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: 9812

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on July 31, 2013 at 11:15am
Corbett deserves to pay dearly for this outrage. And he will . . next year.
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on August 3, 2013 at 10:46am

Corbett was history anyway, but if you keep working for the liberals like you have been recently then you will have no one but yourself to blame when all of Pennsylvania goes under a frac'ing moratorium when they regain control.

 

it's never a good idea to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

wj

Permalink Reply by Frank Nesmith on July 31, 2013 at 3:20pm

I couldn't agree more. This is an outrage that we have to address. We cannot vote these jack-offs back in office. They knew what they were doing and did it last minute and right under our noses. They better not ask for any of our support!

Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on August 3, 2013 at 10:59am

fang I always applaud and support your zeal in these matters, but at a point, you need to be realistic.

pa. mineral owners are a small block of voters. not a political force to be reckoned with.

add to that, that we are viewed primarily with envy and disdain by our downstate adversaries, and we are gonna have to get used to taking it on the chin.

we've been extremely lucky so far that we haven't been taxed and regulated more. Corbett has been primarily responsible for that.

there are millions of idiots in Allentown, Philadelphia and the other urban areas who are sitting there licking their chops, waiting to get a bigger slice of our newfound wealth. their day will come, and it will cost us dearly. the tide in Harrisburg is about to shift...far to the left.

don't misunderstand me. this was a bad thing. but be careful where you place the blame, and how hard you wanna spank your scapegoat.

the legislator who introduced this should be investigated as to his involvement and the level of monetary gain he received for his complicity. he is where the punishment should be focused.

wj

Permalink Reply by Rick on August 4, 2013 at 1:29am

Jim... EVERY legislator that voted for this should be run out of office at their next election... thats where the clout is, in the local reps, not so much in the governor's seat as you say. But I still do believe he could have stepped up to the plate for us landowners and not signed it. So, on that note I say vote the lying SOB out! Every vote counts !

Permalink Reply by Nicholas P. Sciotti on August 5, 2013 at 6:47am

I absolutely couldn't agree with you more, WJ. We need to take a look at the ones who truly backed this and why. Corbett is at the mercy of the collective states' well-being and it's highly likely that this is one of the 5 or so issues that would've tipped the tables from Yes to No on the entire budget. He can't afford to have a budget debacle. He's been nothing short of a god-send for landowners, and yes the gas companies as well, in PA (just ask our NY state land-owner neighbors how they feel). With that said, you can't be a true advocate for one side of the table only; Corbett's job is ultimately to stimulate business, grow the economy and job-pool, and protect the citizens of the state's well-being. I'd say allowing a pooling feature (which was primarily set up to circumvent landowners requesting immpossible amounts of money) will ultimately make sites where land owners are working with the gas companies, more attractive and thus, more valuable. Don't get me wrong through, the adjustment period is going to be uncomfortable until there is greater clarity.

Permalink Reply by Rick on August 5, 2013 at 7:19am

Nicholas, do you have a link or some way to verify that landowners that were HBP were asking "impossible amounts of money" to alter their leases to fit the company's drilling unit plan? I havent heard that from any credible sources.... I think for the most part, it is just viscious rumors by the O&G companies or their landsharks. I am not saying that it couldnt have or hasnt happened, but at this early stage of the play, they surely have enough land leased to get going... I think some of these companies bought HBP lease without realizing that the lease doesnt fit the technical aspects of their planned operations, and for some reason (ummm... greed) dont want to give the landowner any concessions. But they were happy to buy the leases from another O&G company for many thousands of dollars more than anyone was paying the landowner for similar leases. Up to 14000/ acre that i remember, and i seem to remember exxon paying 30000/acre about 5 years ago from some company that held leases in northern pa, but i may be mistaken on the latter.

Some people just want a fair shake, and some land protection clauses put in so that they can still use and enjoy their property that they worked their butts off to pay for and keep.

Permalink Reply by Nicholas P. Sciotti on August 6, 2013 at 12:50am

I can't argue that in the slightest way. I'd say it's safe to say every land owner, in some way shape or form, had to fight for their land well before the discovery of natural gas deposits. However, with all of that said, the O&G companies have to take all the risks, secure all the proper documentation (which if you've never seen "FrackNation" i'd recommend it becuase it shines light on the amount of scrutiny these companies are under), and actually drill the holes to secure any deposits. So i'd say they're entitled to a profit as well. That does not excuse them from a responsibility to the landowners here though, don't confuse what i'm saying. I'm saying the companies are entitled to a profit but have a responsibility of restoring property to a natural, usable, and safe place.

 

I do have experience with some of the landowners spread throughout most of the region as many of them are families with whom I work for professionally, managing their personal finances. I've seen these offers spread completely across the board, but when the landowners ask for amounts significantly higher than what comparable properties received, the O&G companies tend to drag their feet or cease communication altogether. Furthermore, there are signicantly more factors in play than i feel we're realizing here. THe reason the gas co's will pay more when purchasing from other co.'s is because of the permitting, surveying, and 1000+ other tasks that may have been conducted already (thus saving the purchasing company time, risk exposure, etc..) so of course they'd pay a premium (and why the selling co. would require a premium, to recoup their upfront investment). Landowners are at the unfortunate position of having to sell at the START of a project, thus at a time when everything is at it's most uncertain and consequently, it's cheapest price..

Permalink Reply by Rick on August 4, 2013 at 1:32am

Fang, I didnt see where the UNITED SHALEOWNERS of AMERICA did ANYTHING about this! basically silent even though the issue was brought up nearly two weeks before the signing...

Permalink Reply by Frank Nesmith on July 31, 2013 at 3:25pm
Permalink Reply by Frank Nesmith on July 31, 2013 at 3:26pm
Permalink Reply by randall gottus on July 31, 2013 at 4:52pm

Joe...what ever, I think the focus here is what the governor of Pa.has done.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service