Beck Energy Appeals Court Decision

I talked to the Monroe County Court today and found out by pure accident that Beck Energy appealed their case just today.  For those that don't know, the case was moved to Washington County Court by the Ohio Supreme Court.  The decision came down that Beck Energy leases were "not in the Public Interest" in the state of Ohio.  In other words Beck lost and the landowners won.  Now the appeal process has begun.  My lease with Beck hangs in the balance as do 270+ Monroe County landowners just like me!

Views: 10131

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alan Pavlik on August 29, 2012 at 10:25pm

It is scary when a judge can proclaim the leases are not in the Public Interest, I understand why the appeal has been moved to another county court. That's one thing that always bothered me....a judge can use his own personal bias to make a judgement, I don't know if that is the case here or not but who knows?

Permalink Reply by Mickgyver on August 30, 2012 at 6:22pm

yes alan it is bad to let any one person have that kind of authority ,especially when some of them have friends in low places or is that high places .

This happens too often to a lot of people who should wins cases hands down if they have the option of a jury

hopefully the landowners will be treated fairly as some of the leases even now have clauses that state even if the court rules against certain things the lease still stays valid for the company ,they have the wording down pat .

That is why it is so important to get legal advice to understand all the clauses in full.

Permalink Reply by Alan Pavlik on August 30, 2012 at 11:30pm

Still without knowing all the details, I can't help but thinkhowever that it can become a slippery slop when a judge disregards the contract language in a lease, to me it just opens the door for endless litigation. If your an attorney it's good but

0i7okn54zwbdoPermalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on August 31, 2012 at 9:28am

"Public interest" in this case refers to the interest in developing land for natural resource production.  the judge found that holding a lease for an undetermined amount of time with nominal delay rental payment was against both the public and private interest based on the original intent of the lease.  It was a good ruling.

Permalink Reply by Alan Pavlik on August 31, 2012 at 10:24pm

I don't  buy the "public interest" when the contract is more a "private interest" issue. Those words were used for a reason.

Permalink Reply by John OBrien, landowner advocate on September 1, 2012 at 2:32pm

"Public Interest" does indeed come into play as it was the state legislature that set public policy.  Lets say the state set forth policy (law) that said the speed  limit on all roads was to be 65mph.  Beck comes along and says I will sign a lease with you for your property on which this road runs, and I can drive 85mph.  His lease, even if you sign it is NO GOOD because it tries to override the State Law.  The real reason Raymond Beck used this language was to confuse the lessor. A snake is a snake is a snake.

Permalink Reply by Jimmy Wilson on September 4, 2012 at 4:13am

Alan,

I dont know how in the hell you can say that ?

What was the intent upon signing those late 70's Clinton sand shallow leases ?

Do those intended shallow clinton leases give the landowners one speck of protections from these modern super pad sites ?

When landowners signed those leases, do you think they signed on for a 5 acre fenced pad with a security guard 7/24 out the kitchen window ?

 

The answer to my questions is clearly NO, they signed up for a rod taking up 5 square feet sticking out of ground that you throw four strands of barbed wire around to keep the cows from rubbing on it, NO ONE signed on for this and the Oil companies will clearly lose this fight based upon INTENT upon signing not to even mention they had a due diligence to develop the property, which most clearly did not.

Some smart lawyer is going to fight for the little guy and hate to tell ya, he is gonna win. I believe that is referred too as setting precedent.

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by BMR on September 7, 2012 at 4:34am

Jimmy,

1. "What was the intent upon signing those late 70's Clinton sand shallow leases ?"

- They were probably titled "Oil and Gas Lease" not "Clinton Sand Lease."  An oil and gas lease is an oil and gas lease, no matter what decade it was executed.  Any boilerplate lease gives the lessee the right to produce oil and gas by any means necessary, obviously as long as they abiding by the laws of the land.

2.  "Do those intended shallow clinton leases give the landowners one speck of protections from these modern super pad sites ?"  

-No, but updated Ohio laws do..

Permalink Reply by Jimmy Wilson on September 7, 2012 at 4:50am

BM,

I respectfully disagree with you and the same court cases were lost when the coal companies came back and said those 1930's leases gave them the rights to strip the coal.

How is this any different ?

The intent and not to mention due diligence arguments will be heard.

The gas company had an implied due diligence to develop the property and they clearly did not.

The due diligence argument is being tried now in Stark County with dominion.

I also disagree with patchwork Ohio law, you think anyone mentioned the sheer size and scope of the pads back in 1980 ?

The fight's coming.

 

Permalink Reply by BMR on September 7, 2012 at 5:22am

There are many many wells in TX that have produced nearly 100 years and they have had continuous development over the past few decades and especially boosted such since the discovery of the Barnett Shale.

If you are referring to the implied covenant to reasonably develop, I completely agree with you.  I've got a well on my property that was drilled in '71 and is barely producing, so I hope that decision turns out favorable.  The real question is going to be...  What is the time frame of when they need to further develop!

Permalink Reply by Frank Nesmith on August 29, 2012 at 2:34am

What company is everyone leased with there?

Permalink Reply by Judy Walter on August 29, 2012 at 3:32am
Are these assigned leases or is Beck the original lessee? Would appreciate any info on this. Am in Stark County and Beck Energy purchased our lease years ago. Thanks for any info.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service