Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by sally on March 10, 2015 at 1:52pm

Does anyone know when the Senate will be discussing HB2688 again? What's the status?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on March 10, 2015 at 2:30pm

The bill has been referred to the Senatee Judiciary Committee, and is not on their agenda for today.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by gasoholic on March 11, 2015 at 3:05pm

HB 2688 is on the agenda today, Wed March 11. The Senate Judiciary Committee is in session now. Started at 3:00 pm

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/live.cfm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on March 14, 2015 at 11:42pm

Once again, I must confess my ignorance regarding the lawmaking process here in WV.

I was unable to listen in on today's activities, and I don't understand what the results being reported actually mean.

If anyone can shed some light on the status of the bill at this point, I would be most appreciative.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nancy Mosley on March 14, 2015 at 11:48pm

Just got an email from NARO Appalachia that the bill failed on a tied vote, due mainly to the taking of property rights argument.
Looking forward to more news, but it sounds like no new forced pooling law.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Todd on March 15, 2015 at 3:02pm

Forced Pooling - Dead

http://www.charlestondailymail.com/article/20150315/DM0104/15031942...

Thanks in large part to Delegate Pat McGeehan.

Here is his info for those of you who would like to thank him:

Pat McGeehan    (R - Hancock, 01)

CONTACT

pat.mcgeehan@wvhouse.gov Capitol Office: Room 226E, Building 1 State Capitol Complex Charleston, WV 25305 Capitol Phone: (304) 340-3397 Home: 616 Florida Avenue #5 Chester, WV, 26034 Home Phone: (304) 374-7018 Business Phone: (304) 374-7018

The roll call shows 21 Republicans and 28 Democrats voting against the legislation. Delegate Pat McGeehan, R-Hancock and leader of the Liberty Caucus, said his group worked to drum up opposition. The caucus opposes legislation that takes away personal freedoms, McGeehan said, no matter which party is behind the bill.

“Forced pooling, we saw as a gross violation of private property rights because it affects the entire state,” he said. “Thousands if not tens of thousands of West Virginia residents would be affected by that and forced to sell their mineral rights or their land rights for artificially low prices. Essentially it’s a form of legal plundering whereby a gas company can come in and take what is an individual’s natural right to property. We wanted to be sure we defeated that because we want to advance the cause of liberty, but sometimes there are harmful, detrimental policies we need to play defense on to protect the people of West Virginia.” 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nancy Mosley on March 15, 2015 at 9:54pm

I just emailed Rep. McGeehan, thanking him for his leadership in defeating the bill and expressing some concerns remaining. One of the good things about this bill was that the force pooled lease did not have deductions taken out of the royalty, and that "holding out" for such a lease was a reason some people were in that not yet leased 20%. Also that the companies were using partition suits to take either the minerals by sale or by leases with deductions. He just wrote back saying he understood this concern. He said he was exhausted from the fight and the late hours but feel free to contact him any time. I wish I could vote in his district. What a good guy. I hope others will thank him.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on March 16, 2015 at 7:01am

Nancy,

Doesn't the protection from deductions only become "good", after the 'bad' part of the bill becomes active?  If one considers the seizure of private property to be wrong, can any sort of compromise then be considered to be 'right', or 'good'?

Unfortunately, the industry still wields the partition suit sword, as it does the 'quiet title code to seize 'unlocatable' owners' minerals.  Much of the drive behind this bill was the thousands of dollars they would have saved through bypassing these court actions. In the case of fractional ownership, a mineral owner has no defense against an unscrupulous co-owner, usually, as in my case, a relative.

However, this bill would have stripped even 100% owners of their ability to choose the fate of their property.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on March 15, 2015 at 4:57pm

My thanks go out to everyone who took part in the fight against this bill.

Once more, as in 1863, WV has distinguished itself as a state where individual freedoms are valued above economic gain.  

WV was born of a strong sense of right and wrong; a place where individual freedoms do not have a price tag, regardless of the direction that other states choose.  

This bill, along with the concealed carry and homeschooling bills, has reaffirmed that this same independence that our ancestors displayed is still strong in its citizenry today.

While the industry collectively scratches its head, I would like to remind them of our state motto:

                                            'Montani Semper Liberi'

• ▶ Reply