Anyone in Pa heard of HB 1410? regarding upping min. royalties?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Angie on February 13, 2012 at 1:01pm

I may be wrong, but more research should be done on the O&G laws....we have been told by more than one representative in the gas industry that PA is "so far behind the 8-ball" in o&g law that it made it very easy for them to come in and do whatever they wanted. Just now there are starting to be stricter laws governing pipelines and protecting wetlands etc. But I do not think we have some of the strictest regulations in the country. The O&G companies have unlimited funds to pay lawyers to find ways around every and any law they do not want to comply with.  I dont know the answer to all this, but letting the Government get involved seems scary especially seeing what they have done to health care and the economy!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda A on February 13, 2012 at 2:04pm

you mentioned 'wetlands' so I want to share how that actually works.  WalMart (or whomever) wants to build a huge store, BUT some wetlands are in play.  So, WalMart PAYS someone who has wetlands (farmer or whomever) to leave them set for 5 yrs, then they are released from the contract.  So now Walmart met their requirements and are given permission to build.. so much for preservation of wetlands - $ buys whatever it wants...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fang on February 10, 2012 at 10:11am

Linda,

You are correct of course, there are to many people willing to relinquish their liberty for allowing the government into their lives.

I do believe that the government has a responsibility to regulate, this includes the oil & gas industry. But I draw the line when it comes to my property rights. And if I make a bad deal without the government hey that's my problem, and I'll live with the decision.

I posted on another discussion that I have advised people to wait before signing a lease. Many did not listen and took offers at $1,800.00 up front money and 15% royalty. They were happy , almost ecstatic, with their deal. Now of course they are crying the blues. Whose fault is it that they accepted the deal?

Mark

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda A on February 10, 2012 at 10:27am

Another good article on this blog is Wealth Redistribution - he nails it as well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by USA Landowner on February 10, 2012 at 11:13am

Some of the old folks were scared to lose the deal (they were threatened that the oil company would just go around them and maybe not deal with them later...I was witness to hearing that though it wasn't said in a threatening way but cleverly to state that they shouldn't wait or turn down the deal) and they took in offers of more money than they had seen in their lifetimes....my dad was one.   He was an old farmer that liked to do his own negotiations and was very trusting of the land agent yet he did discuss the event with others...he and others like him (for he has passed and I know that several of you didn't do your own leases but your parents did and they passed already).   He wasn't aware of the impact of what the fracking/drilling / trucking would do to the environment that they so loved and their parents before them loved.   He didn't realize what each of the clauses actually meant nor did he have the ability to view contracts and discuss in forums online what this is all about.   He did negotiate a good price at that time in 2008 but had no idea of what it all meant.   Now those that have inherited these leases may not have received the upfront bonus and are dealing with waiting on what royalties they are receiving (and even if they are among others in family and friends that have the royalty but split among them)....so for the government (the elected people and those they hire) to get involved to bring some order into a situation that could cost people more monies in the future that cannot renegotiate their contract then so be it if the government can help...that is why we have a good system but not all players in the system are qualified or honest.   For upon investigating the clause that some have inherited the discovery is that the royalties and time of the lease isn't exactly what was discussed initially and there most likely isn't a way to change it.   So the government is hearing many complaints...and I doubt any of you that have no complaints had your lease done prior to 2009.

Now as far as what LW comment about 'was that the intention' regarding government setting min. royalty standards.   Do a history of the subject...it was easier to get involved and set a minimum so that while they were figuring out how to tame the giant to be orderly to the surfs...more people wouldn't get screwed financially in the process.   However , that is when they should have just taken the time (even if they needed to hire oil/gas employees on a part time basis to learn about the system) ..they should have taken the time to review the entire process (as a planner would do) and see how they could endorse rather than enforce the situation.    When real estate was untamed in the sales and buying of...associations developed in the nation.   A good example is the NAR (national association of realtors ...they are not government but they cost money to run).  Using NAR as a umbrella many a realtor in the country has dues to pay but in return there is some order to their contracts, how the realtors honor the occupation, and the government actually works better with a user organized association than doing it themselves.  Unfortunately the only 'user organized association' at present in the O&G business is the oil companies themselves ...and that is the problem.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda A on February 10, 2012 at 11:29am

The bitter politics of envy have led us astray from the American Dream, which many of us came to celebrate.  Do we believe in an America where We The People interact voluntarily, to determine who the winners are?  Or do we want a statist government to dictate who the winners and losers are?  Do we really want a 'Fairness Czar' to enforce equality on us?

