Developments in the Law of Pore Space in North Dakota
Share this entry
Overview
This article by Derrick Braaten discusses the use of subsurface pore space by various energy industries in North Dakota in recent years, where the interplay between the rights of the owner of the surface estate and the rights of the mineral estate have recently become the subject of both legislation and litigation.
Attorney Derrick Braaten moved to North Dakota over a decade ago and has built a reputation in the region as a prominent advocate for landowners and landowner rights. He prides himself on taking on giants, whether those are large corporations or the government, and standing up for the land and its stewards.
Law of Pore Space in North Dakota
The law pertaining to use of subsurface pore space by various energy industries has developed at an increasingly rapid pace in North Dakota in recent years. While pore space ownership by the surface owner has been settled in North Dakota for over a century, the interplay between the rights of the owner of the surface estate and the rights of the mineral estate have recently become the subject of both legislation and litigation.
In 2009 the North Dakota Legislative Assembly passed two new chapters to the North Dakota Century Code. Chapter 38-22 provided for regulation of underground sequestration of CO2, and Chapter 47-31 set out a policy on pore space, making it illegal to sever the pore space estate from the surface estate, for example. N.D.C.C. § 47-31-03 confirmed that “[t]itle to pore space in all strata underlying the surface of lands and waters is vested in the owner of the overlying surface estate.” As the North Dakota Supreme Court said, “The legislation codifying pore space policy was intended to confirm that surface owners own the pore space under their surface estate. See Hearing on S.B. 2139 Before Senate Natural Resources Comm., 61st N.D. Legis. Sess. (Jan. 16, 2009) (written testimony of Assistant Attorney General Charles Carvell). That testimony is consistent with N.D.C.C. § 47-01-12, N.D.C.C., which dates back to 1877 Civil Code for the Dakota Territory, and states the ‘owner of land in fee has the right to the surface and to everything permanently situated beneath or above it.’”1 Most jurisdictions in the United States agree that, generally speaking, the surface owner owns the pore space.2
In 2014, two cases focused the North Dakota federal court’s attention on the intersection of the surface owner’s rights in pore space and oil developers’ rights to use the same space for mineral development. In the Mosser and Fisher cases the court addressed whether compensation for use of pore space in a unitized field for a disposal well was required under Chapter 38-11.1 after two developers refused to pay the landowners.3
The federal court in Mosser determined that the term “land” in North Dakota Century Code § 38-11.1.-04 includes pore space. The operator had argued that N.D.C.C. ch. 38-11.1 does not apply to use of the surface owner’s pore space, basing its argument on the use of the word “land” in N.D.C.C. § 38-11.1-04, which requires compensation for lost land value and lost use of and access to a surface owner’s land.4 Under N.D.C.C. § 47-01-04, “land” is defined as “the solid material of the earth, whatever may be the ingredients of which it is composed, whether soil, rock, or other substance.” Denbury argued that this definition of land should be applied to N.D.C.C. ch. 38-11.1, and that, therefore, pore space was not compensable under N.D.C.C. ch. 38-11.1. The federal court disagreed and required the developers to compensate for its use of the property. 5 The federal court also ruled on similar issues and issued similar holdings in Fisher v. Continental Resources, Inc., 49 F. Supp. 3d 637 (D.N.D. 2014). The North Dakota Supreme Court justices unanimously agreed with both federal judges.6
In Fisher, the dispute related to a produced water disposal well drilled by Continental.7 Rick and Rosella Fisher owned land within a unitized field that is operated by Continental. Continental drilled the Lonesome Dove 42-17 SWD well on the Fishers’ land without their consent and over their objection. As the unit operator, Continental had also obtained a permit from the NDIC for the well. The federal court ruled that Continental had the right to operate its disposal to dispose of on-unit water, but that Continental must pay damages under Chapter 38-11.1 when it used the well at issue for disposal.8 These rulings were again consistent with long-established precedent. Following the federal court’s ruling in Fisher, the parties settled some of the claims, and left open the issue of the amount owed for damages for use of pore space under N.D.C.C. ch. 38-11.1 because at the time of settlement, Continental had not yet started injecting into the Lonesome Dove 42-17 SWD.9
Years after the decision in Fisher, on September 7, 2018, and just months before the 2019 legislative session, Continental began injecting into the disposal and refiled the lawsuit that had originally been filed by the Fishers, and asked for a declaratory judgment that it did not have to pay compensation under N.D.C.C. ch. 38-11.1.10 Continental’s position that it need not compensate for use of the Fisher’s pore space was confusing. The federal court had already ruled “there is no question the Fishers are statutorily entitled to compensation for damage to the Subject Property which is related to the construction and use of the Lonesome Dove 42–17 SWD well in accordance with … N.D.C.C. ch. 38–11.1.”11 This confusion was dispelled shortly after the legislative session commenced, when Senate Bill 2344 was introduced.
