Senate Bill 445 needs our support! WE CAN GET OUR VOICES HEARD!

Are you a landowner who has paid the property taxes yearly, maintained the land, and supported the community in which the land lies only to find you own but a portion, or worse, none, of the sub-surface mineral rights?  Are the sub-surface reservations a 100 years old or more?  Do you consider this an outrage that heirs of an a party who owned YOUR land over 100 years ago can rob YOUR heirs and YOU of the full compensation due you for leasing your lands?  Do you know friends or neighbors who are in this unhappy situation?  I am sure you do as mineral rights reservations of 50-100% are frightfully common in Pennsylvania.

 

If so, please contact your senator asking them to support Senate Bill 445 that Senator Yaw of Bradford County is trying to get to the floor for a vote.  Please see his website where SB 445 is explained.  BTW, his is a terrific, information packed site, one of the best I have ever seen by a government official.  I urge you to explore it and to shoot him an email thanking him for his efforts on our behalf.

http://senatorgeneyaw.com/legislation.htm

 

In addition to supporting Senator Yaw we need to contact our respective state senators to ask that they support SB 445.  I have contacted my senator down here in Dauphin County and have emailed several landowners from my area asking them to do the same.  This is important for the state as well because much of the state forest and game lands have their mineral rights reserved by a family of lumber barons from a 100 years ago.  These heirs own mineral rights to 27,000 acres of Pa land.  A hundred years ago their forefathers stripped and raped the forests of its lumber and now they want to continue the practice beneath our feet!  Many land owners in Clinton Co. have zero sub-surface ownership rights and have O & G goons climbing all over their land without any compensation, or I might add PERMISSION, to the landowner who pays the property taxes and maintains that land!  Can you imagine how violated and helpless they must feel?

 

Here is a link where you can easily locate your State Senator:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/findyourlegislator/i...

 

PLEASE, I URGE YOU TO INFORM AS MANY AS YOU CAN OF THIS BILL AND REQUEST THEY CONTACT THEIR RESPECTIVE STATE SENATORS.  WE CAN GET OUR VOICES HEARD!

 

 

 

Views: 5404

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

0l1a6laz7smpfPermalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on December 5, 2011 at 6:15pm

thanks Ireland...so glad you did contact him and really getting a call back so soon, amazing. And that is good news about held by production...but I wonder if that would be precedent for those leases already in existance who have clauses that cause a lease extension if only a few acres are in a unit but no well on the leased property?...will follow up to learn more about that.

I still think that the bill isn't clear enough...you can tell that by the comments on this discussion thread.

So do you feel good about SB445 the way it is worded after speaking with Sen. Yaw's office?

btw...I own the surface and subsurface rights on my land..so that bill doesn't affect me..but if I consider selling my royalty interests or shares of the mineral rights then certainly I needed to get this info which I have learned today by discussing this with you and others here...hope all have learned more.  

0l1a6laz7smpfPermalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on December 5, 2011 at 6:38pm

And the bill btw is NOT worded for exclusively for companies 'out of business'...or for just coal contracts...he mentions it is needed to develop for natural gas.

Ultimately, this abandonment is an obstacle for the current landowner who would like to use their property for the development of natural gas.  (what does that speak to you if it is for defining minerals in a county that lists gas and oil as not minerals but the term and words are used loosely?)  it was Mark's posting at the below link of a discussion about abandoning mineral rights that mentioned about coal companies out of business...but that isn't considered a natural gas product.

http://gomarcellusshale.com/forum/topics/abandoning-mineral-rights?...

Laurel, do you still think that this bill is ready to pass after reading the discussion you started? do you also think it needs re-worded, fine tuned? and surely thanks for starting the discussion.

 

Permalink Reply by Laurel on December 6, 2011 at 2:23am

VG,

I never said the bill is ready to pass.  It is my hope it will reach the floor to be voted upon.  I was in a meeting with the Secretary General yesterday.  He has access to Corbett and is going to discuss a few issues I have raised regarding surface owners who had their subsurface rights reserved decades ago.  These landowners have cared for the land and should have their subsurface rights restored to them.  Many are poor living in lowly homes that could be termed "shacks."  He has promised to address this with Corbett and to call Senator Yaw to further discuss his bill and what it should include.

