Hoping we don't see a lot of Forced Pooling Applications to the ODNR to pool lands / landowners into substandard tailgate leases. That's always been of serious concern to me - and don't know why it doesn't seem so to everyone else.

That's why I think Ohio needs to either revise force pooling rules to provide a modern land / landowner cognizant Leasehold with a minimum $3,000 / acre sign on bonus / paid up front delay rental and at least a 12.5% guaranteed royalty - or repeal force pooling / force unitization laws / rules altogether.

Something like that would need to be applied to all Ohio forced pooling / forced unitization applications for any long horizontal bore in any strata / for all pooled acreage amounts - HBP or whatever.

All as it always is, only IMHO.

Views: 543

Replies to This Discussion

This would not be good for anyone but even more terrible for those that spent money to clear out old leases.

How would one go about preventing forced pooling? Seems like it would be just about impossible with all the HBP property in Ashtabula preventing connecting properties to negotiate a good lease.

I think your fear may become an unfortunate reality for many of us landowners if things ever start to develop here. I'm with you, if there's anyway to prevent being taken advantage of sure would like to see it.

The rules are the rules and the law is the law.

Only way to change it is via legislation.

Need to petition our State legislators for redress if we want change.

That's all I got.

I would sign such a petition to protect our interests.
I think we need a petition circulated amongst us that would describe our complaints and remedies.

We need to establish a knowledgeable committee who would draft a petition to circulate among our numbers for signature and then present same to our legislators for their action.

Ideally a legislator landowner sharing our concerns would chair our committee.




Kindly take the above link to another discussion on this subject to see how a couple of other folks are thinking.


Kindly take the new link above as old link failed.

Quite a few views but no volunteers yet.

Where are you Chairperson ? ?

Maybe a Legislator Landowner to Chair the Committee would be viewed by his 'fellows' as having a conflict of interests.

Maybe we could ask Mr. Keith Mauck to chair the committee for us and for him to develop a petition based on member concerns and which we could become signatory to on-line and which he would forward to our Ohio Legislators ?

What do you say Mr. Mauck ? Is something like that possible ?

I'm still looking for more 'like minded' members to reply.

Does the membership think it's a good idea to petition our legislators for changes to the forced pooling / forced unitization rules or not ?

Haven't seen such a petition to date myself. Has anyone seen such ?

Thanks to Member Mike Murphy (on a different page and similar discussion) I am now aware that GMS can't / won't draft and circulate such among it's membership but has anyone else or perhaps some landowner group (in the Utica Ohio's northern tier preferably) done it yet I wonder ?

Gave it a little more thought and came up with the following ideas (for what they may or may not be worth) :

A 5 year 'Initial Term' Lease @ 5k per Leased Acre (Sign On Bonus / Delay Rental) with a Minimum 3k per Leased Acre 'Paid Up Front' ; with no well developed or if well developed but 'Shut-In', could work something like as follows :

A) Upfront = 3k per Leased acre
With remaining Balance of 5k per Leased Acre paid over the 60 month Primary / Initial Term

B) The Principal and remaining Balance would be calculated as follows :

(Leased Acres x 5k per Leased Acre) - (Leased Acres x 3k per Leased Acre)

C) Remainder of Sign On Bonus / Delay Rental paid in Monthly Installments first calculated on the basis of no well developed as follows :

(Leased Acres x 5k per Leased Acre) - (Leased Acres x 3k per Leased Acre) / 60

If a well is developed during the 'Initial Term' or any subsequent 'Renewed Term' and production is established but is being 'Throttled' / 'Choked Back' ; the principal is recalculated @4k per leased acre (and the 3k per leased acre paid up front considered). In that event the newly calculated monthly installment payment would be reduced, or may be paid in full, or may be exceeded by virtue of only Throttled Production royalty.

Under the circumstances that the minimum 3k per Leased Acre has been paid, and a well is developed, and production is being Throttled, and if the royalty paid to the landowner exceeds the monthly installment payment calculated at the well's Throttled condition; the well would be considered as running at Full Throttle / Full Capacity and any remaining initial signing bonus / initial delay rental payment would be waived / re-calculated at 0k per Leased Acre. But, if the royalty paid to the landowner does not exceed the calculated monthly Throttled Condition installment payment, the difference would be added to the monthly royalty payment.

The same format could be applied to any $ per Leased Acre figure negotiated / agreed to.

A little complicated; but, I think indicative of a lessor's motivation and their desire to co-operate with an equally motivated / cooperative lessee.


Take the link to another group's discussion of the same name and see what a few other folks think.


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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service