Rule of capture

The rule of capture or law of capture, part of English common law^[1] and adopted by a number of U.S. states, establishes a rule of non-liability for captured natural resources including groundwater, oil, gas, and game animals. The general rule is that the first person to "capture" such a resource owns that resource. For example, landowners who extract or "capture" groundwater, oil, or gas from a well that bottoms within the subsurface of their land acquire absolute ownership of the substance even if it is drained from the subsurface of another's land.^[2] The landowner who captures the substance owes no duty of care to other landowners.^[3] For example, a water well owner may dry up wells owned by adjacent landowners without fear of liability unless the groundwater was withdrawn for malicious purposes, the groundwater was put to a beneficial use without waste, or (in Texas) "such conduct is a proximate cause of the subsidence of the land of others."^[4] An exception to the rule of capture is that a person who drills for groundwater, oil, or gas may not extract the substance from a well that bottoms within the subsurface estate of another by drilling on a slant.^[5][6]

When presented with oil and gas cases, early common law jurists were somewhat reluctant to recognize a corporeal possessory interest in substances that they considered to be fugacious or "wild and migratory" and therefore subject to loss by drainage.^[7] Among U.S. states, two different theories of ownership of oil and gas arose. Some states, such as Texas, have adopted the "ownership-in-place" theory for oil and gas that landowners own a corporeal possessory interest (similar to a fee simple) in the substances beneath their land, but their ownership is a determinable fee subject to the rule of capture.^[8] Other states, like Oklahoma, have adopted the "exclusive-right-to-take" theory that landowners do not own the substances that underlie their land but merely retain the exclusive right to capture the substances, a non-corporeal interest.^[9] The difference between the two theories is primarily of import in determining remedies.

تُعتبر حدود ملكية باطن الأرض مماثلة لتلك الموجودة على سطحها، مُسقطةً نحو مركز الأرض. ويستند هذا المفهوم إلى مبدأ قانوني روماني في قانون الملكية ، وهو : "cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos" (فمن يملك الأرض، فله الحق فيها حتى السماء وحتى الأعماق).

يُشجع مبدأ الاستحواذ أصحاب الأراضي على حفر أكبر عدد ممكن من الآبار في أراضيهم لاستخراج المياه الجوفية أو النفط أو الغاز قبل أن يتمكن جيرانهم من الاستحواذ عليها. وقد يؤدي الحفر بكثافة عالية إلى انخفاض الضغط داخل طبقة المياه الجوفية أو خزان النفط والغاز، وبالتالي استنزاف طبقة المياه الجوفية أو استخراج المادة بشكل غير كامل. وللحد من هذا الخطر، سعت العديد من الولايات إلى استبدال مبدأ الاستحواذ بقوانين الحفاظ على الموارد. ^{[ 10 ]} وتفرض هذه القوانين ترشيدًا وتجميعًا للموارد، بالإضافة إلى وضع حدود لكثافة الحفر لتجنب الهدر المادي وضمان أقصى قدر من الاستخراج النهائي. وتشمل وسائل حماية طبقات المياه الجوفية من الإنتاج المفرط وضع حدود للإنتاج وتنظيم المسافات بين الآبار. ^{[ 11 ]}

عادةً ما يكون لدى الولايات التي تتبع نظرية الملكية في مكانها إجراءات متاحة، بما في ذلك الحيازة العدائية والتعدي. ^{[ 12 ]}

• قضية بيرسون ضد بوست
• Ratione soli

• Lowe, et al. Cases and Materials on Oil and Gas Law , 4th edn. West Group, 2002.