IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
THOMAS E. BAKER and DEBRA A. BAKER,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
GRAND RESOURCES, INC.,
Defendant.
PETITION
For their petition against Defendant Grand Resources, Inc. ("Grand" or "Defendant"), Plaintiffs state as follows:
1. Plaintiffs Thomas E. Baker and Debra A. Baker ("Plaintiffs") are husband and wife and reside in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
2. Plaintiffs own the surface estate of and have a possessory interest in the West half (W/2) of the East half (E/2) of the Southwest Quarter (SW/4) of Section 9, Township 21 North, Range 13 East, a 40-acre tract of land located in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma ("Plaintiffs’ land").
3. Defendant Grand Resources, Inc., is an Oklahoma corporation.
4. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties.
5. Venue is proper.
6. Defendant owns the oil and gas leases covering Plaintiffs’ land and is believed to have produced oil and gas from surface equipment located on Plaintiffs’ land.
7. Defendant is an oil and gas lease operator and conducts oil and gas operations on Plaintiffs’ land. Defendant is shown in the records of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission as the operator of at least one well on Plaintiffs’ land.
8. To the extent that Defendant is not shown as the operator of a well on Plaintiffs’ land with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, Defendant has exercised dominion and control over one or more abandoned, unplugged wellbores on Plaintiffs’ land and is liable for the damage caused by those wellbores as described in this Petition.
9. In addition, Defendant is liable for the acts and omissions relating to Plaintiffs’ land described in this Petition.
10. Defendant has allowed deleterious substances to be spilled on and over Plaintiffs’ land. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 § 2008(C), are exhibits numbered BAKER_00001-15 which are photographs showing that Defendant has allowed deleterious substances to be spilled on and over Plaintiffs’ land.
11. Defendant, by allowing deleterious substances to be spilled on and over Plaintiffs’ land, have violated 52 O.S. 2011 § 296 and Oklahoma Corporation Commission Rule 165:10-7-5.
12. Defendant has failed to remove surface oilfield trash, oilfield debris, oilfield junk, and abandoned equipment and material from Plaintiffs’ land. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 § 2008(C), are exhibits numbered BAKER_000016-19 which are photographs showing that Defendant has failed to remove surface oilfield trash, oilfield debris, oilfield junk, and abandoned equipment and material from Plaintiffs’ land.
13. Defendant, by failing to remove surface oilfield trash, oilfield debris, oilfield junk, and abandoned equipment and material from Plaintiffs’ land, has violated Oklahoma Corporation Commission Rule 165:10-3-17(c).
14. The oilfield trash, oilfield debris, oilfield junk, and abandoned equipment and material, which Defendant has failed to remove from Plaintiffs’ land, also constitute a nuisance and eyesore.
15. The deleterious substances and unnecessary oil field equipment, as of the date of the filing of this action, remain on Plaintiffs’ land and has not been removed by Defendant.
16. Defendant has failed to plug one or more abandoned wells located on Plaintiffs’ land. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 § 2008(C), are exhibits numbered Baker BAKER_000020-30, which are photographs showing that Defendant has failed to plug one or more abandoned wells located on Plaintiffs’ land.
17. Defendant, by failing to plug one or more abandoned wells located on Plaintiffs’ land, has violated Oklahoma Corporation Commission Rule 165:10-11-3.
18. Defendant has created and are maintaining fire hazards on Plaintiffs’ land. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 § 2008(C), are exhibits numbered BAKER_000017-20, which are photographs showing that Defendant has created and are maintaining fire hazards on Plaintiffs’ land.
19. Defendant, by creating and maintaining fire hazards on Plaintiffs’ land, has violated Oklahoma Corporation Commission Rule 165:10-3-17(b).
20. Upon information and belief, Defendant has not maintained proper signage for the wells and production tanks on Plaintiffs’ land. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 § 2008(C), are exhibits numbered
BAKER_000031 which are photographs showing that Defendant has not maintained proper signage for the wells and production tanks on Plaintiffs’ land.
21. Defendant, by failing to maintain proper signage for the wells and production tanks on Plaintiffs’ land, has violated Oklahoma Corporation Commission Rule 165:10-3-17(d) and Rule 165:10-3-17(f).
