Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on May 2, 2013 at 1:57am

Yes, NFA is National Firearms Act in the 2nd Amendment world and LEO is short for Law Enforcement Officer.

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on April 30, 2013 at 3:07am

We're getting off topic here but this must be answered.

The 2nd Amendment has exactly NOTHING to do with hunting or "sporting arms".

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on April 30, 2013 at 3:51am

Finnbear,

Probably right - but I don't think that's the prevailing line of thought among most citizens.  You know, the politicians are want to bend, and twist, and weasel with and fix it's interpretation - just like most of the folks posting here are concerned / apprehensive of the ODNR apparently doing right now with the force pooling and unitization sections of the ORC (topic of this thread) mis-applying them to Utica Horizontal Fractured Bore Gas & Oil Wells - also apparently to legalize minimizing the landowner's return on their private investment.

It's disgusting.

Politicians.

Ugh.

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on April 30, 2013 at 4:57am

And where "the prevailing line of thought among most citizens" concerning the 2nd Amendment is in error, it must be addressed and those citizens educated. Agreed that most politicians and their actions are disgusting. Reference my rant above concerning career politicians. They are the bane of our existence.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on April 30, 2013 at 12:42am

Here following is an excerpt from an e-mail message I just received from Mr. Ed Ganelli with whom I correspond occasionally on matters I think are very important.  His e-mail underlines a few important pro-landowner considerations included in the 'force pooling' / 'unitation' sections of the ORC :

"I've read through as much of your recent posts (and those of others involved in those discussions) as I have time for this morning, and I see a recurring theme through most of them - that a force-pooled landowner has no input in what goes on with their property (surface and mineral rights) after the ODNR Chief approves the pooling.  To begin with, there MUST be a hearing before he grants a force-pooling order - it is here that the landowner can present his concerns about being included.  I think that unless the landowner's reason is not that he/she just "Does not want to be included", then the Chief will make efforts to address the concerns.  If a resolution cannot be reached, then the Chief must balance the rights of the non-willing landowner against those of the landowners who willingly signed when he grants the force-pool.

However, it seems to me that everyone is missing an IMPORTANT part of 1509.27 Mandatory pooling orders:

(F)..."No surface operations or disturbances to the surface of the land shall occur on a tract pooled by an order without the written consent of or a written agreement with the owner of the tract that approves the operations or disturbances."

While not much addresses the mineral rights of the landowner, this DOES directly protect the surface rights of landowners who are force-pooled.  NOTHING can be done to the surface of the landowner's property...I would take this to mean that not even a pipeline ROW across that property would be allowed without landowner consent.

In addition, even those landowners who are under old leases that are HBP and are then force-pooled would seem to be protected.  I'm not an attorney, but I believe that regardless of what the old lease says, the force-pooling order (and what is included in my cited section about " without the written consent of or a written agreement with the owner of the tract") would take precedent, meaning that the landowner would have to agree to any surface disruption.

While all of this doesn't do much to allay force-pooled landowners' concerns about payments, it does help a lot with their concerns about surface rights.  Of MUCH more concern would be if O & G companies would someday figure out a way to utilize eminent domain to acquire force-pooled mineral rights - eminent domain makes NO provisions for the landowner other than arbitrarily decided "payments" to the affected landowners!"

My thanks to Mr. Ed Ganelli for graciously giving me his permission to post his identity and quote the contents of his earlier e-mail message.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on May 16, 2013 at 1:06am

Not getting many replies but the one's that are 'on topic' have been very informative and appreciated.

Having written that much I'll continue with my impressions / what I'm sensing for what they're worth to me as an unleased landowner:

ODNR's actions regarding the forced pooling / unitization orders to me represent a huge negative on the lease market. 

For instance why would a smaller O & G Developer / Oil & Gas E & P Company want to get involved in a leasehold that may be surrounded by another larger lessee and get force pooled into the larger lessee's business plan.  Instead, perhaps, they would simply forego leasing.

To me as an unleased landowner citizen this in itself is an affront as it stifles the free market principals as they apply to the leasehold market.

Then there's the whole getting force pooled into a deficient tailgate lease thing that the unleased landowner faces.

I can't believe the ODNR espouses this tactic.

It should not, and the tactic should not stand as precedent. 

Any ODNR official that embraces / applies these tactics should be shown the door / fired as they are not representative of a free market / landowners (this landowner at least). 

Just my opinions - what's yours ?

 

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on May 16, 2013 at 2:47am

The unleased landowner is trapped between 'flippers', their residue and the ODNR.

This is the 'free market'.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page