Corbett's betrayal has already started to hurt landowners.

http://triblive.com/business/headlines/4447866-74/eqt-gas-law#axzz2...

EQT Corp. has sued scores of landowners in Allegheny County for access to their properties under a recently enacted law that gives gas drilling companies the power to combine some neighboring parcels into drilling units without compensating owners.
The 69 individuals and one golf course in Forward named in the lawsuit are accused of blocking the company from conducting surveys on their land to determine where to drill for shale gas. It appears to be the gas industry's first attempt at using the controversial law.
“The fact that it's being used (to sue people) is disgusting,” said Robert J. Burnett, a Downtown attorney working with the National Association of Royalty Owners but not involved in the EQT case. The state “gave the drilling companies a weapon to beat down landowners,” he said.
EQT spokeswoman Linda Robertson said the company had been negotiating in “good faith” in Forward and still does, though it doesn't have to.
“Prior to the bill, we were working with landowners to obtain modifications and, although this bill means we no longer need to do that, EQT will honor those offers,” Robertson said. “It was determined that putting the issues before a court would be the most expeditious way to reach resolution.”
The golf course, Riverview Golf Course Inc., and lawyers for some of the defendants did not return calls.
The law, which the governor signed on July 9, gives drillers power to pool leased properties into one unit for wells that drill sideways, as long as contracts don't prohibit such combinations. Before the law, landowners could have demanded more money or better legal terms from drillers to include their properties in a pool.
The Forward contracts, like most old oil and gas leases, don't mention pooling and so the law makes it clear that Downtown-based EQT can combine them into units it needs without permission from landowners, the company claimed in its lawsuit filed July 22 in Common Pleas Court.
EQT is looking to cash in on land it controlled long before the shale gas boom. Its subsidiaries, including the old Equitable Gas Co., kept gas leases alive for decades by storing gas under the Mon Valley township, with one lease dating to 1899, the complaint said.
EQT lobbied for the law on pooling, according to state Rep. Garth Everett, who sponsored the legislation.
Most of the defendants started an alliance called the Monongahela Group, the lawsuit claimed. Its members refused to allow the company to do seismic testing unless it renegotiates their gas contracts. That “wrongfully” and “substantially impeded” EQT, lawyer Patricia L. Dodd of Meyer, Unkovic & Scott LLP wrote for EQT in the complaint.
Landowners rejected several offers, Robertson said.
EQT hasn't negotiated for months, said several residents and a lawyer working with Forward residents who aren't involved in the case. One of its offers was a one-page lease modification to allow land pooling. It offered no extra money, stating it would be for “mutual advantage,” according to the offer obtained by lawyer Steven A. Walton. Company officials stopped negotiating last fall, Walton and others said.
In November, an EQT vice president told the Tribune-Review at an industry conference that EQT wanted the state to pass the pooling legislation. The Legislature passed the bill the last weekend of June, as lawmakers rushed to meet a budget deadline before their summer recess. Gov. Tom Corbett signed it on July 9.
“Some of the Legislature didn't know better. They just kind of did whatever. If a lobbyist gives them something and tells them what to do, they'll do it,” said William Beinlich, one defendant and an organizer of the Monongahela Group.
He isn't bothered by the law and believes it won't be decisive in the case, he said. Many leases are ambiguous and may not back up EQT's claims, he said, declining to explain.


Read more: http://triblive.com/business/headlines/4447866-74/eqt-gas-law#ixzz2...
Follow us: @triblive on Twitter | triblive on Facebook

Views: 9805

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on August 4, 2013 at 1:57pm

"Sometimes the process in Harrisburg does not allow the minority party to research what they are bringing before us in a timely fashion.  That is exactly what happened here."

huh? it only took a few minutes to read it. is she saying that she was not capable of understanding the words? that she needed to look up their meanings?

or was this another one of those "we have to pass it before you can read it" votes?

wj

Permalink Reply by edward bilik on August 4, 2013 at 2:04pm

I received a similar message from my representative......maybe we should look to get the like minded together to undo this travesty.....what's the name of your rep? I am not being too hard on our legislators. I have found that they have been very open to reconsidering this section. I don't believe they were given a complete briefing of the legal effect to the section and it's effect upon landowner rights. This statute was very much a trojan horse.

Permalink Reply by Inchworm antenna on August 4, 2013 at 4:23pm

Since O&G is so important in PA they could have asked for public opinion on the bill when i was proposed.  

Did NARO sound the alarm on this one?  Does anyone know exactly what their official position is on this?   

Some royalty owners (royalty owner A) may in actually like this Bill if their neighbors (royalty owner B) are holding out on renegotiating an old lease, and reducing his opportunity to be part of a unit. 

So just asking again.......What was NARO's official position.  Are they in favor of property owner A or B's interest?

Permalink Reply by Rick on August 5, 2013 at 1:35am

Inch, they did sound the alarm as soon as it was voted on... that is the frist they had heard of it... well before corbett signed it. Look up their position on it.. do some research for yourself.. its easy.

