http://shaleplayohiovalley.com/page/content.detail/id/511205/-Nuisa...

‘Nuisance Oil’ Term in Contract Annoys Belmont County Landowner

April 4, 2015
Shale Play

BELLAIRE - Curtis Wallner is not sure what "nuisance oil" extracted via fracking is.

Neither is a spokesman for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, which oversees mineral extraction in the Buckeye State.

Because of that uncertainty, Wallner - who owns more than 26 mineral acres outside Bellaire along Sand Hill Road in an area that already features multiple wells in various stages of drilling and fracking - said he has declined to sign a lease with any drilling company.

Article Photos

The wording of the latest offer he received calls for paying $8,000 per acre with 20 percent worth of production royalties. Although this would land him a check for $211,145.60, in addition to future royalties, Wallner refuses to sign, largely because of the nuisance oil term.

"I told them I am not going to sign. So they said, 'We'll just take it then because we've got your government behind us,'" Wallner said. "This is all a big joke to me. It isn't right what they are doing to me, and it isn't right what they are doing to a lot of people."

Wallner objects to the Jan. 23 contract he declines to sign because it states he would receive royalties for material removed from his property, with the exception of "non-commercial nuisance oil."

"I think that is the condensate oil stuff they turn around and sell," Wallner said. "We are sitting on billions of dollars worth of oil and natural gas."

Under Ohio law, condensate refers to liquid hydrocarbons separated at or near the well pad prior to gas processing. The U.S. Energy Information Administration considers it light liquid hydrocarbons recovered from field facilities.

"I am honestly unfamiliar with the term 'nuisance oil,'" ODNR spokesman Eric Heis said.

Tim Greene, owner of Land and Mineral Management of Appalachia and a former West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection inspector, said he does not believe nuisance energy exists.

"It all has value," he said. "It might be condensate, but it could really be whatever the company wants it to be because only they would know what it is. My recommendation would be to not sign that."

Wallner's documents show an XTO representative included the term "nuisance oil" in the contract. The firm is drilling several wells in Belmont County, as there is now an active rig grinding into the ground behind the former Key Ridge School, outside Bellaire along Ohio 147.

"It is our policy to not publicly discuss these issues," XTO spokeswoman Amy Dobkin said when asked about nuisance oil and any relations the company may have with Wallner.

Even though he is receiving pressure from others to sign the contract, Wallner said he has no intention to.

"These guys laughed at me when I told them I wouldn't sign with that in there," Wallner said. "They said they are already under my house. I told them I will sleep better at night knowing they took it."

Unlike West Virginia, Ohio allows horizontal shale drillers to use forced pooling if they cannot acquire all leases needed for a new well site. The law requires a driller to sign leases for the majority of acreage surrounding the reluctant landowner, while it also states there must be no other obvious location for assembling the drilling unit.

Heis said if Wallner's land is pooled, the company doing so would have to pay him a 12.5 percent royalty on gross oil and natural gas production. However, Heis said current ODNR rules do not require a driller to pay any up front money to the pooled mineral owner, meaning Wallner would forgo the $8,000 per acre XTO is offering under such a scenario.

Still, Wallner said he does not believe the offer is fair.

"I want to see all of us get more. Some people got suckered in to signing for $5 an acre," he said. "It is a rip-off."

Views: 2583

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Yeah, it could be Nuisance oil is something they could exchange for something else. Haul away that oil and pay for the well (lease or something else) and you can have it.
So GET A DEFINITION IN THE LEASE.
And for goodness sake don't be so cheep and pay for some Competent advice.

The Government is finding a way to tax air so nothing is "free" now.

The wording would appear to be a euphemism for acquiring product at zero cost. Again, I would suggest getting rid of it, simplifying the wording or let them take a hike...

Exactly. If the term is vague or undefined, then either add a definition to the lease and live with it or remove the objectionable language altogether. Lease documents as presented by the O&G are simply a starting point for negotiations, nothing is set in stone until you sign it.

Got to sort it out.

Save the corn kernals (or import some) and eliminate the puckey.

Good luck to everyone (me and mine of course included).
I think you 'hit the nail on the head' RJMB.

It appears to us, 'acquiring product at zero cost' (or as near to zero cost as is possible) IS the reasoning behind ALL of the 'vague' (ambiguous) clauses / terms in ANY sample leasehold agreement that we've ever read.
Shon,

In Ohio, I 70 runs East and West and I 77 runs North and South.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service