HB 493 has been sent by the State House of Representatives to the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee for deliberation.

Has anyone heard if / when the Committee will take it up - or have they already begun ?

I've made a few calls (just this morning and early afternoon) to inquire. I called four (4) Committee Members but wasn't able to speak to anyone and had to leave messages.

One (1) big change being discussed deals with a 750' standoff from property lines and laterals for the deep horizontal wells (unless the parcel is part of the drilling unit). Don't know what they mean by parcel either - if closer than 750' is the adjacent parcel in total then part of the drilling unit ? Or can only a portion of the parcel be included in the drilling unit ? The Bill right now doesn't elaborate. If I understood the original rule all you had to be is 500' back from property lines in deep well instances.

Anyone else have any info. ?

Here's a link to the proposed Bill:


Here's a link to a listing of the Committee Members:


I left telephone messages with State Representatives David Hall (97th House District, Ashland and Medina), the Chair; Andy Thompson (93rd House District, Guernsey, Monroe, Noble, Washington, Muskingum) the Vice Chair; Teresa Fedor 52nd House District, Toledo) Sponsor and Ranking Minority Member; and Casey Kozlowski (99th House District, Ashtabula, Northern Trumbull).

Views: 2535

Replies to This Discussion

Rep. Mark Okey seems a day late and a dollar short.  Why didn't he have these concerns two years ago before the lobbyists started having a field day with our elected officials?

I guess nobody realized Columbia Gas' leases were so crappy.  Afterall, they are owned by NiSource which won an award for being one of the most ethical companies.  So I guess NiSource gets awarded for ripping off farmers and families.  They want to give property owners just $200 per year in return for all their GAS.   

For years 500' from a property line to a well has been deemed fair and adequate protection.

That would mean 1000' between wells (and now horizontals in cases of lateral bores).

That to me means that if I have a well or a lateral 500' from my property line the adjacent property is not included in calculating royalty splits unless it is within the pooled unit. Same holds true for any well or lateral on the adjacent property as long as it is 500' distant from the property line.

Seems to me that the proposed 750' distance from property lines to wells / laterals includes lands within to be included in royalty split calculations that otherwise would not be included.

Another question that remains in my mind would be if the entire adjacent acreage would be included or only the lands within the 750' ? The Bill as presented is unclear on that detail.

In other words, 500' distance provides more protection from royalties being split than 750' does.

I see the biggest negative here as being an effort to further diminish royalty payments to those near the well / horizontal lateral.

Don't think we should stand for it.

Write your State Senator / State Representative.

No to 750'.

Maintain 500'.

It would just be the land within the 750' they are not going to give me royalties for my 500 acres if only 50 are in the 750'. I would just get them for the 50 acres and i belive it is just a percentage at that.

Well, I think the same however, I don't know since the Bill language doesn't specifically address the point.

I see alot of ways to interpret things available due to ambiguity.

Maybe 'a connected' guy gets all of his land considered at the expense of the landowner (perhaps even a smaller acreage landowner) putting up with the well and all it's traffic and hazards.

Don't know.

Anyway like I wrote above - 500' served everyone else since the beginning and served them well without these new worries and complications - I vote no to 750' - maintain the 500' rule.

Write your Representatives and Senators - ambiguity leaves many doors open.

The more fractions of your fraction that are given away the worse off you are - everyone's out there trying to reach into the landowner's pocket - stay alert - landowner beware - there's enough monkey business going on under the existing rules - all the new rules do is take more time to argue about / legislate and in the end it all comes out of the landowner's pocket - since that's where the resource is in the 1st place.

I have been waiting to see if anyone else would take exception to the very first provision of this bill that states that the surface location of a new well drilled using directional drilling may be located on a parcel of land that is not in the drilling unit of the well. Who would this benefit? I am especially concerned for those of us with land adjacent to state parks where the plan is to drill under the state property from adjoining parcels rather than placing the pads in the parks. What am I missing here?

Anyone have anything to add / news these days ?

I've not heard or read anything beyond HB 493 being sent to Committee.

Found a little more.

Use this link:


Regarding HB 493: the 750 foot setback and 1280 drilling unit size to me translates as landowner punitive.

My opinions have not changed since I first read about this Bill.


© 2021   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service