Comment

Comment by Berk on May 26, 2013 at 3:23pm

http://investors.halconresources.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=76...

Comment by john doe on May 24, 2013 at 6:14am

For those of you that didn't see this, lets give a proper Crawford co. response.

But first lets give thanks to our veterans.

http://gomarcellusshale.com/forum/topics/george-mitchell-hydraulic-...

Comment by Bob Jenness on May 20, 2013 at 6:24am

Let's not forget the Bakken.  Maybe the only lessons we can take from there would apply to what NOT to do, but that would be valuable, and I bet there are folks there whose hindsight would help this discussion.

Comment by sldouglass on May 20, 2013 at 5:22am

There are some landowner groups in different parts of the state that need to be brought together.  The producers will have more money but the landowners may have more votes.  The problem is getting it organized and getting people to work together.

In addition to lobbying, some of the Texas land groups have developed some interesting forms.  They have some good ideas that may be useful for PA - making allowances for differences in geology, marketing etc.

I am sure there are things to be learned from the folks in say. Oklahoma as well.

Comment by Bob Jenness on May 20, 2013 at 12:07am

Sldouglass,

Thanks for the reference on the Texas group.  There was a time when I naively thought that my landowner group, perhaps jointly with other similar groups would be part of the foundation for such a lobbying effort.  Landowners certainly need a group focused on addressing the legal issues that tend to transfer too much of our O&G wealth from landowners to energy industry investors.  A first step would be to hire somebody to research and quantify such potential wealth transfer.  I'd bet that if we total up the $$ committed to NWPALG, CX, and Bilik, there's enough there to fund it.  "The Bakken" and the "2001 Crawford Leasing" would be interesting case studies, I think.

Comment by sldouglass on May 19, 2013 at 9:59am

In Texas the Landowners and royalty owners have banded together and created an effective lobbying group.  I have not seen anything like it being created in this area.

Comment by Joseph-Ohio on May 19, 2013 at 8:46am

Sam,
But O & G Companies have a lot more money than
the landowners I'll bet !

Comment by Samuel J. Orr on May 19, 2013 at 8:01am

Politicians are mostly whores. There are way more landowners/voters than O&G companies. Of course landowners would need to organize an e-mail campaign. Before that, they would need some legal advice as to what type of legislation should be sought!

Comment by Joseph-Ohio on May 18, 2013 at 10:37am

Sam,
A good idea.
A righteous idea.
But, I'm sure it would be met with a great.
resistance from O & G companies and their
lobbies.
Leases are tough to negotiate just the way
things are now.
Probably would make them even more so
and fewer in number.
What's your take ?

Comment by Samuel J. Orr on May 18, 2013 at 5:33am

Bob:

I really think what is needed is legislation which might better define what an O&G company needed to do to Hold Land by Production. Hopefully such legislation would require that O&G companies do a lot more than they currently do in order to tie up land indefinitely. It would take some effort but I think the effort would be worthwhile. I do appreciate that it seems "unfair" (much as I hate that word) for an O&G company to perhaps drill one vertical well on a 1280 acre unit, choke down that well to produce very minimal oil, and use that tactic to hold the entire unit by production indefinitely.  

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 33
• 34
• 35
• 36
• 37
• …
• 151
• Next ›
• Page