22. The deleterious substances deposited by Defendant on Plaintiffs’ land constitute a nuisance to plaintiffs.
23. The deleterious substances include hazardous chemical compounds and poisons that are dangerous to humans, animals, and plant life.
24. As of the date of the filing of this action, the deleterious substances deposited on Plaintiffs’ land has leached into the soil and are a threat to the environment.
25. As of the date of the filing of this action, the deleterious substances continue to leach into subsurface areas on Plaintiffs’ land. These deleterious substances cause damages to Plaintiffs and are a continuing threat to the environment.
26. Despite their knowledge of the condition of the nuisance on Plaintiffs’ land and the conditions created by Defendant, and despite the hazard and danger presented to the public, wildlife, and environment, Defendant permits and allows the nuisance and deleterious substances to remain on Plaintiffs’ land.
27. Defendant has allowed the deleterious substances to spread into the soil and such substances pose potential threats to the groundwater under Plaintiffs’ land.
28. By allowing deleterious substances from their operations to enter the soil and threaten the groundwater of Plaintiffs’ land, Defendant has polluted Plaintiffs’ land.
29. Defendant acted unlawfully when Defendant allowed deleterious substances to discharge from their operations into the soil and onto Plaintiffs’ land.
30. Defendant omitted to perform their legal duties owed to Plaintiffs and the public when Defendant allowed deleterious substances to discharge from their operations into the soil of Plaintiffs’ land.
31. Defendant endangered the health and safety of Plaintiffs and the public when Defendant allowed deleterious substances to discharge from their operations into the soil of Plaintiffs’ land.
32. Defendant omitted to perform their legal duties owed to Plaintiffs to abstain from injuring Plaintiffs’ land, and to refrain from infringing upon Plaintiffs’ rights when Defendant allowed deleterious substances to discharge from their operations into the soil of Plaintiffs’ land.
33. Defendant has polluted Plaintiffs’ land. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference pursuant to 12 O.S. 2011 § 2008(C), are exhibits numbered BAKER 000001-30 which are photographs showing that Defendant has polluted Plaintiffs’ land.
34. Defendant, by polluting Plaintiffs’ land, has violated Oklahoma Corporation Commission Rule 165:10-7-5.
35. The pollution of any air, land, or waters in the State of Oklahoma is a statutory public nuisance under the Statutes of the State of Oklahoma.
36. Pursuant to 27A Okla. Stat., Section 2-6-102, the deposit of deleterious substances on Plaintiffs’ land constitutes a menace to public health and welfare and creates a public nuisance.
37. Pursuant to 27A Okla. Stat., Section 2-6-105, it is unlawful for Defendant to cause the pollution of Plaintiffs’ land.
38. The pollution of the soil of Plaintiffs’ land is a public nuisance which is especially injurious to plaintiffs.
39. Pursuant to Title 50 of the Oklahoma Statutes, Plaintiffs are entitled to an order of abatement compelling Defendant to abate the nuisance and pollution by removing the deleterious substances from Plaintiffs’ land.
40. Pursuant to Title 50 of the Oklahoma Statutes, Plaintiffs are entitled to an order of abatement compelling Defendant to remove all deleterious substances from the soil of Plaintiffs’ land and compelling Defendant to restore Plaintiffs’ land.
41. Pursuant to Title 50 of the Oklahoma Statutes, Plaintiffs are entitled to have the order of abatement include a program of soil and groundwater sampling on Plaintiffs’ land, laboratory analysis of the soil and groundwater samples taken from Plaintiffs’ land, and a schedule and timeline for removing all deleterious substances from Plaintiffs’ land for disposal at a facility approved for the disposal of such deleterious substances.
42. Pursuant to Title 50 of the Oklahoma Statutes, Plaintiffs are entitled to have the order of abatement include, after Defendant’ testing, remediation, and removal of all deleterious substances from Plaintiffs’ land, a schedule and timeline for Defendant to replenish Plaintiffs’ land with fresh soil.
43. Pursuant to Title 50 of the Oklahoma Statutes, Plaintiffs are entitled to have the order of abatement require Defendant to plug the abandoned well(s) located on Plaintiffs’ land.
44. Alternatively, pursuant 12 Okla. Stat., Section 2008, Plaintiffs state that the deleterious substances that Defendant allowed to discharge from their operations into the soil of Plaintiffs’ land and has allowed it to remain in the soil of Plaintiffs’ land, constitute a continuing trespass on Plaintiffs’ land.
