Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on April 29, 2013 at 1:36am

I'm trying to figure out how the ODNR can buy into the application of these rules in the Utica era as the rules were meant for an entirely different purpose and period in time.

Here's what I found on the Vindicator article that causes me to bring it up:

“Chesapeake’s move is comparable to mandatory pooling, but when it turned to Ohio Revised Code 1509.28, referred to as “unitization,” it used a law that was designed for an entirely different purpose.

“They’re bending and twisting it every way but Sunday to apply it to what they think they need for horizontal-shale drilling development,” Alan Wenger, an attorney at Harrington, Hoppe & Mitchell, said. Wenger represents landowners. “The underlying rationale for the law is being followed, but when it was drafted in the 1960s, lawmakers didn’t have the foggiest dream of what’s happening now.”

Since Chesapeake’s application, ODNR has received 11 requests for unit operations, four of which have been approved. Five are pending, and two were resolved outside the agency.

The law was adopted in 1965. Until exploration and production companies began to develop the Utica Shale with horizontal drilling, or fracking, ODNR had received only two requests for unitization since its inception, according to the agency. Fracking uses water, chemicals and sand pumped deep into shale rock to extract the oil and natural gas within it.

Initially, lawmakers drafted the provision after an oil boom in Morrow County, when multiple vertical wells were being drilled in high density on town lots to help bring up oil from traps, or reservoirs, deep underground.

The law set forth spacing rules to counter concerns about over-drilling and the waste that comes with it. It allowed operators seeking permits to efficiently drain those reservoirs and establish boundaries for setting up multiple derricks.”

Applying rules that were implemented for different purposes / applications here raise questions of purpose in my little mind.

How much of a precedent will be set ?

In whose favor will all of this work out to really be ?

It appears that forcing a beating on dissenting landowners and some O & G / E & P companies will be legal as far as the ODNR is concerned, is that true ?

What does this do to the leasehold market ?

Will the result be negative or positive ?

Will O & G / E & P companies move away from establishing leasehold agreements due to the possibility of being force pooled / force unitized into an inferior lease ?

Are unleased landowners as a rule soon to become forced into accepting an inferior lease ?

How is all of that representative of a free market ?

Is a landowner dissenting by not signing an inferior lease ?

Who determines if a lease is inferior anyway ?

Doesn't it seem like the ODNR is turning a blind eye to all of these concerns ?

How is that looking after everyone's correlative rights ?

Doesn't all of this seem questionable to others ?

IMHO, we may need new rules in instances pertaining to dissenting landowners but misapplying old rules aren't new rules.

Also IMHO, unleased landowners have not even had the chance to dissent and should not be force pooled / force unitized.

What can landowners do ?

Where is the best landowner path forward ?

All of the above only my interpretations, conclusions, opinions, inquiries.

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on April 29, 2013 at 1:50am

The law was adopted in 1965. Until exploration and production companies began to develop the Utica Shale with horizontal drilling, or fracking, ODNR had received only two requests for unitization since its inception, according to the agency.

Reading the passage above begs the question:

If this only happened two times in over 45 years, why was the law even put into place in the first place?

Why would some lawmaker go through all the time and effort to draft and enact a law that statistically is NEVER used? This can be applied to so many of the laws on our books today. The answer lies in the fact that we have people who go into politics as a career and to do so, they MUST keep proposing, passing, and sticking us with law after law and layer upon layer of regulations, whether they are needed or not or even make any sense. The whole notion of a career politician should be foreign to us but unfortunately it isn't. The founders of this country were all successful in their careers outside of politics and were chosen to represent us because of their success in those areas outside of politics. They served for a period of time and then went back to their careers. Politics was not then, and should not be now, a career track. It was a temporary detour from a successful career, in order to give something back to the people who helped one to achieve that success. If you want to represent me in government, go become successful at something productive and show me you are capable. Represent me for a term or two and then go back to doing what made you successful in the first place. Being a career politician does not make one successful, it makes them a power hungry scourge on society. It is the main problem with our government today and is the reason we have so many unnecessary laws on the books and are saddled with so many layers of unnecessary regulations today. It is killing us as a country that lead the world for two centuries.

Permalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on April 29, 2013 at 7:30am

"I'm trying to figure out how the ODNR can buy into the application of these rules in the Utica era as the rules were meant for an entirely different purpose and period in time."

So was the 2nd Amendment.  Are you willing to give it up because it's pretty silly considering the times in which we live?

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on April 29, 2013 at 8:06am

Not debating the 2nd Amendment here.

But, for information, I'm an outdoorsman and sportsman who by the way has no desire to own or use a fully automatic rifle (or shotgun) / a high capacity ammunition magazine (for any firearm that I would own) / any weapon of mass destruction of any kind.

For more information, my sporting arms (which are the sporting arms I use here in Ohio for turkey, deer, ducks, geese, doves, upland game, etc.) are legal and plugged for (3) three rounds maximum (for my shotguns).  My revolver is also legal in Ohio (for deer hunting) and as is typical for revolvers it's chambers all can legally be loaded and thus provide me with six (6) live rounds to use.

I am a citizen of the United States of America and not in the U.S. armed forces (anymore) and not at war (leaving all of that to the future generations), and by that virtue have no need (or desire) to carry a machine gun, hand grenades, high explosives, rocket propelled grenade launcher, mines, bazookas, mortars, etc.

I am however, apprehensive of the military industrial complex and too much government intervention / sequestration of my private right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Just to clear things up a little.

Permalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on April 29, 2013 at 8:19am

The point is that the argument against forced pooling is relatively flimsy.  If the basis is "it's old and lawmakers had no way of knowing what was going to happen" then that opens the door for pretty much all old laws to be rejiggered to fit our needs.  An just FYI, I own many firearms and enjoy my 2nd Amendment rights quite a bit.  I was simply using that as an example.  

P.S. You say you have no desire to own a hi-cap magazine, but that's just because you've never gone to the range and cycled an entire drum of ammo through a Romanian built AK47.  Try it, you'll have zero stress for days afterward.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on April 29, 2013 at 8:38am

Regarding your P.S.:

You're right.

Never did.

How many rounds in that drum mag. anyway ?

Probably alot - 100 ?

Probably pretty expensive stress relief program I'll bet.

A hundred bucks or more a drum ?

Ammo's expensive these days !

Have fun - it's still your right (and my right too - I just don't so indulge). 

Hope it stays that way.

Permalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on April 29, 2013 at 9:10am

The one that I used to use was 75 rounds.  This was also before prices became outrageous.  I used to buy a 1/2 case of ammo for ~$75.  Military surplus (Bulgarian, mostly) was even cheaper.  those days are over.

Permalink Reply by Jason Grecco on April 29, 2013 at 1:51pm

Nothing to do with O/G.....I like the Beta Mag for AR....100 rounds perfect cycling...My AK 75 round drum is picky....so i use 40 round mags......

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on April 30, 2013 at 4:53am

You guys aren't in Ohio are you?

You do realize any centerfire mags over 31 rounds are NFA items in Ohio?

Take a close look at ORC 2923.11

Permalink Reply by Jason Grecco on May 1, 2013 at 2:42pm

You have to have the mag in the weapon to be considered NFA.   Do you know if I shoot the weapon in Ohio or WV??? Laws are different.

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on May 1, 2013 at 4:08pm

Correct, if you put a magazine holding 31 or more non .22 S, L, or LR rimfire rounds in a firearm in OH, it is considered and "Automatic weapon" by the state (=NFA). I don't know where you shoot, hence the reason for my question. Lots of people who don't have NFA credentials use these in Ohio, ignorant of Ohio's goofy take on mag capacity, and risk a felony 5 charge should they encounter the wrong LEO. In addition, many gunshops sell these magazines in OH without the proper warnings of the consequences of their use in Ohio. It's not worth a felony to use a hi-cap mag in OH as that will end your 2nd Amendment rights. In some locales, you can get your county Sheriff to sign off on a "dangerous ordnance" permit.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on May 2, 2013 at 1:02am

Curious.

Does NFA interpret to National Firearms Act compliant ?

Does LEO interpret to for use by a Law Enforcement Officer only ?

Acronyms - alot of them out there. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page