Senate Bill 2344 was introduced in 2019 by the North Dakota legislature to take away the pore space rights of the surface estate owners in North Dakota and give them to the energy industry (and operators like Continental) to use free of charge. The purpose of the law, as stated in the Bill itself, was to benefit “the state’s coal and power industries, and to benefit the state economy.”12 Lynn Helms, Director of the NDIC’s Oil and Gas Division, testified about the purported purpose and benefits of S.B. 2344, using an example related to the economics of gas storage.13 He explained the point of his illustration, stating “I bring that up because you can see this project stores and reproduces the gas at $2.96, which means it can’t endure any additional burden from having to compensate for pore space being temporarily used for the storage of natural gas.” So the solution was to simply take away the additional burden by giving that pore space to the industry to use for free. This was literally the purpose and intent of S.B. 2344.
Recent headlines in North Dakota announced: “Carbon capture dominates North Dakota energy developments in 2021.”14 Carbon capture utilizes the landowner’s pore space. The article goes on to explain: “The carbon capture projects dovetail with the goal Gov. Doug Burgum unveiled at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference in May to make North Dakota carbon neutral by the end of the decade. He told the audience that the state has ‘hit the geologic jackpot’ with rock formations that contain the right characteristics for permanent carbon dioxide storage.” Id. That “geologic jackpot” is the pore space that the State attempted to take away from the Landowners and offered up to mineral developers to use free of charge.
Fortunately for landowners, in 2021 a North Dakota district court struck down the laws enacted by Senate Bill 2344 as unconstitutional, and just recently, on August 5, 2022, the North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s decision with respect to the striking down the provisions challenged by the Northwest Landowner Association, a landowner group in North Dakota that fought against the passage of the law. The District Court previously said the law “acts to give North Dakota landowners’ value from pore space to the oil and gas industry, for free, under the guise of the North Dakota Industrial Commission.”15 The court declared the law unconstitutional and said North Dakota citizens are protected from such an action by both the state and U.S. constitutions. With respect to the three provisions that NWLA challenged, the Supreme Court of North Dakota said “[t]hese provisions, being in conflict with the higher law of the state and federal constitutions, are unenforceable.”16
For Rick and Rosella Fisher, these decisions have been critical. After Senate Bill 2344 went into effect, Continental announced to the federal court that with respect to “the Damage Compensation Act, on which [the Fishers] based their initial suit, [S.B. 2344] repealed their remedy effective August 1, 2019.”17 The federal court agreed stating that “the 2019 Amendments appear to eliminate the right of the surface owner to recover compensation for use of the pore space under § 38-11.1-04—at least as of the effective date of the law.”18 The federal court continued: “Continental requests that this court conclude that it owes nothing for any injections from its SWD well after July 31, 2020, which is the effective date of SB 2344. The court rejects this request given the ruling of the state district court [that strikes down the law].”19 As the Fisher’s case illustrates, S.B. 2344 was drafted with surgical precision.
