Tell Governor Corbett to veto SB 259 and Protect Landowner's Rights

SB 259 was passed and is awaiting the governors signature.

In short is takes away the property rights of land owners in favor of expediency of forming drilling units for drilling companies.

Landowners will no longer be allowed to re-negotiate their leases , this is a violation of the protections of property rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Please take the time to e-mail the governor and ask that he veto SB 259.

governor.pa.gov towards the bottom of the page on the right is a tab for his e-mail. Plus there is a phone number.

Views: 3703

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by 29041431 on July 9, 2013 at 8:32am

I called Governor Corbett's office a few minutes ago to ask him to veto this bill. It is obvious that these legislators, at best, relied on O & G company attorneys to draft Amendment 2.1. Call your friends and neighbors and ask them to make the call to Governor Tom Corbett at 1-717-787-2500 or email him at Governor@pa.gov. Thanks

Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on July 9, 2013 at 8:41am

I tried that number and got your call is call forwarding? So I emailed the following   "Please VETO Senate BIll 258 as it is nothing short of theft of the rights of property owners!"

Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on July 7, 2013 at 2:26pm

You might like to look at this, it might be a LANDOWNERS BIGGIE! Private Property Rights http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBhh7GIwaP0&feature=youtube_gdata

Permalink Reply by Leigh S on July 8, 2013 at 5:50am

Mark,

I just took the time to read the text of the bill and, seriously, I'm not understanding what it is that has you up in arms. Please explain a bit more, because I do not "see" anything that says I cannot renegotiate a lease. Maybe I am missing something...  

I see it provides an escalation to 1/8th royalty if less than that is stipulated or there is no royalty stipulation in the lease at all.

The following paragraph says,

      "WHERE AN OPERATOR HAS THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP MULTIPLE
18   CONTIGUOUS LEASES SEPARATELY, THE OPERATOR MAY DEVELOP THOSE
19   LEASES JOINTLY BY HORIZONTAL DRILLING UNLESS EXPRESSLY
20   PROHIBITED BY A LEASE. IN DETERMINING THE ROYALTY WHERE MULTIPLE
21   CONTIGUOUS LEASES ARE DEVELOPED, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN AGREEMENT
22   BY ALL AFFECTED ROYALTY OWNERS, THE PRODUCTION SHALL BE
23   ALLOCATED TO EACH LEASE IN SUCH PROPORTION AS THE OPERATOR
24   REASONABLY DETERMINES TO BE ATTRIBUTABLE TO EACH LEASE."

It then makes several provisions for more total disclosure on the royalty check stubs.

and section 3.4

SECTION 3.4. CONFLICTS.

10   IF THERE IS ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN A DIVISION ORDER AND AN OIL
11   AND GAS LEASE, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE OIL AND GAS LEASE
12   SHALL CONTROL. A DIVISION ORDER MAY NOT AMEND OR SUPPLEMENT THE
13   TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN OIL AND GAS LEASE.

So, Please help me to understand what I am not seeing...because I suspect I may not be the only person on here not seeing what you are talking about (and others may not ask, so I am asking) and I would like to be able to at least have a solid argument and know what I am talking about if I am going to email or call the governor.  And Thank you in advance for any clarity that you can give on this matter. 

Here is the link to the whole text of SB 259 PN 1290  (it's a whopping 5 pages long)

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txt...

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on July 8, 2013 at 5:56am
The point is if such a law were to exist and be enforced, no lease negotiations
would take place.
Such a law would negates negotiation and renders negotiation moot.
Can you understand that point ?
Permalink Reply by Leigh S on July 8, 2013 at 6:30am

Jesse,  This I understand. I'm only registered in one of the two parties so I can write-in and vote in the primary elections.  I don't kow-tow to either as they are both painted with the same brush.

Permalink Reply by Leigh S on July 8, 2013 at 6:23am

I understand the point, just can't see it in black and white. Sorry if I seem a bit dense, but if it doesn't say so in so many words, it is sometimes difficult to discern.  I realize that the "politicians" like to work that way, but it's very disconcerting for people like me who need to see it in black and white. They should say what they mean instead of putting a coat of paint on it.

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on July 8, 2013 at 7:37am
If they stated their intentions and exactly
what their meaning was in plain language
probably / practically no one would vote for
them. And that's because they serve themselves
and their crony backers first.
(All IMHO).
Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on July 8, 2013 at 8:08am
Also, the way I understand things; if it's
written and signed into law - it's law and
it's said. Conversely, if it's not written and
signed into law - it's not law and not said. And
finally if it's not law and not said - it's
arguable.
All IMHO.
Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on July 8, 2013 at 6:58am

I called and said 1/8th to my knowledge no O&G lease for as long as I can remember never had less. What this doesa it takes a landowners minerals rights over to the O&G companies and removes protection from the use of iminent domain as a last resort.

Permalink Reply by BuckinghamGasMan on July 8, 2013 at 7:10am

I thought that this law would affect only property owners who had already sold or leased their mineral rights and the units would be a way of accessing the gas which was leased/sold. I further thought that no one is being forced to sell their gas w/o having such a lease.

Can you enlighten me?

Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on July 8, 2013 at 8:12am

As a landowner if I were under a lease with say a older Clinton wells on my property and when it was done it was basicly you have 40 acres enough for 2 Clinton wells and I leased under that 2 wells on 40 acres that was the deal. So as a landowner it would give the owner of the well the ability to flip my lease to a O&G company to drill a horizontal under my property without my entering into any negotiations. (A lot of old leases never contained unitization or pooling clauses) Why in the H would I would I be happy with a measley 1/8th with no lease money when others might be getting 20% AND A LEASE BONUS? This bill is saying they are adding a unitizatiomn or pooling clause into a old lease that was never there! To change a contract should require a landowners signature and while not under duress

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service