Oral Arguments: Feb.26, 2014: Ohio Supreme Court to hear Munroe Falls vs. Beck Energy; home rule regarding O&G drilling

At issue is: can local permits be bypassed by the O&G company;  Once again it is Beck Energy, just how many law suits is that company involved in?  Is Beck Energy the whipping boy or the point company to get all these murky issues resolved?

http://www.ohio.com/business/ohio-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-dril...

 

Views: 3383

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

0i7okn54zwbdoPermalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on June 21, 2013 at 3:59am

Local nitwits should not be in charge of drilling permits.  In this case Beck is on the right side (that must feel so weird for them).

Permalink Reply by Olive Sue on June 22, 2013 at 2:06am

Exactly what is the status on the Monroe Co. suit.  Still in appeals?  But where?  If he wins this case, look at what it will have cost someone and his ramrod approach goes on.  Is it true a local attorney business did his work when all these leases came about and now they are referred to as one of the best for landowners.  I suppose they look at just the legal aspects if that is true.

Permalink Reply by searcherone on June 22, 2013 at 3:56am

Grapevine says appeal goes on in 7th Court of Appeals in Youngstown;  grapevine also says same about local attorney that you have posted.      

Olive Sue, file it all under "just life in Monroe County".

0i7okn54zwbdoPermalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on June 22, 2013 at 4:00am

The Beck lease in Monroe County was void for any number of reasons.  The standard lease (which I assume is the one used in the Munroe Falls case) has not been invalidated across the board as far as I know.  They tried to pay delay rentals long outside of the contract, which they had no right to do.  If the leases in question in this case are still within the term I think it'd be hard to argue that they're invalid (unless Beck didn't pay or breached the contract some other way).  No?

0i7okn54zwbdoPermalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on June 22, 2013 at 12:57pm

KWDG is a very respected firm but that's all I know about them.  And the class action I thought was limited to those in a similar circumstance as the plaintiffs in Hupp.  If I'm remembering correctly (never a given) Beck tried to continue the lease for seven years after the term had expired by paying a delay rental, which they cannot do.  But if Beck took a lease with landowner X in 2008 for a five year term and they've paid the rentals as outlined in the lease I have a hard time seeing that being voided.  Most Ohio producers (and even the majors) use an unless lease and the ones I've read from Beck seem to be the same.  What am I missing?

0i7okn54zwbdoPermalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on June 22, 2013 at 5:06pm

Gotcha.  I've seen Beck leases that show a term, usually a 5+5, which isn't out of the ordinary.  I did not know that the Hupp lease had no term.  That's a bad deal pretty much no matter what way Beck tried to spin it.

Permalink Reply by searcherone on June 23, 2013 at 1:10am

Marcus, since you have seen 5+5 leases, seems like that implies Beck Energy and associates knew exactly what they were doing when writing the no term leases--how could that be argued any other way? 

Wonder if the no term leases only occurred in Monroe, Noble, and maybe Belmont?

 

All IMH uneducated in the law opinion.

0i7okn54zwbdoPermalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on June 23, 2013 at 4:00am

The 1+10 argument that Beck evidently made is really, really stupid.  I have no idea what would compel them to make their lease that way.  Making a zero term lease is something that even the dumbest operators don't do.  No idea why Beck couldn't just go with something more in line with the industry.  But it wound up biting them in the arse.

Permalink Reply by searcherone on June 22, 2013 at 4:02pm

Some further info on the Beck case under discussion.  Interesting point that all the judges recused themselves and others had to be appointed.    Where will a landowner ever obtain a just decision as many of those involved in the practice and decision making of the law are "silent" partners and investors in the O&G business.

http://www.bricker.com/publications-and-resources/publications-and-...

Permalink Reply by searcherone on July 16, 2013 at 12:59pm

This thread has become a blend of two different lawsuits against Beck Energy and here is recent article on the case from Monroe County--Hupp vs. Beck Energy-- involving Beck Energy selling leases to XTO.

Stated in this article is the fact that the XTO/Beck Energy agreement requires Beck Energy to defend title to the leases it sold to XTO.

Also interestingly Thomas Stewart executive vice president of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association is quoted as saying Beck Energy is in the right as he says the primary term of the lease wasn't over.   Pardon me Mr. Stewart, but isn't this case about the fact these were  NO term leases making them void from the beginning.

http://www.vindy.com/news/2013/jul/11/youngstown-court-to-hear-leas...

 

Permalink Reply by searcherone on September 8, 2013 at 1:20am

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/drilling/ohio-utica-shale-1.291290/five-o...

Another chapter in the Munroe Falls vs. Beck Energy case pending before the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Seems other Ohio cities/towns are backing Munroe Falls.

Permalink Reply by searcherone on October 14, 2013 at 3:36pm

Here is link to Ohio Supreme Court where you can view docs filed in this case as well as who all the players are:  those cities who have filed and are standing with Munroe Falls; those who are standing with Beck Energy;  and the lawyers who are representing the various parties;   last ruling in case was: Beck Energy given extension until Oct. 28 to file their merit brief regarding this matter.

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp...

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service