To Lease or Not to Lease: Has Anyone NOT signed a lease? I'd like to hear why you didn't

My wife and I are part of a landowners group that is in the process of having their Range Resources contract reviewed by attorneys.  We only have 3.2 acres and have not decided whether we are actually going to sign a lease.  I am curious to hear from people who started to go through the process and then at some point decided against it.  I'd like to hear your reasons.  FYI - I'm not posting this so I can attack people's decisions.  I am genuinely interested in hearing from people who decided not to sign a lease.  

 

Thanks in advance!

Views: 16400

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Chris Moore on September 30, 2011 at 1:47am

Jonathan,

I am a landowner in Ohio and have decided not to sign a lease. I have friends in PA and in Texas whose land, water and air has been destroyed by the hydrolic fracking process. In my own community we are wrestling with the notion of signing leases and at first I thought I had no way out, but you do. There are many communities across the US taking a stand and asserting their rights.  The list can be found here http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/fracking/fracking-action-cen... .
In addition, you can find the resolutions for each individual town. Many like you feel if you don't sign then you wil be forced into it, but we do have a choice to make the decision as to whether we allow it in our towns or not. 
Best of luck.

Permalink Reply by sspoon on September 30, 2011 at 8:10am

i havent because i just dont know what i should do to sign or not to sign? is the amount going up? if i "snooze" will i lose? will it mess up my water? destroy my property? am i being tricked? i just dont know thats why i am trying to learn as much as i can and thanks to this sight, i am not totally ignorant to whats going on around me

 

Permalink Reply by craig on September 30, 2011 at 9:49am

You should do what you and only you decide...you will have to live with what you sign. How many acres?

The straight up truth:

The signing bonus will probably go up, depending where you are and what their current offer is. On the flip side, if you wait and get more of a signing bonus, then you most likely will wait to be drilled as well. Remember the real $$'s don't start coming in until they start marketing actual production. The signing bonus is peanuts compared to the royalties.

If you snooze, you may lose out, especially if you have a smaller parcel. They can drill around you if they want to. Then again, if you have lots of acres they will want it eventually. Again they have and will drill around folks.

The odds are very very high that your water well will be just fine, don't let the scare mongers put fear in your heart. Fear is a decison makers worst nightmare.....because when one makes a decision based solely on fear it is most likely the wrong decision. I've seen it too many times!

A well site on your property will take away the use of around 4-6 acres, plus the access road. It will be used for decades to come they say. They will probably drill one lateral(horizontal)  and come back some time later and drill more laterals....possibly over years to come. So yes it will impact you if a well is located on your property. If you have a smaller parcel the chances of having a well on your property is nil. You can also try to add an addendum that prohibits any surface usage, ie drill site, storage, access roads, etc. You should also consider the pipeline situation. 

The landmen and the drillers can and have used tactics to mislead you. Read and understand everything...that usually means a good gas lawyer.

Hope this helps.

Permalink Reply by Barbara on September 30, 2011 at 12:11pm

as , indeed, decisions based upon blind acceptance due to monetary rewards to come lead people to make poor decisions. 

a person who questions when facts are not presented and/or incidents happen...accidental or due to avoiding 'rules' already in place, and who has heard many  contradictory tall tales from various landmen/pipeline men, and personally knows of violations and bad outcomes, is not a 'fear monger', i don't believe.  your dictionery seems handier than mine....you can check this out.

thanks

Permalink Reply by craig on September 30, 2011 at 12:47pm

 Barbara,

I am not against being informed.  You are right in wanting to know what is going on. I know I do....the problem is that you really can't listen to landmen, Bill down the street, or most folks to get the real story. The information we need is available at the state level, one just needs to look for it....and it is not something easily done. I've been studying/learning about drilling for over 5 years now and just a few months ago I found another state site that has tons of info on it. Now you ask why don't I post the link...because I did post a link months ago and what happened? Those that did go to link, didn't read any reports just mentioned the tons of violations.....hence my post above about a pony engine leaking a couple of quarts of oil on the ground....the report was categorized as an oil spill and one reader posted here and thought it was the well spilling oil. Folks just get all giddy and don't pay attention to details.

fear monger :a person who promotes a specified activity, situation, or feeling, esp. one that is undesirable or discreditable. 

When one greatly exaggerates the numbers of say 'poisoned wells' then I would call that fear mongering.

When this happens then all credibility of the poster is lost to me because I know the facts presented to be false. 

If those that truly don't want drilling for whatever reason would use real world concerns I would be more prone to listening.

I worry about surface spillage, that is one thing to worry about. However, surface spillage isn't as glorious or fearful as losing your well so the anti folks don't mention it. Seems weird to me.

I'm done with this thread, too much bickering and misinformation.

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on September 30, 2011 at 9:25am
Katherine B;  I'm still waiting for an explanation of the 9/11 comments.  Seems your fellow travellors that have invaded this site have silenced you.
Permalink Reply by paleface on September 30, 2011 at 12:29pm
 Jim L. these people must be whats left of Josh Foxs little army,they can't except he lied to them. 
Permalink Reply by Chris Moore on September 30, 2011 at 1:23pm

Paleface and Jim ,

It is these type of comments that make this thread ineffective. I think we are all trying to process as much information as possible so we can make good decisions based on facts.  Your comments illustrate a complete lack of maturity when you continue to bash others and resort to childish name calling. Personally, I am of no one's army, but rather a  concerned Mom trying to make the best decision for my children and the land we live on.
In addition and less importantly, I am a Language Arts teacher, but I would never be petty enough to correct your spelling, grammar or improper use of certain vocabulary.

 

 

Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on September 30, 2011 at 2:34pm

Sorry but when someone states that the story of 9/11 changed when reporters showed up and they don't back it up, they get called out. And their credibility drops to zero. Ace Ventura????

 

And posting misinformation or exaggerated claims has the same effect.

Permalink Reply by paleface on October 6, 2011 at 9:26am
 Jim,I think they meant Jessie Ventura he thinks the govt. was involved in the 9-11 attack.
Permalink Reply by paleface on September 30, 2011 at 4:12pm
 Chris you could be the spell checker,I'll suggest that to the administrator ?
Permalink Reply by BA on October 6, 2011 at 3:08pm
I put little value on Josh Fox's view. Their are many honest, concerned, individuals who are crusading to protect the environment from the monster that has become natural gas. Unfortunately, my understanding is that the key players backing these concerned folks, as well as some environmentalists, hold conflicts of interest, that is, they have a stake in other types of energy companies, and view natural gas as an economic threat. Many people are deriding natural gas exploration, yet overlooking the obvious damage that has been, and is being done, through coal exploration. Even if you negate deep mine water pollution of a hundred years ago, the surface disturbances alone, caused by shallow mining, are disturbing. In addition, many old deep mines are still significant sources of water pollution. Where is the media coverage and public outcry concerning this? I know of rivers that have had no aquatic life for decades due to deep mining.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service