Pro-Marcellus Candidates: Who Loss & Who Won??
PA House - "State Rep. Dave Reed, chairman of the House Republican election committee, had a big smile on his face Tuesday night. And why not? His party had just won at least 110 of the 203 seats in the state House and regained control of the chamber for the first time since 2006."We're thrilled,'' said Mr. Reed, R-Indiana, adding the GOP could end up with as many as 114 seats "depending on absentee ballots and recounts."
Views: 492
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on
-
Very true. And the Republican victories were not restricted only to the PA House. It was a sweep.
It is impossible to ignore what this could mean for landowners, given the gobs of money the gas industry contributed to Republican candidates. Never forget:
PA has the finest legislature money can buy.
-
Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on
-
It seems to me, that the mineral owner, for better or worse, usually better, is a partner with the gas industry. It also seems that a low severence tax benefits the mineral owner, common sense regulations benefit the landowner. Don't we want them to stay in the state and explore and develop the play. If you don't think they will leave, look no further than NY. In heavily republican states the royalty owner and the industry have co-existed quite well. No reason why this can't occur in PA as well.
And re money, no doubt, there's a lot of money flowing on both sides.
-
Permalink Reply by Bill From PA on
-
A quick Google of the Texas model shows the following:
The baseline Texas severance tax on oil and gas is:
•Gas severance tax = 7.5% of market value of gas produced and saved
•Oil severance tax = 4.6% of market value of oil produced
•Condensate tax = 4.6% of market value
I'm sure there are exceptions, and this may not be the whole story, but aren't we in Pa looking at 1.5%? What's wrong with us following the lead of a conservative, Red State, redneck, TeaBaggy sort of place? The resources belong to all of us, 20% of what's under my feet in Sullivan county are mine, what's under State Forest and Gamelands, etc., are public property. A fair tax, based on the conservative Texas model, would solve a lot of Pa budget issues to the benefit of all Pennsylvanians, who, individually or collectively, own the resources in the first place. If the above, Texas, rates didn't drive the oil/gas men out of there, something similar won't be a hinderance to Pa development, and I want them to develop MY lease to pay ME. I'm not in the habit of suggesting actions that harm me and mine.
-
Permalink Reply by Ken Podlaszewski on
-
I agree with Mike.
As for:
"A fair tax, based on the conservative Texas model, would solve a lot of Pa budget issues to the benefit of all Pennsylvanians",
That's just another case of perpetuating our budget problem by seeing another source of $$ and simply grabbing it with a new tax to "fix" the state's overspending problem rather than addressing the actual problem. Too many politicians in PA and elsewhere have practiced this for far too long. Instead of getting their fiscal house in order they just continue to look for yet another source of tax revenues they can tap with a new tax.
And for those of you who think this is okay as long as they are taxing those nasty "big corporations" like the gas companies and not taxing "us", I have news for you; every tax gets passed down and ends up getting paid by us, the end consumer - that's if the taxed company can still find consumers to buy their products or services at the necessarily inflated prices.
If a severance tax is placed on gas in PA, the bonus offers and royalties paid to us will go down proportionally and the prices for gas will go up for the end consumers. If taxes and regulations drive the costs up too much, the drilling and gas companies will simply move to where it makes better business sense to do their business.
Promoting the gas industry here in PA rather than taxing it will have more benefit for the state budget. It will bring huge sums of additional money into the state, every penny of which already has taxes taken out of it that go to the state - many directly into the localities where it is most needed. In my opinion, that would help address the "budget issues" more than a severence tax. But "solving" the budget issues will take a change in philosophy to get spending habits aligned with revenues as opposed to the current philosophy of "getting revenues aligned with [bad] spending habits".
-
Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on
-
You also have to look at the overall tax burden - of which PA's is high. Texas' overall tax burden is small with no state income tax-minerals in part making that possible. Louisiana's severence tax ranges but is in the 4% range. Also, can't forget the mineral owner is going to pay their share of the severence tax, mineral owners aren't exempt.
Mike is correct the last PA Senate proposal was 10%. I don't see a 1.5% tax scaring anybody away. The question - how much burden can a company take on. You add overly burdensome regulations + generally high taxes + a high severence tax and I think you are chasing the industry out of the state
-
Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on
-
This matter goes far beyond mere tax . . . regardless nature. This is about bought-and-paid-for political power. Read the Inquirer article which is highlighted (left side) of this website. The gas companies are now solidly in the driver's seat. Period.
It's not all bad. Any shut down of drilling like in NY, for example, would be in PA an unmitigated disaster. And there are fruit cakes here in PA who would like nothing better. We can thank God there are fewer of them here, percentage wise, than in NY. And in addition, the election outcome will mitigate against any possible shut down of drilling. That is, straight up, a very good thing. [Not that we don't still have to be concerned about the Federal EPA. Jeopardy remains there.]