45. Alternatively, pursuant 12 Okla. Stat., Section 2008, Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction against Defendant restraining Defendant from trespassing and ordering Defendant to remove the trespassing deleterious substances from the soil of Plaintiffs’ land and compelling Defendant to restore Plaintiffs’ land and to plug the abandoned well(s).
46. Plaintiffs have suffered damages for inconvenience and annoyance because of the nuisance created, maintained, and controlled by Defendant and allowed to exist on Plaintiffs’ land by Defendant.
47. Pursuant to 50 Okla. Stat., Section 6, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages for inconvenience and annoyance in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code.
48. Pursuant to 50 Okla. Stat., Section 6, in addition to the restoration of Plaintiffs’ land and removal of all deleterious substances from Plaintiffs’ land and in addition to damages for inconvenience and annoyance, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover property damages in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code.
49. Defendant has acted intentionally and with malice toward Plaintiffs and the public by allowing Defendant’ deleterious substances to remain on Plaintiffs’ land and in
Plaintiffs’ neighborhood and by allowing these deleterious substances to threaten the health, safety, and lives of others.
50. Pursuant to 23 Okla. Stat., Section 9.1, Category III punitive damages should be awarded in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code.
51. Defendant has minimized the costs of its operations and enriched itself and benefited by discharging deleterious substances into Plaintiffs’ soil without paying Plaintiffs, thereby causing an injustice, detriment and injury to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the money that Defendant has saved by not properly maintaining and conducting its oil and gas operations and by not preventing injury to Plaintiffs’ land.
52. Alternatively, pursuant 12 Okla. Stat., Section 2008, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages from Defendant under the legal theory of unjust enrichment, in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code.
53. In addition to the acts and omissions described above, Defendant has also violated the Oklahoma Surface Damages Act.
54. The Oklahoma Surface Damages Act, 52 O.S. §§ 318.2 et seq., governs the relationship between surface owners, such as Plaintiffs, and oil and gas operators, such as Defendant, to ensure fair compensation for damages to the surface estate caused by oil and gas operations and to establish procedural protections for surface owners.
55. Pursuant to 52 O.S. § 318.3, Defendant was required to provide Plaintiffs, as surface owners, with written notice of its proposed location for drilling operations on Plaintiffs’ land at least fifteen (15) days prior to entering the property or commencing such operations. This notice is intended to allow surface owners an opportunity to negotiate or object to the proposed location.
56. Defendant failed to provide Plaintiffs with the required written notice of the proposed location for its drilling operations on Plaintiffs’ land, in violation of 52 O.S. § 318.3. This failure deprived Plaintiffs of their statutory right to negotiate or object to the location of Defendant’s operations, causing harm to Plaintiffs’ ability to protect their surface estate.
57. Moreover, 52 O.S. § 318.9, prohibits the Defendant from entering the Plaintiffs’ Property to commence oil and gas operations without either (a) reaching an agreement with Plaintiffs regarding surface damages or (b) filing a petition in the district court of Tulsa County to appoint appraisers to assess surface damages, as required by the Surface Damages Act.
58. Defendant has entered the Property and commenced oil and gas operations without obtaining an agreement with Plaintiffs for surface damages and without filing a petition to appoint appraisers, in direct violation of 52 O.S. § 318.9. This unauthorized entry constitutes a willful disregard of Plaintiffs’ statutory rights under the Surface Damages Act and entitles Plaintiffs to treble damages.
59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violations of 52 O.S. §§ 318.3 and 318.9, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, including but not limited to:
a. Loss of use and enjoyment of the Property due to unauthorized operations.
b. Physical damage to the surface estate as described in this Petition, including damage the land, vegetation, and improvements, the full extent of which remains to be determined.
c. Deprivation of statutory procedural protections, including the right to negotiate the location of operations and the right to an appraisal process to ensure fair compensation
60. Plaintiffs are entitled to relief under the Oklahoma Surface Damages Act, including: 1) treble damages to compensate Plaintiffs for any and all surface damages caused by Defendant’s operations, to be determined by appraisers appointed pursuant to 52 O.S. § 318.5 or by the court, 2) injunctive relief to prevent further unauthorized entry or operations by Defendant until compliance with the Surface Damages Act is achieved, and 3) attorneys’ fees and costs, as authorized under 52 O.S. § 318.9, due to Defendant’s willful violation of the Act.
