Appears to be about as active as SWEPI.

Views: 713

Replies to This Discussion

 glad to have this back.  Hope this gets back like it was and things get moving in the gas around here.

There's not much to discuss. My situation is no different (as far as I know) than it's been for years...leased, but not in a unit.

Also, I still haven't figured out how to use this site. No matter how I sort the discussions ("Newest discussions", "Latest activity") I DON'T get the recent discussions I was looking for, but I get discussions when the most recent reply was 2 years ago, with newer discussions randomly mixed in..screen after screen of them, and.they don't seem to be in any particular order..If I'm looking for something in particular, I have to scroll through years of discussions.  I generally give up without finding it. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I don't have problems like this with any other site, so I don't think it's me.

I'm also totally confused about the site vs. the site. All too confusing to me.

Now the darn thing is working.  Anyway, hello all.  How many of you out there got dinged acreage from the state for creek bottoms etc?

I'll start a new discussion about it in a bit.  Pa state is claiming ownership of mineral rights and thus the associated royalties for stream beds on peoples' land.  We are not just talking major rivers, but even tiny creeks.  This sounds like the workings of a class action suite.

This goes back to

This goes back to 2010, when Chesapeake leased 1,500 acres beneath the Susquehanna waterway bed in Bradford Cty.  The DCNR designates what is "navigable" and issues the leases. 

I just finished a phone conversation with a landowner friend  of mine along Crooked Creek that was very interesting.  He did loose lease rights on the stream bed of Crooked Creek on land that he owns.  This corresponds to the maps which you have so kindly provided.  His real estate taxes acreage has not been adjusted for this loss.  Additionally, he has lost acreage for creek bottom under a very tiny stream - more of a ditch really- that flows into Crooked Creek.  This ditch only has water in it a week or two out of the entire year.  This ditch does not appear on your maps.  his taxable acreage has not been adjusted down for the ditch either.  It seems to me the maps are inaccurate.   It seems to me there likely is a Bunch of people in the same situation as this landowner, and a Bunch of people about to be in the same situation.  Can you people with better research skills discover why the maps do not show all streams concerned?  Can we start a volunteer data base or rouster of people who have lost leasable acreage due to stream beds and how much acreage is involved?   If the numbers are big enough, perhaps a law firm will find pursuing a class action suite worth while.  

The important distinction here is "between the low water marks".

Looking at the SWEPI/Marsh Creek lease agreement from this list, the calculated average width of Marsh Creek where it flows through Delmar and adjoining townships is approx.18.944 ft.. I have driven by there many times, and that creek bed appears to be wider than that in many places.

Not saying this is fair, just thinking it could be a lot worse.

Begs the question; have the gascos been required to pay twice for the same acreage that was previously private ownership leased, before this came about?

My understanding is that if a person owns 100 acres with a creek running through it and the state lays claim to it, the state gets all royalties for that creek bottom (At 20% with no deductions) and the land owner still pays taxes on it.  the land owner no longer receives royalties for that creek bottom.


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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service