Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by searcherone on March 2, 2015 at 1:23pm

lol  They have no spelling champs or proofreaders working for them.   And yea, we all make mistakes but even spell check didn't correct it as the writer didn't know it was one word not two.   And its great to get a laugh!!!!      But seriously the tone of this is extremely misleading as who really worked on the bill?  I doubt few landowners had input.

"likely hood"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nancy Mosley on March 2, 2015 at 4:19pm

There might be a good point about the Utica and the no deductions for forced people but why not just push for a bill to change these things?

The supporters are only coming out at the last minute.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on March 3, 2015 at 4:41am

Nancy,

Unless I missed an amendment along the way, I don't know of any changes to the deep well statutes that are enacted by this bill.

I haven't been able to follow the entire process, and I haven't read the committee substitute, so I could be wrong.

If you know of the item in the bill that does replace the existing deep well legislation, which is, as Mr. White points out, wide open to forced pooling, I would very much appreciate being pointed toward it.

Additionally, as you say, the shady deductions could be prohibited without this sweeping legislation.  Without forced pooling, mineral rights owners are already free to negotiate leases that prohibit these deductions.  The problem is the companies that ignore the terms which they agreed to, preferring the option of 'out-lawyering' owners in court, which will remain an option to them.

The only concept of this bill that is truly in favor of citizens is the concept that some mineral tracts can currently be 'sterilized' by holdouts. To counter this, what the debate in the legislature has highlighted is that forced pooling can have the same affect on some owners.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on March 3, 2015 at 4:44am

Mr. White,

You pose an excellent question, well worth repeating:

Who does the WVROA work for?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0ym9x5ag7ury2 on March 3, 2015 at 8:08am

How about a Bill to ensure the landowners actually get paid the royalty in their lease?

In Ohio receiving a royalty is nothing less than a joke.

Buck Well 1H owners have gotten $57 to $150 per acre per month for the past year holding  17.5% Gross No deduction leases.

There is no one to enforce the laws of the state, and no one ensuring a real royalty is paid.

The state of Ohio is being cheated by the companies they have partnered with.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0ym9x5ag7ury2 on March 6, 2015 at 12:21pm

Update from Buck Well 1H!!!

For March our "Rationed" Royalty hit an all time low of $45 per acre per month.

Oil sold for $30 to $37 a barrel to CEMI Chesapeake Marketing Inc, which is definitely not an Arms Length Sale at Fair Market Value as required by our leases.

Can you say Theft By Deception?  'I knew you could. 

Don't worry, CHK doesn't discriminate, you'll get the same treatment soon.

• ▶ Reply