Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by 2z248p19vqnh9 on March 26, 2013 at 3:04pm

Man - you're all over the place here, Frank.

1) HOW do you know wether or not they are 'going under your ground'? HOW do you really? Seems to be that once you put 'fissures' in the 'seal of the earth' that the 'gas' FINDS IT'S WAY (and 'those guys' know that - are YOu one of 'those guys by any chance'?

2) people DO have the right to 'their privacy' - face it, it really SHOULDN'T MATTER 'what state' one has property in? - be it large, small, or in between...SHOULD IT? ...and if it 'does' - you make an 'inte=resting point' with your x5 little words (following Texas - in paragraph #2 above...), being the following: "not here in the east."

3) Another 'interesting point' in paragraph #3:"The bigs won't." ...THAT is what I had been 'drilling' at when I presented the thought that 'THE BIGS' have been HAPPY to 'let the chump change' do THEIR 'dirty work'...because THESE 'hiljack, good ole' boys' would rather 'deal/work with' LOCAL YOCKELS' to sign & such...only to get 'BIT' (as 'sour grapes' - of wrath perchance?...) are turning out to be nOW. HMMM...'OW'?...how now brown cow. I now know the answer to how the 'black & white cow' DOES give 'CHOCOLATE MILK'! (that's a joke, folks...but SERIOUSLY - the 'wool' has been pulled...).

4) Good that you got that lease signed, wasn't it? - Hope that it was a 'non-surface use' lease agreement IF your property wasn't worth a 'hill of beans' to them anyway. Yep, the jig was up (WAS IT?) - HERE you 'smell like' a G&O skunk.... You are just soundin' 'too sticky sweet' with your 'butter talk'. SOUNDS LIKE (to me, anyway...) you'z trying to make it SEEM LIKE - ***hurry up & ***sign on the dotted line, folks (psst, it's YOUR 'LUCKY DAY'!) - before THEY just 'pass you by' & you're left with the 'SHORT END of the STICK' (NOT! - I REPEAT --- N-O-T!!!)

Ever hear of the wisdom: YOU've got what THEY want?...keep your skirt on -or- shirt on (or pants, if you please...). KEEP YOUR 'powder dry'!...and with that: HE WHO STANDS FIRM.

As one light lights another, nor grows less - so nobleness enkindles nobleness. Frank...question to your last statement: are you sure?...Knowledge is POWER. *Do not fear - all is not lost.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 28, 2013 at 7:57am

Could you please and kindly tell us of your interpretations as to the "rule of capture" relative / and / or as it may pertain to wells and horizontal laterals in Ohio ?

Also, I guess what the Texas Supreme Court held was that 'the trust' was basically powerless to recover damages to what could be termed 'future value' or 'future earned income' as it was created to 'protect / hold separate' only the original value 'entrusted to it' ?  Is that (or something like that) a valid interpretation ?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 28, 2013 at 8:22am

For whatever it may be worth to any who read and post on this forum, after typing my query of 'ohio, rule of capture' and then clicking on the returned reference to 'USLegal.com', I found this definition:

"Law of Ownership. Many states, such as Mississippi, Ohio, Texas and West Virginia, are more pro-landowner. These states believe that oil and gas are naturally trapped, so oil and gas are owned by the property owner, just as hard minerals are owned."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom on March 22, 2013 at 4:42am

They can be within feet of your lease line. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2z248p19vqnh9 on March 26, 2013 at 3:08pm

Tom & Joe (sounds a bit like 'Tom & Jerry', doesn't it?) interesting replies concerning 'property - above & BELOW 'the line'...HEY, when it REALLY 'comes down to it /the brass tacks', that is: *Isn't THAT basically 'theft'?...something to think about. *THEFT - horrid word, a bit like 'horse theivin', eh??? ***Ben's Nugget - Hortio Alger, Jr.   **THINK**

HERE is a good answer to ALL of the questions/answers...we're right near Easter, right? INow THAT's a 'tough one', isn't it?

psst...what would YOU do? THAT should be the right answer...guess that sometimes it all ends up comin' down to WHICH SIDE of 'the FENCE' you're swingin' from...hopefully NOT 'the middle'!

----------------------------------------------

As one light lights another, nor grows less - so nobleness enkindles nobleness. I wonder what King Hussein (Abdulah) of Jordan would say to THAT question...?...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Oliver Perry on March 22, 2013 at 5:44am

Would you agree Joe, that unless the property line runs in the northwest/southeast direction, this issue of a lateral running along a property line is unlikely to happen?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Frank Nesmith on March 22, 2013 at 7:16am

In PA, there is forced pooling available to be used for Utica, but not Marcellus.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 22, 2013 at 10:18am

Can a fracture be effective reaching out beyond 500' in the Ohio Utica Shale ?

Frac Trespass ?

Can a fracture be effective reaching out to 750' ?

There's legislation currently being deliberated in Ohio's Agricultural Committee in Columbus as I have it (for deep wells) that would increase the setback from well heads and horizontals to 750'; and if within, the neighboring property would have to be included in the drilling unit.  But perhaps not all of neighbor's land included.

Totally a bad idea in the event a landowner wants a vertical deep well and becomes forced into sharing his compensation (signing bonus and royalty) - don't you agree ?  500' has been good enough since the beginning - why force a royalty split now when none was required before ?

Great for the neighbor if not included in a drilling unit otherwise. 

But is it fair ? 

If the fracture won't even be effective beyond 500' why should a neighbor be included in the drilling unit and be paid with money generated by the fellow neighbor with the lateral ?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on March 22, 2013 at 10:45am

J-O, RE: "There's legislation currently being deliberated in Ohio's Agricultural Committee in Columbus as I have it (for deep wells) that would increase the setback from well heads and horizontals to 750'"

With what I understand to be the average horizontal "reach" of a frac, I would consider 750' to be most excessive.

Also, it is not only the maximum distance that a frac might realistically be expected to extend ... I would expect that (on average) the effectiveness of the frac would decrease with distance from the borehole (but this might be countered by an increase in volume).

Many assumptions, but little hard data available outside of the active industry.

Perhaps someone who is (or recently has been) privy to industry microseismic surveys might comment on hard data suggesting the horizontal reach of current fracing technology.

To add a level of complexity ... the average horizontal "reach" of a frac may well end up being a "moving target", should fracing technology increase the "reach" at some future date.

 

Never the less, with what I understand to be the current average horizontal "reach" of a frac, I would consider 750' to be most excessive ... 500' seems generous.

 

All IMHO,

              JS

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 22, 2013 at 11:48am

Thank you JS.

I've read about 500' as a generous max. earlier in other posts.

What purpose does 750' setback serve then do you think ?

It could leave a lot of undrained acreage and / or include and pay a neighbor whose land would not be drained / contributing anything to the drilling unit.

Need some scientific input here I'm thinking.

J-O 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on March 22, 2013 at 2:01pm

RE: "What purpose does 750' setback serve then do you think ?"

I have no clue, I do not see it as having a useful purpose.

 

JS

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on March 22, 2013 at 11:49am

JS,

By "moving target" I presume you mean changing geology / shale consistency.

Am I reading you correctly ?

• ▶ Reply

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