Wide Spread Leasing About to Commence in the Northern Utica

Once the leasing begins, here are some questions:

      What will be the amount of the up front, per acre, bonus money?

      Will the companies accept landowner friendly leases ?

      What will be the royalty percentage, and the terms?

Views: 3741

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on August 26, 2014 at 9:50pm
Wondering if / how much the newer 'Forced Pooling / Forced Unitization' Rules will impact the subjects of your post / inquiries ?

As I've been wondering and have expressed concerns over for quite awhile now.

Good luck to all of us - I think we need it.
Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on August 26, 2014 at 11:55pm

There may be more actions taken by companies, but only because there will be more drilling activity.

Remember, mandatory pooling or unitization are not slam dunks for the company. They have to follow procedures which are strict. The landowner is also afforded protections.

The most important issue for a landowner is to be involved in the procedure, don't ignore it.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on August 27, 2014 at 12:05am

I think we need all the protection we can get as it seems to me we're wide open to hits.

Would like to see the ODNR Chief looking out for landowner interests and not providing carte' blanche' / rubber stamp approvals to O & G interests.

Hoping for the best and doing the best I can in way of vigilence.

I agree landowners all should be attentive and involved.

Good luck to all as I believe we need it.

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on August 27, 2014 at 12:42am

Joseph,

What makes you think that the Chief doesn't care about the interests of the landowner? Where has there been carte-blanche approvals?

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on August 27, 2014 at 1:47am

I don't know how the ODNR O & G Division Chief would / will respond to a significant  increase in 'Applications'.

That's one of the places that I think vigilence is in order.

I wrote of the negative concerns that to me are obvious but do not know how obvious those concerns are to my fellow landowners.

I don't know how many 'Applications' have been approved by the ODNR O & G Division Chief / their percentile ratio of the total - does anyone out there know ?

I did not write that I thought that the Chief doesn't care about the interests of the landowner - I encourage that he does and vigilence on behalf of landowners in their own best interests.

That is the 'spirit' of my reply put in the best terms that I can come up with.

These issues did not exist prior to the enactment of the 'Forced Pooling / Forced Unitization' G & O Rules. Now that they have been enacted - they do.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on August 27, 2014 at 2:05am

The above explains the 'spirit' of my replies.

In what 'spirit' were the newer 'Forced Pooling / Forced Unitization' O & G Rules written and enacted ?

Landowners should be made aware of that 'spirit'.

All IMHO as always.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on August 29, 2014 at 3:29am

Mark,

Wanted to explain some concerns of mine that still exist pertaining to the Ohio Forced Pooling / Forced Unitization issues that to myself and my Mrs. are troubling, and probably would trouble others in a similar set of circumstances.

First, our land (about 52 a.) is, I think, pretty much surrounded by tracts either HBP or leased under old 'Tailgate Class' 12.5% royalty leases that may or may not be escapeable. There are at least two other parcels nearby in our Township that are still unleased and those parcels are about 270 a. and 40 a. and similarly surrounded (I think).

What troubles me and my Mrs. is the possibility of being forced into a deficient (pre-Utica) leasehold agreement / drilling unit on the basis of so much land surrounding us either HBP and / or under pre-Utica 'Tailgate Class' 12.5% leaseholds.

How would our co-relative rights to bargain a better deal be honored if the Technical Advisory Council would ignore that lost right and the Chief ratifies / executes the Pool / Unit (not even to mention neighboring landowners HBP / leased under pre-Utica 'Tailgate Class 12.5% leasehold agreements).

Those are the unknowns that we find most troubling.

Thought to write this only to inform you (and other readers) of the reasons behind my posts which (I think) some folks, yourself included (I think) may believe to be too critical of the revised 'Forced Pooling' / 'Forced Unitization' rules here in Ohio.

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on August 29, 2014 at 3:47am

Joseph,

I just don't understand your concern.

Maybe it would be easier for me to understand if I ask a couple of questions.

Where has the scenario you have laid out occurred ?

Where has the TAC or Chief ignored unleased landowner rights and forced them to accept pre-Utica terms ?

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on August 29, 2014 at 3:59am

I don't know either Mark.

How could I or any other non-directly affected landowner know ?

It's simply a scenario that to me seems could occur rather easily.

That's one of the reasons I suggest we as landowners be 'vigilent'.

How many Applications have been approved and what percentage of the total Applications submitted are approved I also wonder (as I wrote earlier above) ?

Don't know how to explain the concerns more clearly myself.

Just trying to look out for the pitfalls.

Anybody else out there have a handle on the occurrence of these issues ?

Permalink Reply by Mark McGrail on August 29, 2014 at 4:34am

Joseph,

A while back I had the opportunity to speak with an official (high ranking) at the ODNR.

I posed this concern to them. Their response was that if landowners affected by such an action are engaged in the proces their concerns will be heard.

Now of course those instances where mandatory pooling or unitization have been granted could be pointed to as instances where landowner concerns were ignored.

However, from what I know, the general reason that the company request was granted was that there was no involvement of the landowner. So I stress that landowner involvement is crucial.

As far as your situation; I cannot believe that the TAC would force a landowner into a boiler plate lease. Of course I could be wrong.

Of course I could be mistaken and would like to hear from anyone who has experienced being forced into a boiler plate lease,

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on August 29, 2014 at 4:41am
Me too.
Permalink Reply by Sage59 on August 27, 2014 at 12:18am

Barry, or anyone with some insight on the headline, could you please elaborate? Is this an exercise for people to prepare for something that many of us feel will happen eventually? Or are we talking about something that may happen soon. Some news maybe? Thinking ahead about these issues would be beneficial in any case.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service