Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Philip Brutz on January 12, 2014 at 1:30pm

Where are the unitization rulings posted?  I have never been able to find them on the ODNR web site.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric on January 13, 2014 at 2:50am

i have often wondered if the landowner should have the option of having their minerals apprasied by an independent 3rd party and once the value of the minerals are set from there for basis of the taking.  Eminent domain works this way through the government and landowners should be justly compensated for that taking.  This seems like a general "gun to the head" idea in which the "true value" of the mineral are marginalized to the detriment of the landowner (and the state for that matter).     

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on January 13, 2014 at 4:12am

What about if the ODNR Gas and Oil Division Chief permits a landowner's (or a number of landowners') tract to be unitized under a deficient lease agreement (deficient from the perspective of the unitized landowner(s))?

Say Severance Taxes  (under the terms of a prevailing lease ruled 'just and reasonable' by the ODNR Gas and Oil Division Chief) are assigned as to be paid by the unitized landowner(s) ?

Say Post Production Costs (under the terms of a prevailing lease ruled 'just and reasonable' by the ODNR Gas and Oil Division Chief) are assigned as to be paid by the unitized landowner(s) ?

Say Market Enhancement Costs (under the terms of a prevailing lease ruled 'just and reasonable' by the ODNR Gas and Oil Division Chief) are assigned as to be paid by the unitized landowner(s) ?

Perhaps ruled 'just and reasonable' by the Chief but not by the unitized landowner(s).

What are the limits of the authority of the ODNR Gas and Oil Division Chief ?

Where is the oversight ?

Is it left up to the unitized landowner(s) to take it to court and bear that expense as well ?

I would like to see the State of Ohio's Attorney General Michael DeWine get involved and 1st crop the law which seemingly provides the ODNR Gas and Oil Division Chief unlimited authority and then to provide oversight on a continuing basis on behalf of all landowner(s).

I would also like to see and suggest to the GMS membership that a landowner advocate attorney / lawyer or a team of attorneys / lawyers with interest in these issues prepare and circulate a petition to the State of Ohio's Attorney General to address these serious matters.

All of the above presented from my layman landowner perspective and in my most humble opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Harry E. Rose on January 13, 2014 at 4:44am

Great idea. Where is the petition?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on January 13, 2014 at 5:06am

I'm looking for that petition too Mr. Rose.

Pretty horrible law if you ask me.

Where are the limits ?

Who can tell what might be viewed as 'just and reasonable' by any single appointee bestowed with (apparently) unlimited authority.

Perhaps even existing lease agreements may be over-ruled ? Where is it written in law that it would not be one of the Chief's powers. Is that left for a court to decide ? Who pays for legal fees ? Appears a lot like being railroaded into court on the account of being a mineral owner (to me).

It looks all too 'Totalitarian' (to me). Right here in the USA.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on January 13, 2014 at 5:57am

Should also add :

We are pro-drilling, pro-development, and pro-leasing (as long as the lease is landowner cognizant / equitable / just and reasonable from our landowner perspective); but, we are anti being forced into anything including an opposite / un-agreeable leasehold and / or being railroaded into court to defend our rights of private ownership.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MJ on January 13, 2014 at 6:30am

Joseph,  I hear you and agree with some of the concerns about unitization, but one of the reasons so many knowledgeable folks here ( Mark McGrail, Ron E, to name a couple) are on a mission to "inform and educate" others, is to then minimize the amount of uninformed folks that will not sign a reasonable lease.  If we educate and stop the frackivist lies about this use of natural resource, then we have many landowners sharing in the rewards of this industry.  Without unitization, one unreasonable landowner could shut out a great many landowners from profitting from their minerals, no matter the acreage.  I have a first cousin with 20 acres that will absolutely not listen to any kind of reason, and will not sign under any circumstance, and could affect income of dozens of neighbors.  This guy did'nt even know he had anything of value under his feet two years ago, none of us did.  This country is one of a few that landowners even have possession of their mineral rights.  That is a blessing by itself.  Realizing that OG is not necessarily in the game to make landowners happy, perhaps we do indeed need some oversight on the chief.  Just trying to see the glass as half full is all.   IMHO,  Good luck to all!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on January 13, 2014 at 7:43am

MJ,

By the same token and 1st I find it even more necessary to educate landowners to recognize and not sign a deficient lease; opening the door to / inviting forced pooling / forced unitization procedures.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Grecco on January 13, 2014 at 4:10pm

I agree with all your comments Joseph, if they are going to force landowners, than there should be a fair compensation for the lease and royalty.  This law needs work and public influence.  I am pro oil and gas production in Ohio, but I want fair compensation to our mineral/land owners!!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on January 14, 2014 at 4:26am

Of course - landowners need to be fairly compensated for the natural gas, oils, and other minerals they own part and parcel of with their purchase of their land as an investment in real estate - we totally agree.

Also landowners deserve a fair marketplace, free of hoodwinking shenanigans we find very prevalent these days.

For instance, the ruse we find both annoying and insulting is the (perhaps) lucrative sounding leasehold offer that never pays the lessor. There are many flavors of that one; sign now or get passed over; sign here for five or ten years and if we sell the lease to a driller / developer / G & O E & P we'll pay you your signing bonus and when the well is developed a high percentage royalty (in this case it appears many have signed their mineral rights into a purgatory waiting for development); then there's the one similar but with landowner royalty deductions (such as real estate tax increases / severance taxes / production costs / post production costs / market enhancement costs / etc.) some (even perhaps all) of which are assigned to be paid by the landowner lessor thereby consuming a great portion or even all of the landowner's / lessor's return.

What good does it do us to sign into such ? It does no good at all if you ask me.

We as landowners have read about it all on these pages. And we've read about how many have had to go to court to clean up the messes these shenanigans / ruses have delivered. Court is an expensive ($ and time) process. In those situations I'm hoping the legal fees are paid by the offending lessees and not by the landowner lessors and that the landowner lessors are awarded meaningful compensation for going through those processes.

Also, in my opinion, it's no good for 65% of a proposed forced unitization action signed up in a deficient lease always to point their fingers at the dissenting landowners unwilling to be forced into a losing proposition. They need to realize that they might have been the ones that tripped up the process.

Also there needs to be a fair way to settle situations like that - far short of courts and penalizing dissenting landowners.

Also, we need - together - all of us - to be wise and thoughtful - and also to show everyone involved that they have greatly under estimated our wisdom.

Also, exercise extreme care in seeking assistance in these matters.  Good help has always been and still is very hard to find.

Good luck to all of us - it is truly a hostile marketplace as I see it. 

What is law now to me represents a great legalized trespass and is not fair to landowners - any and all landowners - and needs to change -all of course only in my most humble opinion as a layman landowner / prospective lessor.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Harry E. Rose on January 13, 2014 at 6:23am

J-O, I think you are right on. The laws need to protect the landowners rights as well as the leasee and other landowners. The current law does not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by patrick on January 13, 2014 at 3:11pm

I looked at a map and I don't think their property was drilled under. From what the law allows the land owner to recover compared to what the state will pay you by emanet domain . The next question is that although they were put in a drilling operation that was going to have six legs, after only the one leg  that went under Congress Lake quite some distance from their property drilling stoped . Production from the well seems not  very good. So if no future legs are drilled they will get just what they wanted except for the lease money thghey turned down.

• ▶ Reply