Two years of abatement efforts by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission have significantly reduced the flow of saltwater bubbling to the surface on a field near Omega, but the legal battle to determine who will be responsible for cleanup is just getting started.

Two disposal well operators named as defendants in a Kingfisher County lawsuit regarding the purge have reached a settlement with plaintiff landowners, while five others have filed a joint motion to dismiss.

History of the Purge

After observing trees dying on the opposite side of the road, brothers Ronald and Donald Schweitzer noticed a saltwater spring bubbling up in their field southwest of Omega in early summer 2019.

In the ensuing months, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission issued directives shutting in eight disposal wells and reducing injection pressure of a dozen others within a certain proximity.

The OCC’s initial abatement efforts consisted of a temporary containment and removal system involving channeling the saltwater from the purge into a lined borrow ditch at the edge of the property, where it was periodically syphoned off and trucked away.

As the purge continued to flow, albeit at a slower rate than the initial 13-15 gallons per minute, the OCC issued an emergency order following a hearing in November 2019.

The order authorized an agreement with Oklahoma Energy Resources Board for a grant to fund the current containment system, which consists of a concrete structure around the purge site and a system of pipes leading to an enclosed frac tank.

Over the passage of time, the flow has slowed to a trickle but action to remediate any potential damage has yet to be taken.

Anatomy of the Lawsuit

A negligence lawsuit was filed in March in Kingfisher County District Court by Oklahoma City attorney Justin Hiersche on behalf of landowners who allege damages from the purge.

In addition to the Schweitzer brothers, plaintiffs include Kay Province, Debra Fry, the estate of Ronnie L. Fry, the Arthur L. Fry and Evelyn C. Fry revocable trusts and the Kerr Living Trust.

Initially, the lawsuit named seven companies as defendants, but Overflow Energy LLC and Overflow Energy STACK LLC were dismissed from the suit after reaching a confidential settlement with plaintiffs.

The remaining defendants include Bison Oilfield Services LLC, S&S Star Operating LLC, Lagoon Water Logistics LLC, Pride Energy Co. Inc. and Devon Energy Production Co.

An amended petition filed by the plaintiffs last month lists the wells operated by each of the remaining defendants which are alleged to have contributed to the purge.

The petition alleges the defendants were injecting saltwater into formations containing unprotected wellbores, allowing the contaminated water to travel upward “at volumes, rates and pressures significant enough to cause fracturing events . . . and ultimately leading to the Purge Event.”

Hiersche told the Times and Free Press in March that his clients have sustained damage to their properties both above and below ground.

“The real impact is under the surface where experts we’ve hired have used investigational tools to identify plumes of salty brine deep underneath the water table,” he said.

“They’re substantial and not just one giant thing. They move around where formations of the soil are and connect like a spiderweb, finding the path of least resistance.

As of March, Hiersche said his experts haven’t put a precise price tag on cleanup costs, but he said “they will be substantial and can exceed a million (dollars) easily.”

Motion to Dismiss

The remaining defendant companies filed a joint motion June 3 to dismiss certain claims, which if successful would essentially nullify the lawsuit.

In the brief in support of the dismissal, the defendants assert that the plaintiffs’ petition hasn’t established which specific actions of which defendants caused the alleged damage.

“There is no plausible allegation in the Amended Petition that connects the SWD (saltwater disposal) Well of any specific defendant to injuries alleged by any specific plaintiff.”

The defendants argue that an allegation that all defendants are collectively liable for the damage is insufficient to prove causation.

The defendants also allege that the district court lacks jurisdiction to order abatement and remediation of the purge, which they argue falls within the exclusive purview of the corporation commission.

In the plaintiffs’ brief filed last Monday in response to the dismissal motion, Hiersche alleged that each of the named defendants “injected hundreds of millions of gallons of saltwater and other deleterious substances with a certain pressure range, at a very proximate geologic depth, and in specific proximity to the Purge. . .

“Each of the defendants caused the serious environmental emergency resulting from the Purge.”

The plaintiffs also assert that requiring them to prove which specific defendant caused what specific damage to each individual plaintiff would promote bad public policy.

Such a policy would allow companies to cause harm without accountability “so long as they act in concert, ensuring that the public cannot properly identify the cause(s) of their damages,” according to the plaintiffs’ brief.

The plaintiffs’ amended petition “sufficiently eliminated, with reason, all explanations for their injuries other than the defendants’ negligence in operating their respective saltwater disposal wells,” according to the brief.

The plaintiffs’ brief also cites court cases which they assert uphold the district court’s authority to order remediation of damages independent of actions taken by the corporation commission.

The motion to dismiss is set for hearing at 9 a.m. July 14 before District Judge Paul Woodward in Kingfisher County District Court.