Profit and individual ambition should not be treated as a capital crime...

Did you ever read "Atlas Shrugged"?  It was written in early '60's but reflects today's society.  Ayn Rand had an unnerving insight.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by USA Landowner on February 10, 2012 at 11:43am

Linda, I asked you earlier in a post..

If not the government then WHO?  or is it you believe every man and woman for themselves?

is that ever worked on planet earth before?   There has always been too much division among peoples to get along because of greed and lust.....that is why I suppose that the saying goes, "the love of money is the root of all evil'....NOT the MONEY.   The love for it.   But if someone is caught up in their love for money and what it can do for them...then they cannot see the evil that has the stronghold over them though others may point it out to them.   Yet if those that have learned that money is useful but not to their use of cheating others or coming up with gimmicks to suit their lust by leaving the other earthlings in an unfavorable position or by just knowing how to be a good orator to get the deal done.....that is why we people usually adopt a system with a leader or a group of leaders.

So again I ask, if not the government what system do you think would work better?

and if you needed help yourself if someone has wronged you in any way...who do you call upon to help?  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fang on February 10, 2012 at 11:53am

VG,

I believe that you missed the point Linda is making. She is not saying there should not be any government. Her point is that there should be a limit to the responsibilities, authority and reach of the the government. Limited Government. Involvement in the decisions a person makes with regard to their property is one of those limits. Setting minimum royalties is not a proper function of government.

Mark

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda A on February 10, 2012 at 11:58am

Limited government for our safety, is what I support.  Injecting legislation to insert 'fairness' is my objection.

Oh, I could have used help in several investments, including the corrupt stock market, but there was nothing to do but learn the lesson...  I don't expect anyone to replace the half million of my personal loss in these investments.  However, Govt. regulation and the boom and bust in real estate, CAUSED by the Fed. govt led to the current crisis.  Fannie and Freddy were govt. supported, and they KNEW the boom was deliberate and KNEW the bust was coming, their cronies made money both on the boom and the bust!  Same with the bank bailouts, their cronies and corporatists all profited!  Trickle down never works...

Now, having the opportunity for some slight relief, from leasing our mineral rights is a blessing and will not take it lightly. ...already learned the lesson.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fang on February 10, 2012 at 12:06pm

Linda,

This is off the subject, but what I have always found interesting about the bank bailout issue is this; Most of the banks were made whole, even though some of their activity was criminal. Yet you I and so many others never had our losses made good.

Mark

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff D. on February 10, 2012 at 10:28am

I agree entirely with Mark, Linda and others on this point and hope the Ohio legislature does not copy this bill and seek to insert the government into lease negotiations between private parties. The last thing we need is more government intervention in matters of private property. If landowners signed a bad lease or pulled the trigger too early or too late to maximize their royalty and/or bonus payment, they have no one to blame but themselves. They shouldn't go crying to the government to force the lessee to hand over more money. I find that highly objectionable.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fang on February 10, 2012 at 10:36am

Jeff D,

The only caveat I have to my comments is this; I do not believe the landowner should have to negotiate the protection of ground water including their water wells. It should be state regulation that the oil & gas company must test all water wells within 2,500' of a well prior to drilling and after. This would include wells on properties not leased or in a drilling unit. If a problem is found in any well the oil & gas company would be assumed to be at fault until they could prove otherwise. This would mean they would be required to provide water until the cause of the problem is determined. PA has this. Protection of water is a responsibility of a limited government.

Mark

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page