Shattered Nerves: Addressing Induced Seismicity Through the Law of Nuisance

• Date: 01 April 2016

46 ELR 10326 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 4-2016

Shattered

Nerves:

Addressing

Induced

Seismicity

Through the Law

of Nuisance

by Lucas Satterlee

Lucas Satterlee is a 2016 J.D. candidate at the

University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

Summary

e number of earthquakes felt in the central and

eastern United States has increa sed dramatically; the

scientic consensus is that injection of oil and gas

wastewater uids is the most likely culprit. Regula-

tions and voluntary industry eorts are likely the

best mechanisms to mitigate the risk s associated with

induced seismicity, but the common law remains

relevant. is Article explores whether and to what

extent a nuisance framework can be applied. Utiliz-

ing the law of nuisance to address induced seismic-

ity is a novel concept, but the same basic rules used

to assess liability when other human activities cause

the earth to vibrate should apply. Proving causation

is currently plaintis’ most challenging obstacle, but

as the science becomes more developed, the chances

of establishing the requisite link increase. e Article

concludes that if reasonable precautions are not taken

in the siting and operation of an injection well, com-

panies can be held liable for creating a nuisance in the

form of earthquakes.

Imagine sitting in your living room when suddenly t he

earth shakes, walls crack, and the chimney crashes

through the roof and lands in your lap. You are rushed

to the emergency room, and your home suers more than

$100,000 in damages.1 is is what happened to Sandra

Ladra in 2011 following a large earthquake near Prague,

Oklahoma, t hat dama ged roads and destroyed at least 14

homes.2 e 5.6-magnitude (M) quake was the largest

recorded in Oklahoma history, and one of many unprec-

edented tremors that have hit the region in recent years.3

Scientists concluded that the event was facilitated by the

operations of nearby oil and gas wastewater disposal wells,

and Ladra sued the two companies believed to be responsi-

ble.4 e lawsuit has the oil and gas industry worried about

an emerging liability issue: induced seismicity.5

e development of unconventional sources of oil and

gas using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing6 has

provided the United States with enhanced energy security,

boosted the industrial economy, and decreased our imports

from more unstable regions of the world.7 At the same

time, unconventional production has become increasingly

controversial as new environmental and social concerns

emerge in the wake of shale development.8 Induced seis-

micity is perhaps the “most unexpected phenomenon” of

America’s energy boom.9

e number of earthquakes felt in the central and east-

ern United States has increased dramatically since around

2009.10 Myths surrounding the phenomenon abound, but

the consensus from the scientic community is that the

injection of wa stewater uids is the most likely culprit in

1. Ladra v. New Dominion, LLC, 353 P.3d 529, 46 ELR 20082 (Okla. 2015).

2. Miguel Bustillo & Daniel Gilbert,   

Suits, W St. J., Mar. 30, 2015, available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/

frackings-new-legal-threat-earthquake-suits-1427736148.

3. Matthew Weingarten et al., High-Rate Injection Is Associated With Increase

in U.S. Mid-Continent Seismicity, 348 S 1336 (2015) (nding that

“high-injection wells (>300,000 barrels per month) are much more likely to

be associated with earthquakes than lower-rate wells”).

4. Bustillo & Gilbert, supra note 2.

5. Id.

6. Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is the process of injecting a cocktail of

mostly water, sand, and chemicals at high pressure into deep geologic strata

to fracture hydrocarbon-bearing source rocks in order to provide permeable

pathways to extract the oil and gas. R G, T B 30 (2014).

7. Bony Osborne & Hillary Snyder, -

, in Development Issues

 1-2 (Rocky Mountain Mineral

Law Found. Paper No. 1, 2014).

8. Keith B. Hall, Recent Developments in Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation and

Litigation, 29 J. L U  E. L. 29, 30 (2013).

9. Monika Ehrman,  



United States, 46 T. T. L. R. 423, 460 (2014).

10. Seismicity in the region has ballooned from an average of approximately

20 per year (1970-2000) to over 100 per year (2010-2013). P F

 M T, C. R S., R43836, H-I

E F D-W I: A B O 4-6

(2015).

Copyright © 2016 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.