You have not heard from owners who do not have all or any of their subsurface rights, but there are hundreds of them out there.  With the animus expressed so vociferously by a few they have chosen to remain silent, but that does not mean they are not out there and being harmed by having had their subsurface rights taken away from their properties back in the 1800s.

 

Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on December 6, 2011 at 9:51am

RE: "had their subsurface rights taken away from their properties back in the 1800s"

How were their subsurface rights taken away?

Were they taken away at gun point, or was a knife used in this nefarious crime?

Gosh, I thought that the subsurface rights were legally separated from the surface rights; often with some sort of remuneration.  Or, the legal owner of the surface and subsurface chose to sell only the surface while retaining the subsurface (for them and their heirs or assignee); while the purchaser of the surface chose to purchase the surface knowing that the subsurface would belong to someone else.

Could you please explain as to how the subsurface rights were "taken away"?

Was there some form of coercion?

I thought that what took place were: two parties, each acting as adults and each acting in what they thought were their best interests.

Comrade, was this a case of the filthy bourgeoisie taking advantage of the ignorant proletariat?

RE: "These landowners have cared for the land and should have their subsurface rights restored to them."

You have stated your belief that if someone was a good shepherd of the surface land, they should be able to confiscate the subsurface rights from their current legal owner.

Do you believe that when a surface owner does not take good care of the surface land (lives in a "shack: surrounded by junked cars) that the owner of the subsurface should be able to confiscate the surface from their legal owner - that the owner of the subsurface should have their surface rights restored to them? If not, why not?

How would you have the courts decide which people "cared for the land" and which people did not care for the land?

I guess while some people spend their time reading Das Kapital and Chairman Mao's Little Red Book, there are others of us who read the Magna Carta, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

It is amazing that there are so many people who are jealous of what other people have, and think that they should have the right to take it away from them.

 

JS

 

 

 

Permalink Reply by Little Cougar on December 6, 2011 at 10:30am

Whew...maybe you should run for our next president!!!  Well said...right on the money, honey...give it to them.  You are so right about that  "caring for the land" statement.  This is nothing more then a bill based on greed...a legal way to get something back that they legally agreed to when they purchased the land.  And now that it might have more value then a place to grow a crop or herd a cow, they want the Mineral Rights back for nothing.  You can write my memoirs, Jack Straw...magnificantly expressed!!!!

Permalink Reply by Ireland on December 6, 2011 at 1:19am

the senators office did tell me that they didnt think the bill was going to go anywhere because it didnt have enough support. I did say to them that nowhere in the bill does it state out of business companies.

they also said about if only a few of your acres are in a unit that those and only those would be held. So if you have 100 acres and 20 are in a unit then the other 80 would have to be renewed, but they did say it o&g companies would just include all the acres in the unit to get around that.

Permalink Reply by Michael Omerzo on December 6, 2011 at 11:02am

Very well said Jack.  We can only say we do support this bill 445 over and over and hope it goes no where.

Permalink Reply by Michael Omerzo on December 6, 2011 at 2:17pm

 We do not support this bill 445

0l1a6laz7smpfPermalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on December 6, 2011 at 2:13pm

Laurel, in your comment,

 "He has access to Corbett and is going to discuss a few issues I have raised regarding surface owners who had their subsurface rights reserved decades ago"

see in this sentence you are referring to LEASED property where you say 'subsurface rights reserved'.

Reserved is leased not sold or given as sold....so this bill doesn't fully identify 'LEased'... The bill should have no precedence over anyone having a bonafide 'mineral lease inc. gas/oil'.  It should only pertain to leases made that have been inactive or the lease holder cannot be found.

I heard back from the Senator's office yet it looks to me like a form letter so I am not sure if the Senator even read my comments on his website....I sent him the link to this forum discussion.

here is the email corresp. I received today.

