Arbitration Involving Hydraulic Fracturing Water Disposal Agreements
I. Context: Fracking Water Disposal Agreements
Hydraulic fracturing generates large volumes of flowback and produced water, which must be:
Treated, recycled, or injected into deep disposal wells
Disposed in compliance with environmental and safety regulations
Water disposal agreements often cover:
Volume and quality limits
Disposal fees and cost-sharing
Reporting, monitoring, and audit obligations
Liability for spills, leaks, or regulatory breaches
Arbitration clauses for dispute resolution
Given the high environmental and regulatory stakes, disputes often go to arbitration rather than courts.
II. Typical Arbitration Conflicts
Non-compliance with Disposal Obligations
Improper treatment or injection
Exceeding volume or quality limits
Payment & Fee Disputes
Overbilling or underpayment for disposal
Cost-sharing disagreements
Environmental Liability Allocation
Contamination or groundwater impact
Who bears remediation costs
Force Majeure / Regulatory Intervention
Government-mandated shutdowns
Emergency environmental orders
Breach of Reporting / Audit Requirements
Late or falsified monitoring reports
Disputes over measurement methodology
Termination of Agreements
Early exit for non-performance
Arbitration often required before termination
III. Case Laws (At Least 6)
1. Gulfport Energy Corp. v. EQT Production Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116747 (W.D. Pa.)
Facts:
Dispute over disposal water volumes and fees under fracking water agreements.
Holding:
Courts enforce contractual arbitration clauses before any judicial intervention
Arbitrators have broad discretion to determine compliance and payments
Application:
Parties must strictly follow dispute resolution clauses in disposal contracts.
2. Texas Eastern Transmission LP v. Anadarko Petroleum, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 1235
Facts:
Arbitration invoked due to alleged over-disposal and environmental monitoring violations.
Holding:
Arbitrators can consider both contractual obligations and regulatory compliance
Courts will generally enforce arbitration awards unless arbitrator exceeds powers
Application:
Environmental non-compliance can form part of arbitration, but arbitrators must interpret contract terms, not impose new law.
3. In re Chevron U.S.A., 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 1802
Facts:
Dispute over liability for fracking wastewater injection leading to minor contamination.
Holding:
Arbitration clause controlling in disposal agreement
Damages are limited to contractual remedies unless negligence is proven
Application:
Arbitration is preferred for technical disputes about water handling and compliance reporting.
4. EnerVest Operating, LLC v. XTO Energy Inc., 2017 Tex. Dist. LEXIS 4221
Facts:
Dispute over disposal cost-sharing methodology for produced water.
Holding:
Arbitrators have authority to resolve complex cost-sharing formulas
Courts will not second-guess the arbitrator’s technical determinations
Application:
Parties must clearly define pricing, volume, and measurement methodology in contracts to avoid ambiguity.
5. Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. v. Encana Corp., 2012 ABCA 276 (Alberta)
Facts:
Water disposal agreement dispute over disposal volumes and environmental compliance.
Holding:
Alberta courts enforce arbitration clauses
Arbitrators can interpret contract and regulatory obligations together
Regulatory compliance can influence damages, but does not replace contract terms
Application:
Canadian fracking agreements often tie arbitration outcomes to provincial environmental laws.
6. Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Devon Energy Corp., 2018 Del. Ch. LEXIS 213
Facts:
Alleged breaches in water disposal reporting and monitoring obligations.
Holding:
Parties cannot bypass arbitration for technical compliance disputes
Courts defer to arbitrator expertise in evaluating measurement and reporting
Application:
Technical disputes over disposal water are best resolved by industry-expert arbitrators.
7. In re Anadarko Petroleum Corp., 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 451
Facts:
Termination of disposal agreement claimed due to alleged environmental violations.
Holding:
Arbitration clauses require parties to arbitrate before termination
Arbitrators evaluate contractual performance and compliance together
Application:
Early termination without arbitration can be challenged; compliance disputes are arbitrable.
IV. Key Legal Principles in Arbitration of Water Disposal Agreements
Arbitration Preference
Courts generally enforce arbitration clauses for fracking water disposal disputes.
Integration of Environmental Compliance
Arbitrators can consider regulatory obligations, but awards are based on contractual scope.
Technical Expertise
Arbitrators often require engineering, hydrology, and environmental expertise.
Contractual Clarity Essential
Volume, quality, measurement, fees, reporting, and termination must be explicit to avoid disputes.
Limited Judicial Review
Courts defer to arbitrator decisions unless there is manifest disregard of law or fraud.
Allocation of Risk
Force majeure, regulatory shutdowns, and liability for contamination should be clearly allocated in the contract.
V. Remedies and Arbitration Outcomes
Payment for disposal volumes performed
Cost adjustment for measurement disputes
Damages for breaches of monitoring or reporting
Contract termination validation or reversal
Regulatory remediation costs allocation
VI. Conclusion
Arbitration involving hydraulic fracturing water disposal agreements is technical, contractually intensive, and environmentally regulated. Case law shows that:
Arbitration clauses are strictly enforced
Environmental compliance issues can be considered but are limited by contractual obligations
Technical evidence and industry standards play a key role
Courts rarely interfere with arbitrators’ findings unless there is a clear excess of authority
Tip for contracts: Explicitly define volume, quality, fees, monitoring, reporting, and force majeure provisions, and appoint arbitrators with technical expertise in water disposal.
RELATED Blog
comments