Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on September 21, 2014 at 2:08am

This has become a very tough slough.  The problem is owing, I believe, to concerns of WPA landowners regarding this legislation.  These concerns have actually caused resistance from some Republican legislators!!

I do not live in WPA and I do not understand the concerns of landowners there.  "Do not understand" means just that and no more.  It does not mean I disagree.   I surely wish I did understand the basis for these concerns.  It might relate somehow to old wells, but I honestly do not know.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on September 21, 2014 at 11:33am

sure it was d.o.a., it's unconstitutional.

no way you can overturn 200 plus years of contract law just so some pa. mineral owners can make more money.

wj

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on September 21, 2014 at 1:55pm

RE: " it's unconstitutional"

Did you specialize in constitutional law prior to receiving your degree in Jurisprudence?

RE: "no way you can overturn 200 plus years of contract law"

Or was your specialty in contract law?

JS

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on September 21, 2014 at 2:10pm

funny.

when I went to school jack, we had to read the constitution of the united states.

the document clearly and unambiguously prohibits the passage of laws which retroactively amend previous legal contracts.

for over 200 years, scotus has consistently held this to be a cornerstone of contract law, they ain't gonna change now just because a bunch of rich mineral owners from pa are experiencing lessors' remorse.

caveat lessor...read, understand and accept all aspects of a lease before signing, 'cause once ya sign, there's no goin' back.

wj

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on September 21, 2014 at 3:42pm

RE: "read, understand and accept all aspects of a lease before signing, 'cause once ya sign, there's no goin' back"

The crux of the matter is that it is impossible to "read, understand and accept all aspects of a lease before signing" when there is terminology within that lease for which there exists no accepted definition. HB1684 is intended to provide legal definitions for that which is currently undefined or hopelessly ambiguous. H1684 (or something similar) is needed to codify definitions that will permit lessors to "read, understand and accept all aspects of a lease"; currently the lessors and lessees each have their separate (and conflicting) understanding.

With respect to deciding constitutional matters. that is the purview of the judiciary.

My position is that HB 1684 is not a retroactive law; it simply provides a definition of what constitutes royalty; when (as was noted by the PA Supreme Court) no such definitive definition is extant. In fact, the PA Supreme Court challenged the PA legislature to provide such a legal definition (as is their purview).

Again, HB 1684 is not, in the view of many (including practicing Attorneys) a retroactive law; it is simply intended to provide a long needed definition; it alters no existing contract ... it simply provides clarification by defining the terminology (for which no legal definition currently exists).

As it is O&G Operators (absent accepted definitions) have been providing their own varying interpretations .... some more onerous than others.

If you have concerns about the legality of HB1684; the PA Supreme Court can sort that out ... not your job to preemptively (and ignorantly) comment on legality.

If you see weaknesses in the proposed law; perhaps you could lobby for amendments which you might feel appropriate.

You seem to make claims as to the constitutionality of the proposed law; with nothing more than a simple 'school boy's' understanding of the Constitution .... I took biology, but make no claims about being skilled at brain surgery. I would like to see it pass; and I am prepared to have (as appropriate) the Courts determine the Constitutionality.

If the majority of the legislature are opposed to the proposed law, as it currently stands, they can amend it and/or vote against it. It is there .... at least the legislature should be willing to take a stand 'yeah or nay". If there are valid concerns as to constitutionality ... amend it in a manner that heals that concern; while still providing the needed defining language (which the PA Supreme Court challenged the PA Legislature to provide).

All in my humble opinion; just as you have proffered nothing but an unsupported opinion (one unsupported by either specific knowledge or formal education).

I invite you to CAREFULLY read HB1684; you seem to have a very distorted opinion as to its contents.

JS

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on September 22, 2014 at 4:42pm

RE: "everyone knows it is unconstitutional"

I certainly have not been given the privilege to speak as and for "everyone".

Did I miss something in the newspaper noting where God had appointed Jesse Drang to speak for everyone?

I can unequivocally state that your comment is patently false; I can state that NOT everyone knows that HB1684 is unconstitutional, as I do not know it to be unconstitutional .... that is a determination that can only made by the judiciary. Neither of us are us are qualified to usurp their authority in such matters.

