Forced Pooling (yet again)

Imo, the industry is more interested in using forced pooling legislation as an inducement to landowners to sign leases rather than to force pool land.   With force pooled land, they would not be able to hbp the remainder of a property and they would not get their laundry list of ancillary rights. 

"Natural gas industry changes tactics for forced pooling in Fort Worth
.

.. So, what's the real motivation for the MIPA [forced pooling] case?

"This will help us," Johnson [Chesapeake lawyer] said under questioning from commissioners, "to convince people that they ought to lease."

In other words, if Chesapeake can get its desired ruling from the commission and establish this case as the MIPA precedent, the company has more leverage. If people don't accept the lease terms offered by the company, Chesapeake can bring another MIPA case. Eventually, it'll be routine. ..."

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/07/14/3222593/natural-gas-industr...

.

Views: 571

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Wayne D on July 23, 2011 at 6:17am

400% risk penalty (if you did not pre pay)   would be high but  to confirm my understanding even in the 1/8   7/8  case you are receiving  100%  of the proceeds on the portion of gas you  own . ? ? ? 

Permalink Reply by Wayne D on July 23, 2011 at 6:28am
Ann, I am not sure what "hbp" stands for in your original post.  Thanks  
Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on July 23, 2011 at 8:55am

Held-by-production ... past the end of the primary term of the lease.  Ref your other question, I don't know what operating costs would be deducted from either the 1/8 royalty or the 7/8 share. 

 

Here is the Unleased Mineral Owner  group at gohaynesvilleshale. 

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/group/unleasedmineralinterests

Lots of landowner experiences with being force pooled (or not). 

Permalink Reply by paleface on July 25, 2011 at 1:37am
 This is all speculation we haven't seen any of the details of a forced pooling bill for PA. I think this will be a hot issue alot of debate they might even drop it?
Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on July 25, 2011 at 2:45am
Landowners' experiences with forced pooling in states where it's the law isn't "speculation".
Permalink Reply by Lynn Wigglesworth on July 25, 2011 at 5:18am
Some very odd discussions there, Ann. They seem to use 'tract' and 'unit' almost interchangeably. But I understand that in the West, a tract is a large piece of land that can then be divided up...so being in a 'tract' is not the same as being in a 'unit', right? Once a piece of the 'tract' is sold, it has no further relationship to what happens to the rest of the tract, so, essentially they can 'drill around you' if you aren't leased (just like here)?  I couldn't really follow the discussions.
Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on July 25, 2011 at 10:03am
Agree
Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on July 25, 2011 at 3:57pm

[Note:  GMS ate my first attempt at a reply and truncated the second.]

Agreed, it can get confusing.   Here is a Wiki page with illustrations of the "grid" system that was adopted to survey the U.S. West. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Land_Survey_System

A (governmental) "section" is a 640 acre rectangle.  According to what I find, in "most states" a 640 acre drilling unit conforms with the boundaries of a section; Texas and Alaska are exceptions.

"Tract" may have a specific gas-related definition in some states, but commonly, it's a parcel, piece, chunk, subdivision, whatever of land.  The DCNR and PGC use "tract" to identify parcels of their (our) lands.

...

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on July 25, 2011 at 10:51am
Yes, a tract is most definitely different than a unit. a lawyer out here in Wyoming warned me about the gascos trying to tie up large chunks of land by groupingthem collectively in tracts. I am not sure of all of the details, but a tract seemed to be like a unit on steroids. If a well was drilled in a tract miles away from a land owner's property contained in that rract, he was held by production WITHOUT being paid royalties from that well. It sounds like slimy, slurred language by the gascos and some political buddies that will become very specific once any bill is signed.
Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on August 13, 2011 at 9:25am

Update - 8/13/11

"Texas Railroad Commission studies mineral pooling act
...
The Mineral Interest Pooling Act [MIPA] is one of the laws that's supposed to answer a crucial question: When you're negotiating to get the best gas lease possible on your property, when can the commission step in and say the negotiation is over and the gas company wins? ..."
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/08/11/3285297/texas-railroad-comm...

The column is an overview of the status of forced pooling in Texas.  Note that without a Rule 37 exception, an operator in Texas may perforate a well no closer than 330' from an unleased property.  In PA, unleased landowners don't have that protection;  operators can drill/perforate a horizontal with zero setback from unleased properties.

..

RSS

© 2026   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service