This is not an issue between owner A and owner B ... the people with the old leases had the right to ask for concessions from the O&G companies, just as the companies had the right to ask for concessions to alter their lease with the landowner. They (the companies) just didnt want to negotiate in good faith.

And now they (the companies) dont have to even ask...

Permalink Reply by randall gottus on August 5, 2013 at 6:47am

Carp...Her response was that "this bill was suppose to be a transparency bill for property owners." I like her honesty, and hopefully she can get a bill to repeal that section.

Permalink Reply by Rick on August 5, 2013 at 1:27am

Jim L did your rep vote for it? Mine didnt and is outraged about it... her office told me that she is looking for a solution to remedy the issue...

Permalink Reply by Rick on August 5, 2013 at 4:13am

WJ... you contradict yourself, and probably make a good salespitch for a severance tax. On one hand you say that philly  loves money collected from across the state, and i believe you imply that they disproportionately benefit from the impact fee.... on the other hand, you imply that since philly is mostly democratic (actually the whole of the state by numbers is mostly democrat) that they will vote to stop hydrofracing... would they? as politicians, would they kill the goose that layed the golden egg and brings them (through impact fees) the money they starve for like strung out crackheads? I dont think so...

 

And to my point of your statement  making an arguement for severance tax? well ... same as what i wrote above... if EVERYONE in the state benefits from drilling and hydrofracing... would they not be more apt to let it continue? at least safely? I believe the people that shout the loudest against fracing have been people of rural origin or small towns who are living with the consequences of heavy truck traffic, noise, and some water pollution that has been the result of accidental discharge, or sometimes deliberate illegal disposal by some unscrupulous operators or subcontractors... not the people of the inner city struggling to make ends meet, or dealing with their local social problems.

Permalink Reply by Rick on August 5, 2013 at 7:01am
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on August 5, 2013 at 8:24am

you believe wrong rick, you seem to have a reading comprehension deficiency.

nowhere did I say, and therefore I did not imply, that "they" benefit disproportionately from anything including the impact fee. Philadelphia received roughly 3/4 of a million from the impact fee and Bradford county received over 10 million. now why Philadelphia, an area with no impacts related to drilling should receive a penny is a mystery to me.

you like making things up as you go along apparently, including your own unique interpretation of what others say and/or mean to say.

you seem to be in favor of a severance tax. let me state unequivocally that I am not. do you understand that? I am NOT in favor of a severance tax in pa. no government should be given money to squander over and above what it needs to operate under its' constitutional requirements. governments in this country have been taxing large for far too long becoming drunk on exorbitant tax revenues. it's time to rein them in and force them to spend responsibly. pa.is doing just fine with the revenues it is currently receiving.

you're also wrong in assuming that the people who are shouting the loudest are from rural areas. most of us are going about our business with this industry operating amongst us. yes there are occasional inconveniences, but the benefits far outweigh anything we are experiencing.

you have posted many misconceptions and much misinformation so far, i'm beginning to think that perhaps you are from an urban area and are here to promote an agenda counter to the interests of mineral owners in pa. I certainly hope that that is not the case.

wj

Permalink Reply by Rick on August 5, 2013 at 9:25am

WJ. Now you are the one making asumptions... nowhere did i say i was in favor of a severance tax. Just that you give credence to an arguement for one if one chooses to see the need for it.

Now you assume i live in a urban area? why attack me when all i did was point out the way your satement can be intepreted?

Ok, I'll play your game... maybe you are an industry lobbiest from who knows where, looking to keep your lucrative monetary gains you obtain through screwing the landowners out of their just rewards.... I certainly hope that is not the case... but could be.... hmmmm...

Oh and by the way, you seem to have a personality disorder...

Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on August 5, 2013 at 10:23am

quote from rick:" nowhere did i say i was in favor of a severance tax. Just that you give credence to an arguement for one if one chooses to see the need for it."

I stand corrected.

another misquote from rick: "Now you assume i live in a urban area? why attack me when all i did was point out the way your satement can be intepreted?"

I said that you seem to be from an urban area, due to your mistakes and misconceptions about us and our elected representatives. there was no assumption on my part, you are who you are, an anonymous poster on an internet forum.

quote from rick: "Ok, I'll play your game... maybe you are an industry lobbiest from who knows where, looking to keep your lucrative monetary gains you obtain through screwing the landowners out of their just rewards.... I certainly hope that is not the case... but could be.... hmmmm"

well there ya go. paranoia plain and simple.

and btw, the correct spelling is lobbyist

wj

 

Permalink Reply by Rick on August 5, 2013 at 10:37am

Ok WJ.. lets nitpik some more... you did not say "you seem to be from an urban area" you said "i'm beginning to think that perhaps you are from an urban area"  Thats why I said that you assume i live in an urban area...  i dont see where i went wrong  with that statement..

You also said "well there ya go. paranoia plain and simple." Nah WJ... just retaliation plain and simple..

Anyway... this conversation has broken down to semantics, grammar, and spelling corrections... we do agree on some things, and disagree on others... lets leave it at that?

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service