Tell Governor Corbett to veto SB 259 and Protect Landowner's Rights

SB 259 was passed and is awaiting the governors signature.

In short is takes away the property rights of land owners in favor of expediency of forming drilling units for drilling companies.

Landowners will no longer be allowed to re-negotiate their leases , this is a violation of the protections of property rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Please take the time to e-mail the governor and ask that he veto SB 259.

governor.pa.gov towards the bottom of the page on the right is a tab for his e-mail. Plus there is a phone number.

Views: 3703

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on July 9, 2013 at 6:52am

As another has written earlier - how about no unitization clause being mentioned in the original lease ?

Then to suddenly legislate to change the lease to unitize without negotiation ?

How about a contract being a contract in that case ?

How can anyone be so selective / discriminating about what to hold sacred in a contract and what not to ?

If contract unitization terms are not mentioned in a lease then there are no unitization terms to enforce - unless newly negotiated / re-negotiated - the way we would understand such.

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on July 9, 2013 at 9:05am

I am not at all being selective. I do believe if the existing lease says no unitization without landowner's consent, that term should be enforceable. My position is entirely consistent with my post above.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on July 9, 2013 at 9:21am
A lease doesn't have to say no unitization for no unitization to be enforced.
It's entirely the opposite; it has to address unitization for unitization to be enforced.
That's the purpose of the bill / act / would-be law.
Right now it's not law but O & G want it to be and as it is now only your Governor's veto
can stop it.
That's the crux of all of the contention the way I see it.
All only IMHO.
Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on July 9, 2013 at 7:17am

Yeah, food for thought.  Food served up by the gas company cafeteria.  You call this kind of crap "food".  I call it FUD!  FUD is what you are trying to spread here.

Speaking strictly in general, there is a forced pooling argument to be made.  There are landowners completely opposed to drilling who will not lease under any circumstances.  And, yes, such individuals CAN block their neighbors' lands and disrupt drilling.

But that's the generalized forced pooling issue.  That is not what's on the table here.  Why not?:

Because in this instance we are talking about and dealing with landowners who already have leased their land for drilling.  These folks are not anti-drilling nut cases.  All these people want is to be paid fairly before their land is drilled horizontally.

But it's precisely that fair payment that is drawing fire from the gas companies . . and from people like you . . well, probably the same thing really.  There is so much gas company crapola in your post it boggles the mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a landowner website.  Take your opinions and your FUD over to a gas company website, where they belong!!!  I am sick and tired of the gas companies stealing from us . . . SICK and TIRED!!

Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on July 9, 2013 at 8:34am

Has anyne contacted Huffington Press on this issue? I know they are not the best of friends to us, but in war strange bedfellows sometimes happens. We know ne thing this bill is nothing nut a act of theft by the O&G lobbyist! Notice Energy In Deptrh has said nothing on this, hmmm !

Permalink Reply by JREwing on July 9, 2013 at 9:08am

Frank, the people you have referred to as "these folks" have already been paid fairly for their oil and gas lease.  I don't understand.  So the ~$30-$100/acre, 1/8 royalty boiler plate lease with free house gas that they signed is not fair anymore because now we're talking about a horizontal well instead of a shallow vertical well?  Why?

Fwiw, I am NOT an industry shill.  My family has an old 1/8th boilerplate lease at $30/acre that was flipped to Halcon over a year ago.  The lease we agreed to did not suddenly become "unfair" when it was flipped to Halcon for horizontal drilling.

While I completely agree that the Apportionment Section 2.1 is completely in favor of the O&G companies, it's posisible passage does not imho make all of the old 1/8 leases that were signed years ago suddenly unfair to the lessors that signed them.

It sounds to me like you hold one of these old leases and are now green with envy because of fact that your unleased peers have had the opportunity to reap large signing bonuses because they waited and didn't lease to a shallow driller.  Yes?

I am pro landowner, but I'm not going to cry "NOT FAIR!" now just because the circumstance have changed and to boot, we're likely to receive royalties some day from  monster producing horizontal wells instead of some crappy shallow wells.  No regrets.

Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on July 9, 2013 at 9:20am

Frank: I humbly suggest you see a good psychiatrist. You clearly have anger management issues and need professional help. You are free to disagree with what I said but the tone of your reply suggests that you are irrational. I am an unleased property owner and I have a degree in Economics. If you read my posts, you will find many that are critical of O&G companies, especially the flippers, who have no assets, lease properties cheaply, and flip them to real O&G companies with real assets for a lot more than the flipper agreed to pay the landowner. And of course the flipper never pays unless and until he is able to flip his leases. Obviously if a lease says it cannot be unitized without landowner's consent, then that lease provision can and should be enforceable. When a lease is silent, whether the O&G company should be able to unitize without the owners consent seems to me to be a quite different issue! 

Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on July 9, 2013 at 4:13pm

My suggestion for what I think you should do would not be offered humbly if I could offer it at all. But I cannot offer that suggestion as it would get me thrown off this forum.  Suffice it to say you are an idiot who cares not at all for your fellow landowners . . . . if indeed that's what you are.  I have serious doubts.

Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on July 9, 2013 at 9:15am

Personally Sam although I am for O&G I some how see private property owners should have the right to do what they want with the land they paid for or are paying for along with the taxes.  If a person bought say 100 acres 15 years ago for a private retreat for their family with no intention of outside sources homing in on what they sought to do with the land it's their right to say no! If not then where does this end? 

 What you did not address is that the lack of prior contract language is under this bill is now being changed to allow pooling or unitization without the landowners approval! 

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on July 9, 2013 at 9:37am
Yep.
That's one thing; but only one thing among others.
Not the least of which is the money and property value.
Also consider landowner expenses in time and money for professional
services for instance.
All wrought because O & G decide to cause the expense.
Permalink Reply by Samuel J. Orr on July 9, 2013 at 9:44am

Billy: I appreciate your position and respect it. Let me just try to clarify the issue a bit as I see it. In these O&G leases, some leases say that the landowner must consent if the acreage is to be unitized. Other leases say nothing. In the first case the landowner or his lawyer thought the clause preventing assignment without the landowners consent was necessary and in the absence of such clause, the O&G company might well include the leased property in a larger unit. That concern was why the clause requiring landowner consent was inserted. I freely concede that a legislature could PROSPECTIVELY pass a bill stating that in all new O&G leases, a landowner's consent would be required for leased acreage to be unitized. They could also pass a bill requiring that all future leases pay landowners at least 20% royalties. This would in my judgment cause many properties not to be drilled at all. It assuredly would cause O&G companies to concentrate their drilling preferentially  on acreage burdenened only by 12.5% royalities. If I lease a car in Pennsylvania and it says I can't drive it in Florida, I assume I can drive it in the other 49 states. If the lease is silent, I assume I can drive it in all 50 and I think a court would so find. It seems to me that if a landowner leases property for O&G drilling that perhaps the O&G company should be able to unitize acreage in the ABSENCE of a provision prohibiting unitization without the landowner's consent. I do believe that others can reasonably hold an opinion that is contrary to my own.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on July 9, 2013 at 9:50am
Nope.
If O & G wanted to unitize it should have been mentioned in the lease.
Blanket unitization clauses should be disallowed.
I see it as only a first step toward other even more landowner punitive abuses.
All only IMHO.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service