Continental continues to press its lawsuit against the Fishers, although it remains to be seen how it might respond to the loss at the North Dakota Supreme Court. And it is obvious that pore space has become a valuable commodity to the energy industry and it will use every tool it has to accomplish its goals, so it is unfortunately unlikely that the disputes over pore space are now at an end. Groups like Northwest Landowners Association have defended landowner rights vehemently and in the face of overwhelming opposition, and they need all the help they can get from their fellow landowners to keep up the fight in the future.
The Take Away
The law pertaining to use of subsurface pore space by various energy industries has developed at an increasingly rapid pace in North Dakota in recent years. While pore space ownership by the surface owner has been settled in North Dakota for over a century, the interplay between the rights of the owner of the surface estate and the rights of the mineral estate have recently become the subject of both legislation and litigation.
References
1 Mosser v. Denbury Res., Inc., 2017 ND 169, ¶ 16, 898 N.W.2d 406.
Topics in This Article:
Join the Conversation
Stay Informed
FracTracker Newsletter
Support Our Work
FracTracker Alliance helps communicate the risks of oil and gas and petrochemical development to advance just energy alternatives that protect public health, natural resources, and the climate.
By contributing to FracTracker, you are helping to make tangible changes, such as decreasing the number of oil and gas wells in the US, protecting the public from toxic and radioactive chemicals, and stopping petrochemical expansion into vulnerable communities.
Your donations help fund the sourcing and analysis of new data so that we can keep you informed and continually update our resources.
Please donate to FracTracker today as a way to advocate for clean water, clean air, and healthy communities.
What You Should Read Next
Mapping PFAS Chemicals Used in Fracking Operations in West Virginia
Empowering Colorado Communities: The Importance of the Community Right to Know Act
Chevron’s $2.3 Billion Asset Adjustment Raises Questions Amidst Regulatory Changes in California
Data Gaps: A Critical Examination of Oil and Gas Well Incidents in Ohio
Stop Toxic Threat: A Heavy Industrial Zoning Battle
East Palestine Warning: The Growing Threat From Hazardous Waste Storage
Solar Grazing: Connecting Farming Communities and Solar Site Operators
Index of Oil and Gas Operator Health in California Shows Risks to State Economy and Taxpayers
Calling for Change: Life on the Fracking Frontlines
On the Wrong Track: Risks to Residents of the Upper Ohio River Valley From Railroad Incidents
Digital Atlas: Exploring Nature and Industry in the Raccoon Creek Watershed
Fertilizer Production in the United States: How Big Ag is Fossil Fueled
Why Do Houses Keep Exploding in One Pennsylvania Suburb?
FracTracker Alliance Releases Statement Opposing Governor Shapiro’s Agreement With CNX
Oil and Gas Activity Within California Public Health Protection Zones
How Spills, Holes, and Cracks Release Fracking Chemicals Into the Environment
The Evolution of Environmental Regulation: A Case Study of Sackett v. EPA
Urge EPA to Strengthen Standards for Chemical Plants
Widespread, Lingering Impacts of Norfolk Southern Warrant an Emergency Response
Assessment of Oil and Gas Well Ownership Transfers in California
Evaluation of the Capacity for Water Recycling for Colorado Oil and Gas Extraction Operations
Evidence Shows Oil and Gas Companies Use PFAS in New Mexico Wells
CalGEM Permit Review Q1 2023: Well Rework Permits Increase by 76% in California
Worth Protecting: A photo album by Better Path Coalition and FracTracker Alliance
