HB 493 In Committee - Any News ? - GoMarcellusShale.com2024-03-29T08:54:03Zhttps://gomarcellusshale.com/forum/topics/hb-493-in-committee-any-news?groupUrl=ohio&commentId=2274639%3AComment%3A304004&groupId=2274639%3AGroup%3A2801&feed=yes&xn_auth=noFound a little more.
Use this…tag:gomarcellusshale.com,2012-11-30:2274639:Comment:3739682012-11-30T17:48:24.371ZJoseph-Ohiohttps://gomarcellusshale.com/profile/JosephEPowell
<p>Found a little more.</p>
<p>Use this link:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.shaleohio.com/details.aspx?id=1329">http://www.shaleohio.com/details.aspx?id=1329</a></p>
<p>Regarding HB 493: the 750 foot setback and 1280 drilling unit size to me translates as landowner punitive.</p>
<p>My opinions have not changed since I first read about this Bill.</p>
<p>Found a little more.</p>
<p>Use this link:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.shaleohio.com/details.aspx?id=1329">http://www.shaleohio.com/details.aspx?id=1329</a></p>
<p>Regarding HB 493: the 750 foot setback and 1280 drilling unit size to me translates as landowner punitive.</p>
<p>My opinions have not changed since I first read about this Bill.</p> Anyone have anything to add /…tag:gomarcellusshale.com,2012-11-22:2274639:Comment:3720262012-11-22T14:54:19.782ZJoseph-Ohiohttps://gomarcellusshale.com/profile/JosephEPowell
<p>Anyone have anything to add / news these days ?</p>
<p>I've not heard or read anything beyond HB 493 being sent to Committee.</p>
<p>Anyone have anything to add / news these days ?</p>
<p>I've not heard or read anything beyond HB 493 being sent to Committee.</p> I have been waiting to see if…tag:gomarcellusshale.com,2012-08-01:2274639:Comment:3285722012-08-01T13:21:16.365ZKathi Albertsonhttps://gomarcellusshale.com/profile/KathiAlbertson
I have been waiting to see if anyone else would take exception to the very first provision of this bill that states that the surface location of a new well drilled using directional drilling may be located on a parcel of land that is not in the drilling unit of the well. Who would this benefit? I am especially concerned for those of us with land adjacent to state parks where the plan is to drill under the state property from adjoining parcels rather than placing the pads in the parks. What am I…
I have been waiting to see if anyone else would take exception to the very first provision of this bill that states that the surface location of a new well drilled using directional drilling may be located on a parcel of land that is not in the drilling unit of the well. Who would this benefit? I am especially concerned for those of us with land adjacent to state parks where the plan is to drill under the state property from adjoining parcels rather than placing the pads in the parks. What am I missing here? Well, I think the same howeve…tag:gomarcellusshale.com,2012-08-01:2274639:Comment:3288182012-08-01T12:03:15.723ZJoseph-Ohiohttps://gomarcellusshale.com/profile/JosephEPowell
<p>Well, I think the same however, I don't know since the Bill language doesn't specifically address the point.</p>
<p>I see alot of ways to interpret things available due to ambiguity.</p>
<p>Maybe 'a connected' guy gets all of his land considered at the expense of the landowner (perhaps even a smaller acreage landowner) putting up with the well and all it's traffic and hazards.</p>
<p>Don't know.</p>
<p>Anyway like I wrote above - 500' served everyone else since the beginning and served them…</p>
<p>Well, I think the same however, I don't know since the Bill language doesn't specifically address the point.</p>
<p>I see alot of ways to interpret things available due to ambiguity.</p>
<p>Maybe 'a connected' guy gets all of his land considered at the expense of the landowner (perhaps even a smaller acreage landowner) putting up with the well and all it's traffic and hazards.</p>
<p>Don't know.</p>
<p>Anyway like I wrote above - 500' served everyone else since the beginning and served them well without these new worries and complications - I vote no to 750' - maintain the 500' rule.</p>
<p>Write your Representatives and Senators - ambiguity leaves many doors open.</p>
