表所有者也会发现在这部分地下空间从事生产活动在经济上是有利的。该决定确认了非法侵入法对财产结构的效用,因为它确立了一个不可或缺的基线,在此基础上可以进行权利交换和权利的监管修改。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Briggs v. Southwestern Energy Production: Hydraulic Fracturing and Subsurface Trespass
Abstract The tort of trespass to land has proven to be controversial as applied to airplane overflights (and more recently to drones) as well as to oil and gas production using hydraulic fracking technology. The key to applying trespass to intrusions above and below the surface of land is to distinguish between possession of land and the right to possess land. Surface owners have the right to possess the column of space above and below the surface (a kind of option value), but only to the extent that this space is subject to possible effective possession. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Briggs v. Southwestern Energy Production concluded that fracking can result in physical intrusions that can be detected using available monitoring technology. The court further concluded that such physical intrusions should be subject to trespass liability. We argue that these conclusions are correct insofar as such intrusions interfere with a surface owner’s possible effective possession – the action of the intruder necessarily means that the surface owner could also find it economically advantageous to engage in production activity in this portion of subsurface space itself. The decision confirms the utility of the law of trespass to the architecture of property, in that it establishes an indispensable baseline against which exchanges of rights and regulatory modifications of rights can occur.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Tort Law
Journal of Tort Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The Journal of Tort Law aims to be the premier publisher of original articles about tort law. JTL is committed to methodological pluralism. The only peer-reviewed academic journal in the U.S. devoted to tort law, the Journal of Tort Law publishes cutting-edge scholarship in tort theory and jurisprudence from a range of interdisciplinary perspectives: comparative, doctrinal, economic, empirical, historical, philosophical, and policy-oriented. Founded by Jules Coleman (Yale) and some of the world''s most prominent tort scholars from the Harvard, Fordham, NYU, Yale, and University of Haifa law faculties, the journal is the premier source for original articles about tort law and jurisprudence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信