2022 Pipeline Incidents Update: Is Pipeline Safety Achievable?
Testimony On EPA’s Proposed Methane Pollution Standards for the Oil and Gas Industry
Assessment of Rework Permits on Oil Production from Operational Wells Within the 3,200-Foot Public Health Protection Zone
CalGEM Permit Review Q4 2022: Oil Permit Approvals Show Steep Rise Within Protective Buffer Zones
A Contentious Landscape of Pipeline Build-outs in the Eastern US
Major Gas Leak Reveals Risks of Aging Gas Storage Wells in Pennsylvania
Coursing Through Gasland: A Digital Atlas Exploring Natural Gas Development in the Towanda Creek Watershed
Falcon Pipeline Online, Begins Operations Following Violations of Clean Streams Law
Fracking and the Pennsylvania Midterm Election
Synopsis: Risks to the Greater Columbus Water Supply from Oil and Gas Production
Desalination: The Chemical Industry’s Demand for Water in Texas
Take Action in Support of No New Leases
Carbon Capture and Storage: Developments in the Law of Pore Space in North Dakota
Carbon Capture and Storage: Industry Connections and Community Impacts
Carbon Capture and Storage: Fact or Fiction?
Pipeline Right-of-Ways: Making the Connection between Forest Fragmentation and the Spread of Lyme Disease in Southwestern Pennsylvania
FracTracker Finds Widespread Hydrocarbon Emissions from Active & Idle Oil and Gas Wells and Infrastructure in California
California Regulators Approve More Oil Well Permits Amid a Crisis of Leaking Oil Wells that Should be Plugged
An Insider Take on the Appalachian Hydrogen & CCUS Conference
Does Hydrogen Have a Role in our Energy Future?
Oil and Gas Brine in Ohio
8 Maps to Strengthen Environmental Justice Policy in Pennsylvania
PA Environment Digest Blog: Conventional Oil & Gas Drillers Dispose Of Drill Cuttings By ‘Dusting’
Real Talk on Pipelines
2021 Production from Pennsylvania’s Oil and Gas Wells
Mapping Energy Systems Impacted by the Russia-Ukraine War
Dimock residents working to protect water from a new threat: fracking waste
Implications of a 3,200-foot Setback in California
Permitting Aggregate Mines in Michigan Poses Very Serious Consequences
New Trends in Drilling Permit Approvals Take Shape in CA
Oil and Gas Drilling in California Legislative Districts
New Report: Fracking with “Forever Chemicals” in Colorado
Permitting Aggregate Mines under Michigan’s Zoning Enabling Act
Introducing: FracTracker’s comprehensive new Pennsylvania map!
New Letter from Federal Regulators Regarding how the Falcon has Been Investigated
US Army Corps Muskingum Watershed Plan ignores local concerns of oil and gas effects
Fracking Wastewater Concerns Resurface on Pennsylvania Roads as the DEP Undergoes an Evaluation of Coproduct Determinations
Oil and gas companies use a lot of water to extract oil in drought-stricken California
Southeastern Texas Petrochemical Industry Needs 318 Billion Gallons of Water, but the US EPA Says Not So Fast
Chickahominy Pipeline project tries to exploit an apparent regulatory loophole
Map Update on Criminal Charges Facing Mariner East 2 Pipeline
It’s Time to Stop Urban Oil Drilling in Los Angeles
Infrastructure Networks in Texas
California Prisons are Within 2,500’ of Oil and Gas Extraction
New power plant proposal called senseless and wasteful by climate groups
Ongoing Safety Concerns over Shell’s Falcon Pipeline
New Neighborhood Drilling Permits Issued While California Fails to Act on Public Health Rules
The world is watching as bitcoin battle brews in the US
California Oil & Gas Drilling Permits Drop in Response to Decreased Permit Applications to CalGEM
California Denies Well Stimulation Permits
Mapping PFAS “Forever Chemicals” in Oil & Gas Operations
Updated National Energy and Petrochemical Map
Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania Fracking Story Map
Ohio & Fracking Waste: The Case for Better Waste Management
Pennsylvania Conventional Well Map Update
