Waste: Negligence Per Se Injection Wells

摘要

Discovery while engaging in the drilling of a well encounters a highly pressurized flow of brine water at a depth of around 3895 feet. The water flowed into the well at a rate of some 1500-1600 barrels/hour until it is brought under control. Discovery cannot complete the well. Discovery believes that the inflow of brine has been caused by injections from BP's wells on nearby lands. Among the causes of actions asserted by Discovery include negligence in the operation of BP's injection program and negligence per se for BP's alleged violation of Railroad Commission Statewide Rules 9 and 46. BP initially files a plea in abatement arguing that the Railroad Commission either has exclusive or primary jurisdiction over whether it violated any RRC rules, regulations or permit conditions. The Court of Appeals in In re Discovery Operating, Inc., 216 S.W.3d 898,168 0.&G.R. 431 (Tex.App.—-Eastland 2007) determines that the RRC has neither exclusive or primary jurisdiction over the common law tort claims filed by Discovery and thus remands the case back to the trial court. At the trial court BP files a no-evidence summary judgment motion arguing in part that Discovery's negligence per se claims could not be supported by the statutes, rules and permits listed by Discovery. The trial court eventually grants BP's motion on Discovery's negligence per se claim. The trial court also holds a Daubert hearing on each sides' list of expert witnesses. It concludes that each of the proffered witnesses may testify. After a multi-week trial, the trial court grants a directed verdict for BP on Discovery's negligence claim against one of the two BP injection wells but allows the issue of negligence liability on the other injection well to go to the jury.