Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by paleface on February 15, 2016 at 7:23am

http://seekingalpha.com/news/3107416-shell-completes-takeover-bg-group

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on February 15, 2016 at 9:04am

Note: This is a reply to Paleface's post , but can't get that "Reply" to activate.

Which merger is going to get most of Shell's attention this year. They have put off their decision on the LNG facility in British Columbia on hold. And the longer they put off their decision on the ethane cracker, the more ethane pipelies are proposed/built to take ethane out of the area. I just don't see SWEPI as dominant as they were in TC. There are also Repsol (Talisman), SWN, Seneca, and Travis Peak.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on February 15, 2016 at 9:06am

Note: This is a reply to Paleface's post , but can't get that "Reply" to activate.

Which merger is going to get most of Shell's attention this year. They have put off their decision on the LNG facility in British Columbia on hold. And the longer they put off their decision on the ethane cracker, the more ethane pipelies are proposed/built to take ethane out of the area. I just don't see SWEPI as dominant as they were in TC. There are also Repsol (Talisman), SWN, Seneca, and Travis Peak.
..

Permalink Reply by paleface on February 15, 2016 at 6:56pm

http://www.wsj.com/articles/shell-acquisition-of-bg-group-to-create...

Permalink Reply by paleface on February 15, 2016 at 10:01pm

Google Shell BG Wallstreet Jornal.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on February 15, 2016 at 7:32pm

Afaik that's still correct ... that the merged company would be #1.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on February 20, 2016 at 7:34am

SWEPI O/G Leases of "Publicly-Owned Streambeds" in Tioga County
[Note:  These leases are administered by the DCNR.  In the one lease I downloaded, the term is 5 years and the royalty is $0.35/Mcf or 20% of fmv, whichever is greater.]  

M-2102010-16  Cowanesque River -  21 miles - 115 acres - January 09, 2015, $460,000.00
http://contracts.patreasury.gov/Admin/Upload/299630_Tr%202010%20SWE...

M-2102015-16  Tioga River (Covington & Richmond Townships, Mansfield Boro) - 8 miles - 39 acres -  January 09, 2015 - $156,000.00
http://contracts.patreasury.gov/Admin/Upload/299389_Tr%202015%20SWE...

M-2102013-16  Marsh Creek (Delmar, Shippen and Wellsboro Townships) - 27 miles - 62 acres - January 09, 2015 - $248,000.00
http://contracts.patreasury.gov/Admin/Upload/299295_Tr%202013%20SWE...

M-2102012-16  Elkhorn Creek (Farmington and Tioga Townships) - 6 miles - 8 acres - January 09, 2015 - $32,000.00
http://contracts.patreasury.gov/Admin/Upload/299294_Tr%202012%20SWE...

M-2102011-16  Crooked Creek (Chatham and Middlebury Townships) - 21 miles - 44 acres - January 09, 2015 - $176,000.00
http://contracts.patreasury.gov/Admin/Upload/299292_Tr%202011%20SWE...

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on February 20, 2016 at 9:18am

Travis Peak O/G Leases of "Publicly-Owned Streambeds" in Tioga County

M-2102028-16  Cowanesque River (near Westfield) -  0.77 miles - 6.1 acres -  January 04, 2016, $24,400.00
http://contracts.patreasury.gov/Admin/Upload/336963_Tr%202028_Travi...
[see aerial photo of site on p21]

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on February 20, 2016 at 10:22am

I will repeat a comment made in a much earlier discussion about the state claiming public domain over stream beds for the purposes of extracting leasing rights.  If the state claims ownership of this land, perhaps they should refund the real estate taxes paid by the families who previously thought that they owned this land, all of the way back to the beginning of when those taxes were collected, plus the costs of any maintenance  costs of bank and streambeds incurred by those families over the years, before the state may claim such ownership and offer it up for leasing.  if the initial cost of this reimbursement is too high for a one-time payment, then the state may surrender all leasing and royalty payments  until to the landowners until the debt is satisfied.  then the state may assume all ownership, responsibility, and liability for damages to he adjoining acreages for the future.  the twenty percent which the state is receiving does set a very nice benchmark and precedent for all future lease negotiations.

Permalink Reply by paleface on February 21, 2016 at 6:46am

Hi Brian,I think I read somewhere it has to be a navigable waterway.It would be informative to see the qualifications for this.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on February 21, 2016 at 8:19am

PA Fiah & Boat: "Public Rights in Pennsylvania Waters"
http://fishandboat.com/water/public/faq_public_waters.htm

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on February 21, 2016 at 9:59am

After reading your post Ann, I see two points of interest.  First, I confess to not having researched the origins of this new development, but I don't see where the courts made any new determination over what specifically is navigable water in any particular locale.  It appears that the state just declared some waters navigable on ancient historical fact or at their convenience.  Secondly, waters that were navigable with a canoe 200 years ago because mature forests retained ground water throughout the year in the watershed, are no longer even close to navigable.  I can attest to this, having taken a very small canoe from Keeneyville down to the Hammond Lake as a young, bored, and foolish man.  I carried that damn boat a whole lot of the time and it wasn't in near as good of condition when I started.  also, I contend again, if a land owner and his/her family have been paying taxes on the acreage for years as if the land were a blanket without the stream existing in its midst, then the state should reimburse them for the excess taxes conveniently paid by mistake.  After the mistake is corrected, then the state may indeed claim ownership od said stream bed.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 65
• 66
• 67
• 68
• 69
• …
• 157
• Next ›
• Page