Impacts of 2020 Colonial Pipeline Rupture Continue to Grow
Gas Storage Plan vs. Indigenous Rights in Nova Scotia
Mapping Gathering Lines in Bradford County, Pennsylvania
Trends in fracking waste coming to New York State from Pennsylvania
2021 Pipeline Incidents Update: Safety Record Not Improving
New York State Oil & Gas Well Drilling: Patterns Over Time
Risky Byhalia Connection Pipeline Threatens Tennessee & Mississippi Health, Water Supply
Shell’s Falcon Pipeline Under Investigation for Serious Public Safety Threats
The fight to protect Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
Kern County’s Drafted EIR Will Increase the Burden for Frontline Communities
Pennsylvania’s Waste Disposal Wells – A Tale of Two Datasets
California Oil & Gas Setbacks Recommendations Memo
Oil and Gas Wells on California State Lands
Industrial Impacts in Michigan: A Photo Essay & Story Map
People and Production: Reducing Risk in California Extraction
Documenting emissions from new oil and gas wells in California
Straight Talk on the Future of Fracking Jobs in Pennsylvania
New York State Closes the Fracking Waste Loophole
Landscape Changes and Mental Health Impacts in Southwestern Pennsylvania Communities: A Qualitative Study
FracTracker in the Field: Building a Live Virtual Map
Trends in Proposed State Legislation to Weaken Environmental Regulations
Industry Targets Peaceful Protest via “Critical Infrastructure” Legislation
Mapping Gathering Lines in Ohio and West Virginia
PA Grand Jury on Environmental Crimes Reveals Regulatory Failures
The North Dakota Shale Viewer Reimagined: Mapping the Water and Waste Impact
Falcon Pipeline Construction Releases over 250,000 Gallons of Drilling Fluid in Pennsylvania and Ohio
Systematic Racism in Kern County Oil and Gas Permitting Ordinance
Fracking Water Use in Pennsylvania Increases Dramatically
New Yorkers mount resistance against North Brooklyn Pipeline
California, Back in Frack
California Setback Analyses Summary
COVID-19 and the oil & gas industry
Air Pollution from Pennsylvania Shale Gas Compressor Stations – REPORT
New York State Oil & Gas Wells – 2020 Update
House Bill 1100: What you need to know
National Energy and Petrochemical Map
Governor Newsom Must Do More to Address the Cause of Oil Spill Surface Expressions
Oil & Gas Well Permits Issued By Newsom Administration Rival Those Issued Under Gov. Jerry Brown
Pipelines Continue to Catch Fire and Explode
The Hidden Inefficiencies and Environmental Costs of Fracking in Ohio
Fracking in Pennsylvania: Not Worth It
Fracking Threatens Ohio’s Captina Creek Watershed
How State Regulations Hold Us back and What Other Countries are doing about Fracking
New Method for Locating Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells is Tested in New York State
The Mountaineer State: Where Politics, a Fossil Fuel Legacy, and Fracking Converge
Abandoned Wells in Pennsylvania: We’re Not Doing Enough
The Underlying Politics and Unconventional Well Fundamentals of an Appalachian Storage Hub
Permitting New Oil and Gas Wells Under the Newsom Administration
Mapping the Petrochemical Build-Out Along the Ohio River
Impact of a 2,500′ Oil and Gas Well Setback in California
Production and Location Trends in PA: A Moving Target
The Falcon Public Monitoring Project
Release: The 2019 You Are Here map launches, showing New York’s hurdles to climate leadership
Idle Wells are a Major Risk
Literally Millions of Failing, Abandoned Wells
Wicked Witch of the Waste
The Growing Web of Oil and Gas Pipelines
Unnatural Disasters
Getting Rid of All of that Waste – Increasing Use of Oil and Gas Injection Wells in Pennsylvania
A Disturbing Tale of Diminishing Returns in Ohio
Pennsylvania Drilling Trends in 2018
216 Franklin St, Suite 400, Johnstown, PA 15901
Phone: +1 (717) 303-0403 | info@fractracker.org
FracTracker Alliance is a 501(c)3 non-profit: Tax identification number: 80-0844297