But on the other side, the gas companies will now rule the roost. And their best interests do not always perfectly coincide with those of landowners. I'm just happy, and relieved, to be leased. With increased political power and influence now flowing to the gas companies, this is no time to be unleased. This is a Commonwealth, a country really, controlled by politics. It can be tough to be on the outside.
-
Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on
-
Mike:
An interesting take. Please fill out your thinking process. Are you thinking the gas companies have been holding back here in PA?
I don't see the previous (actually technically still the present) administration as having been that unfriendly to drilling . . . . not to where gas companies held back out of fear or concern . . . not like in NY. PA has not been NY.
I don't have a view of the entire state; only just know what is happening around where I live in NEPA. There has been no holding back here, I can report that. Far, far from it; the opposite actually.
And I don't see unleased landowners gaining leverage from the election outcome. Instead I see the gas companies using their enhanced political clout to influence passage of laws which force the unleased to surrender on gas company terms. They didn't contribute all that money without expectation of payback.
I hope everyone reads that Inquirer article. It is an eye opener.
For landowners already leased, OTOH, there is much happening about which to be pleased. I think we might just have fallen into the butter tub.
-
Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on
-
Mike I have to agree with much of what you wrote. I think we agree strongly that what's happening in NY is bull..., uh, I mean it is wrong and bad. It never has been my take that we in PA are that nuts, not even our Democrats. But I don't have millions and millions of investment dollars on the line, either. If I had big bucks at stake, like the gas companies, I would likely be more cautious.
I gotta be honest, though. I don't believe having Republicans so solidly in control is necessarily as good for gas as some might think. It's about politics and here is my take:
With Democrats having a seat at the table, but still not stopping drilling, the crazies were somewhat hog tied. I recall at least a couple of times when Governor Rendell confronted protesters nose to nose. I recall even Hanger having given the fringe elements what for. It was fun for me to witness the crazies being confronted by their own Democrat Party champions. I mean, where else are they going to turn!
Going forward things will be different. The anti-gas wackos will be emboldened when it is the (for them) hated Republicans in charge and their sights. There will be no confusion for them about who is the enemy. The Republicans are their traditional enemy.
Let me be clear. I still don't believe there are enough (NY style) crazies here in PA to rule the day and hurt us. Am only saying their future attacks will likely be less restrained than in the past.
And finally, don't ignore the (Federal) EPA and the damage they can inflict . . although after Tuesday we are probably in somewhat better shape considering the changes coming in the United States House of Representatives. As a leased landowner, and with drilling happening all around me and beneath a portion of my land (so far), I sure don't want drilling shut down. That would hurt all of us. -
-
Permalink Reply by Rob Thompson on
-
As one of the "unleased", can you tell me why it is not a good time? We have been trying to solicit a lease on our property since June...we started by getting tons of run-around and lower lease offers, now, they are offering us pathetically little per acre and we cant even consider leasing to them for the current price of $500.
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Foresman on
-
Why use the word TeaBaggy? It suggests that you're a libtard.
The resources that belong to all of us (under state lands) will generate income for all of us as they are leased from the state and a royalty will be paid to the state. The state does not own the minerals under my property. I don't make any claim to the minerals under your property. I pay taxes to the state on the property I bought with money I was able to save after working hard and paying my state income tax. Texas has its own tax structure and that is not my problem. I don't understand why people are willing to allow the govt to claim any more than it already has. Feel free to make donations to whoever you want to with the money you receive from your minerals. Don't simply allow the state to claim something that doesn't belong to them.
-
Permalink Reply by David on
-
not all Game Lands some of that property mineral rights still belong to the original landowner
-
Permalink Reply by L. S. Reeger on
-
Having read this discussion, it seems everyone is more concerned with the severance tax which is dead (for this year) from what I've read in our papers.
I was pleased our current House Representative Jeff Pyle was re-elected since he supports both the problems associated with drilling; but also, the drilling industry. He feels it's important to work with the drillers since it'll bring work and increased revenues to our area.
I do not personally think there's an association between gas companies and land owners in our area within the natural gas industry. My experience with shallow well drillers is similiar to all our experiences with politicians. THEY LIE. I've lived through the shallow drilling; and, I do support drilling; but, our PA DEP needs lots of improvement considering what happened on our farm with the shallow wells. Let's say -- DEP favors industry versus property owner.
I personally can't see this being any better; since there's so much more at stake with the money involved for well site construction and drilling.
I believe as a land owner care needs to be taken and professional advice needs to be obtained. I know, if our shallow well driller doesn't actually own our deep rights that's the way I'll go if approached.
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2025 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