Thank you for your email on Senate Bill 445, legislation that I have introduced earlier this year.

As you know, Senate Bill 445 would deem gas and mineral rights in real property abandoned after a period of 21 years of nonuse of the rights by a subsurface owner.  The 21 year period is similar to current Pennsylvania abandonment law relating to adverse possession.  Surface owners would then have a right to record a claim of interest in the subsurface rights with the county Recorder of Deeds.

The goal of this legislation was to streamline the process for surface owners to gain access to the subsurface rights in the event that no party lays claim to the subsurface rights. 


Most recently, I have also introduced Senate Bill 1324.  This legislation, having been referred to the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, would create a statutory rebuttable presumption in favor of a surface owner if subsurface rights are not exercised after a period of 50 years.  I chose the Action to Quiet Law as a vehicle because it has extensive requirements to give notice to any potential owner in the chain of title.  Even then, if no one can be found there is a requirement to advertise in a public newspaper. Therefore, there is ample opportunity for a purported owner to come forward and protect their interest.

There appears to be wide-range support for this legislation and I am hopeful that this legislation will be considered by the Committee in the near future.

Once again, thank you for alerting me to your views with this legislation.  Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have additional questions or concerns.

 

You see where he does not discern by what he means by 'subsurface rights'?  The terminology needs to be identified as whether he is including both mineral leases and mineral deeds (and I am speaking of gas/oil), or speaking just about the leases.   This is important as like Ireland said above in another post that he received the subsurface rights by withholding them from the land sale..he became a mineral deed owner (not a lease)....and he should not have to concern himself of ever losing his mineral deed right for it is property...or is the Senator introducing a bill that would reclaim even property held by mineral deed?  If so then he is introducing a bill that a mineral DEED owner could possibly sue the county if the county took their property away from them not complying with SB445 terms.

 

0l1a6laz7smpfPermalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on December 6, 2011 at 2:36pm

do you all realize that this situation that the Senator is trying to overcome with SB445 that in our present leases with these oil companies ...they are 'assigning' them to whomever all over the planet earth...and some of these countries may not want to drill for NG or oil as they may sit on the lease.   This is a problem that needs a watchdog to oversee the 'assigns' that is being done in private (not recorded with prices/terms in public records...just your lease with them) cause they are selling out America's resources on paper.   You think the surface owners are upset with old leases and not knowing who owns them...what are landowners going to do with they don't even speak the same language as the Asian or Indian that bought their lease (remember it is a lease not mineral rights thru a mineral deed).

I have posted this before ...pls take the time and read the post of the discussion if nothing else.

http://gomarcellusshale.com/forum/topics/assigns-clause-and-a-global

0l1a6laz7smpfPermalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on December 8, 2011 at 8:22am

and a thankfulness to you Dennis...this is what I have been trying to say...even as far as sending an email to Senator Yaw and receiving a form letter back.    They should not present the bill as worded if the people think that it is only for old LEASES (leases are like renting...not a deed of sale).   For the bill is catering to subsurface ownership which is not leasing.

My legislation would deem mineral rights in real property abandoned after a period of 21 years of nonuse of the mineral rights by a subsurface owner

 

You see that the SB445 is referring to the present law in Pa regarding adverse interest in receiving property if it meants criteria for using property owned by another.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090208224037AAECdHE

http://www.gregartim.com/adversepossession.htm

In using that in the SB445 then the state of Pa is actually stating that there is a way to revert the ownership of mineral deed back to the present owner of the surface land at the end of 21 years if they meet the criteria to do such...what is really the criteria?

0l1a6laz7smpfPermalink Reply by 0l1a6laz7smpf on December 12, 2011 at 8:28am

Laurel...take a look at this statement (6 paragraphs down) of the Ohio law regarding mineral rights of ownership, they use 20 years for abandoned with other criteria listed.  The Senator in Pa. would do well to read their law before presenting his bill as is.

http://w***********/Article.aspx?ID=128

 

by the way that is an excellent piece of info at that link.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service