<p>The more fractions of your fraction that are given away the worse off you are - everyone's out there trying to reach into the landowner's pocket - stay alert - landowner beware - there's enough monkey business going on under the existing rules - all the new rules do is take more time to argue about / legislate and in the end it all comes out of the landowner's pocket - since that's where the resource is in the 1st place.</p> It would just be the land wit…tag:gomarcellusshale.com,2012-08-01:2274639:Comment:3288152012-08-01T11:46:44.160Zoil guyhttps://gomarcellusshale.com/profile/oilguy
<p>It would just be the land within the 750' they are not going to give me royalties for my 500 acres if only 50 are in the 750'. I would just get them for the 50 acres and i belive it is just a percentage at that.</p>
<p>It would just be the land within the 750' they are not going to give me royalties for my 500 acres if only 50 are in the 750'. I would just get them for the 50 acres and i belive it is just a percentage at that.</p> For years 500' from a propert…tag:gomarcellusshale.com,2012-08-01:2274639:Comment:3283972012-08-01T01:44:06.697ZJoseph-Ohiohttps://gomarcellusshale.com/profile/JosephEPowell
<div class="description" id="desc_2274639Comment328385"><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>For years 500' from a property line to a well has been deemed fair and adequate protection.</p>
<p>That would mean 1000' between wells (and now horizontals in cases of lateral bores).</p>
<p>That to me means that if I have a well or a lateral 500' from my property line the adjacent property is not included in calculating royalty splits unless it is within the pooled unit. Same holds true for any well or…</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="desc_2274639Comment328385" class="description"><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>For years 500' from a property line to a well has been deemed fair and adequate protection.</p>
<p>That would mean 1000' between wells (and now horizontals in cases of lateral bores).</p>
<p>That to me means that if I have a well or a lateral 500' from my property line the adjacent property is not included in calculating royalty splits unless it is within the pooled unit. Same holds true for any well or lateral on the adjacent property as long as it is 500' distant from the property line.</p>
<p>Seems to me that the proposed 750' distance from property lines to wells / laterals includes lands within to be included in royalty split calculations that otherwise would not be included.</p>
<p>Another question that remains in my mind would be if the entire adjacent acreage would be included or only the lands within the 750' ? The Bill as presented is unclear on that detail.</p>
<p>In other words, 500' distance provides more protection from royalties being split than 750' does.</p>
<p>I see the biggest negative here as being an effort to further diminish royalty payments to those near the well / horizontal lateral.</p>
<p>Don't think we should stand for it.</p>
<p>Write your State Senator / State Representative.</p>
<p>No to 750'.</p>
<p>Maintain 500'.</p>
</div>
</div> I guess nobody realized Colum…tag:gomarcellusshale.com,2012-06-22:2274639:Comment:3053492012-06-22T04:55:56.798ZInchworm antennahttps://gomarcellusshale.com/profile/BobBauers
<p>I guess nobody realized Columbia Gas' leases were so crappy. Afterall, they are owned by NiSource which won an award for being one of the most ethical companies. So I guess NiSource gets awarded for ripping off farmers and families. They want to give property owners just $200 per year in return for all their GAS. </p>
<p>I guess nobody realized Columbia Gas' leases were so crappy. Afterall, they are owned by NiSource which won an award for being one of the most ethical companies. So I guess NiSource gets awarded for ripping off farmers and families. They want to give property owners just $200 per year in return for all their GAS. </p> Rep. Mark Okey seems a day la…tag:gomarcellusshale.com,2012-06-19:2274639:Comment:3040042012-06-19T13:37:59.500Z0i7okn54zwbdohttps://gomarcellusshale.com/xn/detail/u_0i7okn54zwbdo
<p>Rep. Mark Okey seems a day late and a dollar short. Why didn't he have these concerns two years ago before the lobbyists started having a field day with our elected officials?</p>
<p>Rep. Mark Okey seems a day late and a dollar short. Why didn't he have these concerns two years ago before the lobbyists started having a field day with our elected officials?</p> I wonder who voted against mi…tag:gomarcellusshale.com,2012-06-19:2274639:Comment:3041442012-06-19T04:09:28.832ZInchworm antennahttps://gomarcellusshale.com/profile/BobBauers
