Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kathleen on December 2, 2012 at 7:45pm

I agree with that if you signed today but people who signed in the 50's-60's-80's and so on had no idea a large pad could be placed nor did they have any idea of the potential these minerals could bring IMO, nor did the co's that signed them back then.
I've always felt bad about this royalty issue and the lack of some rules to protect people who do not understand the leases since I know the elderly have issues being honest they don't understand things due to normal mental decline. Pride takes over but this bill would help a little.
We are protected from used car salesman so why not against someone knocking on your door offering you a horrible lease because they can and these leases last a lot longer than that car? I think laws like these get written and passed since the industry it's written for has proven over time by its business practices it needs some basic laws to follow. IMO

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on December 2, 2012 at 7:27pm

RE: "I find the idea of regulating landmen to be amusing."

It is indeed laughable that someone would suggest regulating landmen.

I find landmen to be not only incredibly honest, but also brilliant.
Why,the only people who I would consider more honest and more intelligent are Used Car Salesmen and Tele-Marketers.

All IMHO,
JS

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keith A Williams on December 2, 2012 at 11:00pm

Joseph-Ohio

I agree with Kathleen on the 1280 rule.

         "I also really like them limiting the units to no larger than 1280,

           right now the standard CHK lease calls for as big as they like and not continuous."

While leasing, we fought hard to just get a limit on the number of acres in a unit. Our lease now states 1000 max. Present state law places NO UPPER limit on the size of a unit.

Keith

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 3, 2012 at 6:39am

Well I thought it was always 'Lease Dependent'.

It was common to see 160 Acres listed on leases for shallower Clinton wells for instance.

Later after Marcellus and Utica we started to hear about 640 acre untizations.

Now we hear 1280 Acres.

Maybe next we'll hear about 'spreading the wealth' and unitizing the whole state and throwing the Landowner's right for a private return on a private investment under the proverbial bus ! ? !

I think it's time to stop the socialist intrusion; and 640 Acre Drilling Units sound to me better than 1280. 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on December 3, 2012 at 8:14am

Geez  J-O  don't give them any ideas!!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 3, 2012 at 9:55am

Not trying to Jim.

Just thinking how horrible it would be if that were in fact their ultimate goal.

A new law many times in the past has proven to be a stepping stone toward greater government intrusion / empowerment.

The people need to keep their government in check.

The government belongs to the people.

The people do not belong to the government.

To me private ownership is sacred.

Good luck to us all - we need it.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nathan Henceroth on December 3, 2012 at 1:11am

Blueflame, we already have a lawyer who's quite good, it's just a cost-benefit analysis that made it clear that there isn't any point in fighting anything, not yet at least.  Our issues have to do with flipped black gold (I think they're called that) leases, we have no issue with our ALOV leases.

The issue here doesn't need to become ideological about private contracts, government interference, etc.  It's simply that CHK has shown that they will not pay the royalties that they owe.  They've done this time and again throughout the US.  Having the state regulate these issues, I believe, will benefit the landowners.

I've got no problem with holding people to the leases they sign, my problem is that CHK doesn't appear to hold itself to the contract language.  How many people on here have been haggled after to alter contract language?  When you refuse because CHK refuses to negotiate any aspects the landowner wants, you start getting incessant calls.  Not to mention, with no law concerning what HPB actually means, CHK is able to create its own definitions to extend leases in which they held no option to extend. 

Not to mention, most people aren't able to understand legalese.  If the state set those guidelines, at least you wouldn't have some of the horror stories where unscrupulous landmen convince some granny to sign something she barely understands.

Like I said, this shouldn't become some ideological debate about personal responsibility.  Moreover, I'm not saying that this is even that great of a house bill.  I'm only saying that if a state were to set a minimum on royalties and other issues, and would set up some regulatory body that would make sure that CHK can't manipulate royalty payments, I believe that landowners would benefit from the added oversight.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kathleen on December 3, 2012 at 12:22pm

I agree. CHK has provide this industry needs some added oversight.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nathan Henceroth on December 3, 2012 at 1:12am

Blueflame, I forgot to add that they've just started drilling, but there haven't been any royalty payments.  Not that we'd expect them, since they're not even producing yet, but just as an fyi.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 3, 2012 at 12:12pm

You know, I can think of a number of scenarios that impact the new laws being discussed.

Summing it all up can be as simple as gathering it all under the heading of 'Landowner Fairness'.

If a Landowner / a tract of land is unleased for instance it wouldn't be fair to throw the Lease into an older Leasehold Drilling Unit with an existing well resulting in the new Drilling Unit Held By Production.  That shouldn't be allowed to happen under any new law enacted.

Nothing wrong with Drilling Units of smaller size (even smaller than 640 Acres) if economics prove it feasible.

Like I wrote above there are many special circumstances to consider and any new law would need to make sure it doesn't trample all over individual Landowners.

Landowner Fairness needs to be honored and decisions I think can best be made on an individual circumstance basis.

Laws in this business I think need to be of 'open architecture'.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bluflame on December 3, 2012 at 12:38pm

J-O,

  Simple in theory but very challenging when the rubber meets the road. In my opinion, we'd be creating a whole new bureaucracy to police the legislation and create thousands of billable attorney hours to interpret the legislative language. (I'm not an attorney)

   I understand and am sympathetic with the intent, but am skeptical of practicality.

BluFlame

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on December 3, 2012 at 1:24pm

Well, I certainly agree.

But.......our government is already discussing revisions to law without consulting Landowners - as if Landowner Fairness / Private Investment Rights do not even exist.

Why weren't Landowners considered / consulted prior to even starting discussions - these things they are talking about changing affect Landowner vested interests as well as the interests of the O & G Industry. 

I'll add this into the mix also and write that if the O & G Industry wants to pay me  and my wife as Landowners enough to swallow the bitter pills of delay and new legislation - we can be bought.

Bring alot of money, a Land / Landowner Cognizant Leasehold Agreement, give the money and Agreement to us and then delay, discuss, and write your new laws.

How much money ?  Let's talk / negotiate / settle. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page