You may have an opinion as to the constitutionality of HB1684; but I (as I am sure others) reserve the right to form our own opinion.

"everyone knows it is unconstitutional" ....what hogwash!

What about HB1684 so frightens you?

JS

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on September 22, 2014 at 1:27am

jack straw said, "My position is that HB 1684 is not a retroactive law"

hb 1684 reads:

"THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO ALL EXISTING AND FUTURE LEASES AND OTHER AGREEMENTS TO REMOVE OR RECOVER OIL, NATURAL GAS OR GAS OF ANY OTHER DESIGNATION IN THIS COMMONWEALTH."

further, hb 1684 requires that no deductions may be taken which reduce royalty payments below 12.5% or 1/8, which is contrary to what many legally executed leases in pa say.

jack, that is the definition of retroactivity, therefore your position is incorrect.

jack straw also said, "If you have concerns about the legality of HB1684; the PA Supreme Court can sort that out ... not your job to preemptively (and ignorantly) comment on legality."

if by some miracle a law such as this were to be passed, the pa or federal supreme courts would certainly, "sort it out". some parts would stand, and the retroactivity would fall. the problem with that scenario would be that in the interim, deductions would be in suspense, to be collected when the ruling finally came down. that would result in many mineral owners receiving no royalty checks for months if not years while the deductions that they owe would be collected.

and as far as me commenting "preemptively and ignorantly", this is a discussion forum, not a legislature. mineral owners should try to understand how the law works instead of simply holding out irrational and emotional hopes for things which can never be had.

in other words, get real jack, you're living in a dream world. politicians cannot fix your mistakes, they can only offer you false and empty promises.

wj

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on September 22, 2014 at 4:44pm

What about HB1684 so frightens you?

JS

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on September 22, 2014 at 1:59am

and again, jack straw speaks from the heart and not the mind, "The crux of the matter is that it is impossible to "read, understand and accept all aspects of a lease before signing" when there is terminology within that lease for which there exists no accepted definition....."

absent definitions for such things under the law, a prudent prospective lessor must fall back to understanding accepted and customary business practices within the industry.

mineral owners have always born their proportionate share of post production expenses, unless their lease stated otherwise. this is nothing new since the advent of the Marcellus and Utica shales.

new laws, as in the case of the existing gmra often adopt customary practices. and as we know, the kilmer decision sealed the fate of pa mineral owners regarding post production expense deductions.

no....the time to rewrite the gmra was before folks signed their leases, not now when we are all held by the terms of those leases...essentially forever.

wj

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on September 22, 2014 at 4:44pm

What about HB1684 so frightens you?

JS

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on September 23, 2014 at 1:41am

nothing about it frightens me jack.

were such a law possible I would be in favor of it myself.

there are some aspects of the law which would survive judicial scrutiny and be beneficial to landowners. and so it wouldn't be all bad if it were passed.

but that just isn't going to happen, is it?

wj

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0ym9x5ag7ury2 on September 25, 2014 at 2:14pm

Jesse, Jack and Jim,

     What you all need in PA is a way to make the O&G company money like poison ivy, so that no public official will want to touch it.

That will remove the distraction that big money has on public officials, you know, the kind that makes them forget about the people and become concerned about what's in it for me.

Without too much time spent, each of you could make O&G money hazardous to have in your public officials bank account, even that Royalty Owner's donation, the company CHK has would be looked at closely when checking where that money came from.

After the money becomes untouchable, then the people will once again be favored above the O&G companies. Politicians have always been distracted by O&G money, take it out of the equation.

Sound impossible? You aren't thinking hard enough then.

Anyone can figure out why landowners are being left out when laws are written to protect the state, even me.

Use all your knowledge and energy to correct the situation we are all in rather than jousting with each other. One persons idea has and will continue to change the world.

No one should have to endure being stolen from in such a blatant fashion and live with it. We should each set a legal course of action to try and obtain justice for all.

Did I mention that I don't like being pick pocketed while everyone in the street is watching it happen?

Jim, I left out the part about being stolen from since no one has been convicted, YET!

• ▶ Reply