I posed the question to Grok and got this answer:
The apparent ability of a landowner (or more precisely, an oil and gas operator leasing rights from him) to drill a horizontal well extending several miles and extract resources from beneath neighboring properties stems from a combination of geological realities, technological capabilities, and long-established legal principles in the United States, particularly in states with significant fracking activity such as Texas, Pennsylvania, and others.Oil and gas resources, especially in shale formations targeted by fracking, reside in porous rock where the hydrocarbons can migrate toward areas of lower pressure. In conventional vertical drilling, this migratory ("fugacious") nature led to the development of the **rule of capture**. This common-law doctrine holds that whoever first reduces oil or gas to possession—by producing it through a well on his property—owns it outright, even if some of the resource originally lay beneath an adjacent property and migrated across subsurface boundaries. Courts have treated oil and gas analogously to wild animals or percolating groundwater: ownership is not fixed until capture occurs, and no liability arises for drainage alone if the well is lawfully drilled on the operator's leased land. The only remedy for an affected neighbor is typically to drill his own offset well to compete for the resource.
Horizontal drilling, combined with hydraulic fracturing (fracking), extends this principle dramatically. A well begins vertically on the leased property, then turns horizontally (often 1–2 miles or more) within the target formation. Fracking injects high-pressure fluid to create fractures in the rock, releasing trapped gas or oil that flows back to the wellbore. Because the resource is liberated and migrates toward the low-pressure wellbore, production can draw from a wide area—potentially including subsurface volumes beneath unleased neighboring lands—without physical invasion of the neighbor's property by the wellbore itself.
In most jurisdictions, courts have applied the rule of capture to such operations, provided the wellbore remains within the leased boundaries and does not physically deviate into another's subsurface estate (a "deviated" or "bottomed-out" well, which would constitute subsurface trespass). Key rulings, such as those from Texas courts, affirm that fracking-induced drainage does not create liability under the rule of capture, as the process creates artificial flow paths analogous to natural migration in conventional reservoirs. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court has similarly upheld the rule's application to hydraulic fracturing in conventional and unconventional contexts, though lower courts have occasionally allowed trespass claims where fractures physically extend fluids or proppant across boundaries (a question that remains debated and varies by state).
However, the rule of capture is not absolute protection. Several mechanisms limit or address the issue:
- **Forced pooling or compulsory unitization** statutes in many states allow regulators to combine mineral interests into a drilling unit (often 40–640 acres or more, depending on the formation and regulations). If an operator secures leases or rights to a majority percentage of the unit (e.g., 60–75%), state agencies may compel non-consenting owners into the unit. The operator can then legally produce from the entire unit, including beneath holdouts, while paying royalties or compensatory shares to non-consenting owners. This prevents wasteful "race to drill" and protects correlative rights (each owner's fair opportunity to develop the shared reservoir).
- **Trespass liability** arises if the horizontal wellbore crosses into unleased subsurface property or if fracking causes physical invasion (e.g., fractures extending proppant or fluid across lines in ways deemed unreasonable). Some courts distinguish fracking from mere drainage, but the majority view in major producing states favors the rule of capture absent clear physical intrusion or damage.
In practice, operators prefer voluntary leasing and pooling agreements to avoid litigation, but the legal framework incentivizes development by allowing efficient horizontal wells to access broad reservoir areas from a single pad. This explains why one operator can extract resources from beneath multiple properties: the law prioritizes maximizing recovery and preventing waste over strict subsurface boundary enforcement for migratory resources.
These rules vary by state—Texas and Oklahoma lean heavily on the rule of capture, while some eastern states have seen more challenges—and mineral rights ownership (often severed from surface rights) further complicates the picture. If your question relates to a specific jurisdiction or property, consulting local oil and gas law or a specialist attorney would provide precise guidance.
"If you have a milkshake and I have a milkshake and I have a straw... my straw reaches across the room and starts to drink your milkshake. I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!" --Daniel Plainview, "There Will Be Blood"
Where I live in Alabama it’s common to buy and sell property without owning the mineral rights. The steel and coal companies bought tons of property in the past, then sold portions of the property years later. When they sold they put in the sell contract that they’d maintain the mineral rights. So the house and land (1.5 acres) I bought two decades ago had a clause that I wasn’t buying the mineral rights of the land. The owner of the home before me never had mineral rights, nor will I have mineral rights to sell when I eventually downsize and sell my home to the next owner.
Slant Drill Baby, I’ll Slant Drill you!