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
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on
-
quote from rick: "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 are correct, I went back and checked. my mistake. still, "beginning to think" is not the same as an assumption on my part. it's a figure of speech which stops short of making a declaration.
"retaliation"...for what? and why try to drag others into your personal battles?
wj
-
Permalink Reply by Rick on
-
Ummmm WJ... just for the record, i believe that most of the lawsuits and legal complaints about drilling and fracing have come from rural or small town folk that feel their property or enjoyment of their property has been damaged by drilling. I stand by my statement.
-
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on
-
then you stand by a false statement rick.
while you are correct that most lawsuits against the gascos have been from landowners in affected rural areas, your original statement was about who was shouting the loudest, not who was suing the most.
the shouters are in n.y.c. and Philadelphia. they are the ones keeping a moratorium in place in the d.r.b.c. and n.y. state, in spite of there having never been any evidence of danger regarding h.v.h.f.
the lawsuits you refer to now by the way, have almost all been frivolous in nature, brought about by a desire to get rich quick, rather than to compensate for any actual damages.
hey, there's at least one in every crowd.
wj
-
-
Now Garth Everett wants to help define (minimum royalty payments) which is the state minimum 12.5 percent royalty. BOHICA!.... (Bendover, here it comes again) Please dont trust this lying snake...
http://www.repeverett.com/NewsItem.aspx?NewsID=17889
-
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on
-
dennis, I would argue that this bill did not change any existing leases. it did change, or perhaps more accurately clarify, some existing lessors' circumstances however.
there is a constitutional prohibition against legislating changes to existing contracts remember.
what this law says, is that absent language to the contrary in existing leases, pooling can be done. leases which prohibit unitization will continue to do so.
perhaps a fine point, but still important in understanding the scope of the legislation.
wj
-
-
So wj... using your view of fairness... or the law... ANYTHING not specifically prohibited in a lease shall be assumed allowed? This isnt the first time something like this happened. It was decided that if you have an old lease permitting vertical well drilling, and if you very specifically, in exact verbage did not prohibit "post production costs", or "enhancements" or "cleaning" or "drying" or "cost of transporting" or "cost of marketing", or a bunch of other word games , it is assumed you welcomed these deductions. With that logic... we are in for a rough ride for sure... Hence my other thread about the nuclear waste coming to your farm someday... along with a miriad of other circumstances yet to be named or even invented yet...
This bill was just a toe in the water if you ask me...
-
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on
-
once again rick, why do you misquote me? what is your agenda here?
I never said anything about this new law being fair...did I?
stop making things up to suit your needs at the time.
and this isn't a "toe in the water", this is politics as usual in Pennsylvania.
many of us contacted our legislators very early in the history of the Marcellus asking what they had in mind as far as new legislation. we didn't get much good news from them. in fact the first legislative act that I can recall regarding Marcellus development was a new tax, the impact fee.
the point you seem to be missing here is that we have no friends, no savior in Harrisburg. we are mostly left to our own devices to negotiate leases and other agreements to the best of our abilities.
it's best to remember...and I mean always remember, that this stuff is just business. treat it as such, and we may do well for ourselves. if we ever forget that we are now operating in a business environment, it will be our undoing.
and another thing. emotions will not serve you well in any of this either. a calm, realistic and dispassionate approach is necessary if one is to keep a clear head about these things.
wj
-
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on
-
quote from rick: " if you very specifically, in exact verbage did not prohibit "post production costs", or "enhancements" or "cleaning" or "drying" or "cost of transporting" or "cost of marketing", or a bunch of other word games , it is assumed you welcomed these"
another piece of misinformation.
it is not necessary to be specific about what deductions you do not want to be responsible for, simply using the words, "no deductions, directly or indirectly, of any type or kind" will suffice.
of course if you want to be responsible for specific deductions, then you would need to be specific.
wj
-
-
quote from WJ :
"it is not necessary to be specific about what deductions you do not want to be responsible for, simply using the words, "no deductions, directly or indirectly, of any type or kind" will suffice.
of course if you want to be responsible for specific deductions, then you would need to be specific."
Ok, I'll take your word for that.... it could be interpreted that way for now... but will it stand up in court? and who knows what someone like everett will come up with next...
-
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on
-
you do have a good point there rick.
there have been recent court rulings down in texas which have said that even if there is language excluding deductions in a lease, in some situations the gascos can still take them.
fair? nope, but what'r ya gonna do?
I suggest doing the best you can, and then living with the consequences thereafter. life is too short to be miserable about things we cannot change.
wj
-
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on
-
well now dennis, you and I are old enough to know that in every scenario there are always winners and losers.
nothing, not one thing on this earth will make everyone happy at the same time.
and please dennis, call me jim. haven't we known each other long enough to be on a first name basis?
wj
-
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on
-
same here dennis, always a pleasure to kick things around with you.
wj
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
