Email
An oil and gas company is seeking fines and jail time for a peaceful anti-fracking activist in Pennsylvania, according to court documents.
In a motion filed this week, lawyers for Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation, one of the biggest operators in Pennsylvania, asked the Susquehanna County court to find longtime activist Vera Scroggins in contempt of an injunction barring her from areas near its well sites.
The row between Cabot and Scroggins became notorious in environmental and human rights circles after the company sought last year to ban the activist from an area of about 310 sq miles (803 sq km) – or about half the entire county. The scope of that ban was later reduced.
In the latest legal move, lawyers for Cabot argued that Scroggins showed “blatant disregard” for the ban when she escorted a Green Party politician and others on a tour of rural areas subject to heavy drilling.
The lawyers noted a contempt finding against Scroggins could trigger fines and jail time.
“Ms Scroggins may be subject to the following penalties for violating this court’s order: (i) fines; (ii) assessment of attorney fees; and/or (iii) incarceration”, the lawyers wrote.
The lawyers go on to demand Scroggins pay Cabot’s legal costs and attorney fees.
Included in the motion are photographs of Scroggins and other activists standing on a roadside which, Cabot alleged, was within 100ft (3om) of an access road leading to one of its wells in Dimock, Pennsylvania. An injunction in force since last March bars Scroggins from approaching within 100ft of access roads – even if she is standing on a public road, or on a homeowners’ private land.
Scroggins is well-known locally in Pennsylvania’s gas lands after making it her mission to conduct tours of heavily drilled areas in the countryside.
She has continued the tours, despite the injunction and despite being regularly photographed by security contractors for Cabot as she goes about her rounds. “If they see me, they always take pictures,” she said. “Every week.”
But Scroggins said she was not in violation of the injunction. “I would say no,” she said.
George Stark, a Cabot spokesman, said in an email that the company was acting on safety concerns. “Cabot is forced to take action because Ms Scroggins continues to defy a court order designed to protect her and others, including members of the public. Her actions are a direct violation of the court’s standing order,” he wrote.
“Cabot fully believes she understands the order, but has chosen to disregard the judicial system and the rights of neighbors and private property owners ... Cabot respects Ms Scroggins’ right to free speech, but we also respect the court order and will act to enforce it. Nothing in the order restricts Ms Scroggins’ free speech.”
Witold Walczak, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which has helped Scroggins in her case, said Cabot’s measures were unjustified.
“Cabot has been extremely aggressive in challenging our client and this is just a continuation of that,” he said.
The two sides are due to return to court later this month for arguments on this motion, and to review the injunction – which Scroggins is seeking to have dismissed. “It has been our contention that it is still overbroad and unjustified,” Walczak said.