61. In addition to the above statutory remedy under the Oklahoma Surface Damages Act, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages under the legal theories of nuisance, negligence, negligence per se, and trespass.
62. This petition is verified by the Plaintiffs, as shown by their subscribed and sworn signatures hereto, and the factual statements alleged herein are true and correct. Thus, pursuant to 12 O.S. §§ 1383 and 1393, this petition may also be treated as an affidavit for the purposes of entering an order of abatement or granting an injunction against Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Thomas E. Baker and Debra A. Baker demand judgment against Defendant Grand Resources, Inc. and for an order of abatement or, in the alternative an injunction, compelling Defendant, under the direction, guidance, and supervision of the Court to:
A. Abate the nuisance and deleterious substances by removing the deleterious substances from Plaintiffs’ land;
B. Abate the nuisance created by the unnecessary oil field equipment by removing the unnecessary oil field equipment from Plaintiffs’ land;
C. Conduct a series of soil and groundwater sampling on Plaintiffs’ land, including laboratory analysis of the soil and groundwater samples taken from Plaintiffs’ land;
D. Develop an appropriate schedule and timeline for removing all deleterious substances from Plaintiffs’ land, and for removing all unnecessary oil field equipment from Plaintiffs’ land;
E. Remove all deleterious substances from Plaintiffs’ land and dispose of these substances at a facility approved for the disposal of such substances;
F. Plug the abandoned well(s) on Plaintiffs’ land; and
G. Restore Plaintiffs’ land with fresh soil and native grasses after the removal of all deleterious substances and unnecessary oil field equipment from Plaintiffs’ land.
FURTHER, Plaintiffs Thomas E. Baker and Debra A. Baker demand judgment against Defendant Grand Resources, Inc. and for damages for inconvenience and annoyance in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code; damages to Plaintiffs’ land in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code; damages for unjust enrichment in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant
to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code; Category III punitive damages in an amount in excess of the amount required for diversity jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332 of Title 28 of the United States Code; treble damages for Defendant's willful violation of the Oklahoma Surface Damages Act, 52 O.S. § 318.2, et seq.; attorneys' fees, interest, and the costs of this litigation; and such other relief the court deems just and proper.
By ___________________________
Scott V. Morgan, OBA No. 30183
Rodger V. Curlik, OBA No. 31828
MOYERS MARTIN LLP
401 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1100
Tulsa, OK74103
Telephone: (918) 582-5281
Facsimile: (918) 585-8318
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
VERIFICATION
STATE OF OKLAHOMA )
COUNTY OF Tulsa )
Thomas E. Baker and Debra A. Baker, being first duly sworn upon oath, depose and state:
They are Plaintiffs in the above Petition, are familiar with its contents, and all statements contained therein are true and correct.
Thomas E. Baker
Debra A. Baker
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 6th day of November, 2025.
My Commission Expires:
9-5-2027
JAMES H. FERRIS
Notary Public in and for
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Commission #99012424
Expires: September 5, 2027
[Image of a dark scene, possibly an alleyway or street at night, with indistinct figures and objects.]
BAKER_000002
BAKER_000003
BAKER_000004
BAKER_000005
BAKER_000006
BAKER_000007
BAKER_000008
BAKER_000009
[No further text or markings present other than a partial file label]
BAKER_000011
BAKER_000012
BAKER_000013
BAKER_000014
BAKER_000015
BAKER_000016
BAKER_000017
BAKER_000018
![Photograph of a hole in the ground surrounded by grass and dirt]
BAKER_000020
BAKER_000021
BAKER_000022
BAKER_000023
BAKER_000024
BAKER_000025
BAKER_000026
[Image of a train engine crossing a wooden bridge under a tree]
[Image: A photograph of a person lying down on what appears to be a surface covered with a patterned cloth or blanket.]
Land Directions, LLC
Grand Resources, Inc.
BAKER_000030
BIRD CREEK L.T.
W.C. BAKER LEASE
TRACT 7 · WELL 14
SW SW SE SW 9-21N-13E
TULSA COUNTY, OK.
