Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by PHILIP ANGELO on March 20, 2014 at 12:01pm

moldy, I have a lease that was signed bye one of those two gentleman you refer to and they had no idea at the time, these leases would not be iron clad.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on March 20, 2014 at 12:14pm

that's my experience as well phil, except that in the end, I did not sign.

and I'd bet that my experience included the same "gentleman" that yours did.

wj

Permalink Reply by Darlene Newton on March 20, 2014 at 12:13pm

Our said Government also did the same when they leased OUR Federal Land  to Chesapeake and also are getting screwed out of their agreement!  Excuse me Sir but Individuals that have PAID for a Lawyer are also getting deductions! So whom is the fool? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on March 20, 2014 at 12:16pm

I thought you were gonna chill Darlene...

wj

Permalink Reply by Darlene Newton on March 20, 2014 at 12:20pm

Then some person has to say that comment and they need to make sure they get their facts straight!

Yes Goodnight my friends and the Battle will continue!

Permalink Reply by PHILIP ANGELO on March 20, 2014 at 12:49pm

Jim, I didn't sign neither

Permalink Reply by Moldyoak on March 20, 2014 at 1:08pm

I have my facts exceptionally straight, because I personally consulted those two legal professionals with a very long list of specific questions and was told that deductions could be taken OUT of the 12.5% noted in the leases which I provided them.  Les Greevy was the first attorney I contacted and for a $250 fee I was presented with a very detailed, three page explanation of every  facet of the lease which I had sent to him (and which was offered me by a CHK landman whose name I do not currently recall, at $40 per acre).  Furthermore, I was not impressed with the quality of the multi-page interpretation and suspect it was written by an aide, but nevertheless, the issue of deductions was prominently addressed.  The subsequent lease presented me was run through Jim Pruyne's office and was offered through Steve and Brenda Demarest who were acting as CHK agents, they being "locals" playing the old 'you can trust us' hokey routine.  Jim Pruyne, whom I respect immensely, offered the same legal advice, this being that the market enhancement clause or variations of it were a wild card which could lead to money being deducted from royalty payments.  Please feel free to call me a "fool," or any other derogatory term of the kind which you so freely seem to fling about, Ms. Newton, but you have played a very active role leading to the situation in which you now find yourself and no amount of incessant online raging can deflect that responsibility.

Permalink Reply by 2z248p19vqnh9 on March 20, 2014 at 4:33pm

Darlene - maybe a class action for what is being done by a GROUP of landowners would carry more weight...read *The Prize - the Saudi's manhandled the big boys when they were being treated as only being 'sandmen'. They MISJUDGED these individuals. *They took the bulls by their horns & shook up those sisters!

----------------------------

 WE are LANDOWNERS. WE are Amer-I-CANs...we need to find the right person to represent us & dance. Funny...isn't it? - being 'held hostage' BY your own land? Makes your blood boil...but that's ok. If you can keep your head about you when...you'll be fine. There is STRENGTH in NUMBERS.

As one light lights another, nor grows less - so nobleness enkindles nobleness. Slow & steady wins the race. *Time is on your side...takes two to dance...left, right, left, right...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Darlene Newton on March 21, 2014 at 1:48am

Moldyolk,

I also have a Lawyer FACT , as well as our Government , as well as many neighbors, whom have leases that stated to absolutely have NO deductions what is your answer , they also hired a LawyerFACT!  My neighbor hired a Lawyer and PROVED her Well was Contaminated and that is just ONE Well?  FACT  Why did the Government have to hire a Lawyer whom first dictated 12.5 to be 12.5 percent!  I also have my facts Sir and I am certainly NOT worried because the facts are! If people are too lazy to get off there butts to see the damage I cannot make them but I can tell them! And I can send them the pics!

The people that say the Citizens are Responsible for this situation I think you better get out and talk to the citizens!

I am very sure my comments are nothing compared to the ones our Politicians are receiving!  

Yes! I am playing an active role in getting our Politicians to fix these issues before things get worse!  Every American in this Country should be concerned about the treatment of the Bradford County Citizens!  This is just the progression of becoming the LOW Class Citizens!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2z248p19vqnh9 on March 21, 2014 at 2:45am

Darlene - stay even. Keep your head about you.

As one light lights another, nor grows less - so nobleness enkindles nobleness.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Moldyoak on March 21, 2014 at 4:55am

I was under the assumption, given the thread title, that this discussion was relative to HB1684 and royalty deductions.  Environmental issues, while an equally (if not more so) important topic, do not have any relevance to this discussion unless the purpose of having a discussion is simply to randomly rant.

The 1979 law stated a minimum royalty percentage was to be 12.5%.  That is the case, to my knowledge, in every lease that has been since signed in this state.

The law did not address subsequent deductions from that royalty percentage.  Furthermore, the intent of the legislators who wrote the law is not known, so none of us can state factually that they did not intend for such practice to occur.

The PA Supreme court has upheld that deductions can be made from the minimum 12.5% royalty if one's lease allows for such deductions.

While there are ample accusations of illegality, primarily against CHK, there is as yet no proof whatsoever of such illegality in regard to their operations within the state of PA.  What they are currently doing may offend one's sense of morality, but for the present time and until proven otherwise, it is not illegal.

I will continue to maintain that the underlying cause of the problem now facing so many royalty owners is the FACT that huge numbers of landowners blindly signed very binding legal documents without any legal consultation whatsoever.

HB1684 has the potential to offer some degree of protection to leases going forward, however I do not see any way it can stand a constitutional test if the intent is to attempt application of such to legally-binding contracts which are already in effect.

In terms of assistance to current leaseholders and the ongoing accusations of excessive deductions, I would argue that the best and only true course of landowner recompense is already underway, this being an investigation into said deductions by the state Attorney General's office.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lamar r king on March 21, 2014 at 5:05am

then why did the state supreme court tell the legislators to define what royalty means exactly at the state level?i thought that is what this hb1684 is supposed to do.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• …
• 20
• Next ›
• Page