<p>I wonder who voted against minimum royalty statutes to help folks in the storage fields. When Columbia Gas farms out the production rights in their storage fields, many of the Mineral land owners are set to get just $200 or less as a GAS royalty. This certainly needs to get fixed fast.</p>
<div><strong><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1340078562_0">Canton Repository</span> 5/28/12</strong></div>
<div><strong>Boards and ballots: Okey fails to amend ‘fracking’ bill</strong></div>
<div>State…</div>
<p>I wonder who voted against minimum royalty statutes to help folks in the storage fields. When Columbia Gas farms out the production rights in their storage fields, many of the Mineral land owners are set to get just $200 or less as a GAS royalty. This certainly needs to get fixed fast.</p>
<div><strong><span id="lw_1340078562_0" class="yshortcuts">Canton Repository</span> 5/28/12</strong></div>
<div><strong>Boards and ballots: Okey fails to amend ‘fracking’ bill</strong></div>
<div>State Rep. Mark Okey, D-Carrollton, tried on the Ohio House floor Thursday to attach provisions to Senate Bill 315 he says will protect landowners in leasing their gas and oil rights. Senate Bill 315 establishes new rules on hydraulic fracturing.</div>
<div>Among several things, Okey’s proposed amendment would have:</div>
<div>• Set a minimum royalty rate to be paid to owners.</div>
<div>• Require the testing of ground water before and after drilling and notification of the landowner of any contamination.</div>
<div>• Require the company leasing the property for drilling provide an audit of gas or oil production to the property owner on request.</div>
<div>• Require the registration with the state of “landmen” who negotiate to acquire or lease mineral rights for drilling and requires them to provide a disclosure form to property owners.</div>
<div>The Ohio House voted 53-38 to effectively kill the amendment. State Rep. Christina Hagan, R-Marlboro Township, and State Rep. Kirk Schuring, R-Jackson Township, voted to table it. Okey and State Rep. Stephen Slesnick, D-Canton, voted against tabling it.</div>
<div>As part of the House’s Democratic minority, Okey has been unable to get the Republicans to agree to attach versions of the amendment to other bills. Much of the amendment is part of Okey’s House Bill 493, which has been awaiting consideration by the House Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee since late March.</div>
<div id="yui_3_2_0_1_13400785445442960">The Ohio House and Senate later Thursday approved Senate Bill 315, sending it to Gov. John Kasich for his signature.</div> No Committee date assigned ye…tag:gomarcellusshale.com,2012-06-02:2274639:Comment:2963532012-06-02T03:59:26.424ZInchworm antennahttps://gomarcellusshale.com/profile/BobBauers
<p>No Committee date assigned yet. Another provision is for Min royalty law. It's about time Ohio Has one. Page six indicates that the min royalty be provided via affidavit during the permitting process. We have nearly 470,000 acres in Ohio under gas storage field leases (with Columbia Gas, and Dominion Transmission) where the royalty interest is set to receive just a flat rate of $50 to $200 annually no matter how much gas is extracted from their parcel- perhaps the greatest inequity of…</p>
<p>No Committee date assigned yet. Another provision is for Min royalty law. It's about time Ohio Has one. Page six indicates that the min royalty be provided via affidavit during the permitting process. We have nearly 470,000 acres in Ohio under gas storage field leases (with Columbia Gas, and Dominion Transmission) where the royalty interest is set to receive just a flat rate of $50 to $200 annually no matter how much gas is extracted from their parcel- perhaps the greatest inequity of any lease, whereas the royalty is the sole essence of any lease. This would change that to a fair metered royalty. And most other large storage field states created similar laws years ago. PA's and WV's are 30+ years old. Here's the newest version of the Bill. Also, see the lead article in the attached publication to give you a better understanding of flat rate leases. I would encourage all who read to contact their state reps to encourage upholding this provision. Thanks</p>
<p> </p>