Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on August 18, 2015 at 3:00am

I'm puzzled. Are you saying that SWEI isn't going to renew your lease? But they somehow will end up paying less for a new lease by letting you sign with Travis Peak, then buying that lease from TP?

Permalink Reply by paleface on August 18, 2015 at 10:57am

If Travis Peake doesn't prove that area you might see Shell buying it for less than Travis Peake payed for it.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on August 18, 2015 at 3:21pm

But if it turns out not to be profitable for a low cost producer like Travis Peak, why would SWEPI be interested?   

Permalink Reply by paleface on August 18, 2015 at 9:32pm

 I don't know if sizemic was done in that area?My guess would be Shell has a pretty good idea whats there,we have to wait and see how this turns out.

Permalink Reply by Janice L. Hancharick on August 19, 2015 at 4:58am

Seismic has been done throughout this area a good while back.  The dogs aren't sniffing around this region for nothing.  Taking seismic readings and the analyzing of what shows up doesn't come cheap.

Permalink Reply by paleface on August 19, 2015 at 9:53am

Do you know who payed for the seismic work?

Permalink Reply by Janice L. Hancharick on August 19, 2015 at 10:20am

I don't.  Some seismic companies freelance then sell their findings to the highest bidder, while others are hired outright by a specific company like Shell, who then subcontract out the E&P work.

To do the seismic study permission has to be granted by the landowner if the land is to be crossed. Ever see one those documents? However I've seen planes loaded with gear inside clear bubbles on the bottom @ local airports.  They can and do cover a considerable expanse of acreage with no one's permission.  If the aircraft hadn't had a crew, we'd call it a drone.

The bumper-thumper trucks that drove up and down our hollows, runs, and valleys years back didn't have to get permission either.

If the study is on state or federal land you know who pays for it. We do.        Surprise.

Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on August 20, 2015 at 1:17am

"The bumper-thumper trucks that drove up and down our hollows, runs, and valleys years back didn't have to get permission either."

I've always wondered about that.  Here is my thinking:

1. There is no question that, for an unleased landowner, an unfavorable seismic outcome can be detrimental to that landowner's financial welfare.

2.  We pay taxes on, and we own, land to the center line of our roadway.  Landowners with land on both sides of the road own it all.  Of course we grant the township an easement for the purpose of providing and maintaining a roadway for the public good.  That serves us individually, as well.

But does that easement force us to allow access for vehicles operating directly contrary to our best interests?

And it is not only just the thumper trucks.  Does that easement also grant access to our land for the purpose of running the cables . . which are needed for thumper seismic?

For me personally, the thumper trucks showed up years before I had any clue about NG drilling.  It was at least ten years ago, more than that I think.  I was heavily focused on other stuff and simply did my best to ignore the darn trucks and cables.

But looking back now with the 20/20 vision of hindsight, I have to wonder about the propriety of the whole thing.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on August 20, 2015 at 3:42am

Reply to Frank's post:

Then there was the proposed SB 166 (2013)
"The Surveyor's Right to Enter Act"
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txt...

"Right of entry.--If necessary to perform surveying services, a surveyor may enter upon the land of another and use customary equipment and vehicles. ..."

Also, iirc, PennDOT revised their highway occupancy (driveway) permit requirements to allow application by a lessee.  

And, the ERI leases I saw gave them the exclusive right to perform geophysical operations on the leased property.

Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on August 20, 2015 at 6:06am

Thanks, Ann, that's all very interesting stuff.  Looking at this strictly from the standpoint of what is best for the landowner:

Prior to her or his signing of a lease, seismic places a landowner at risk, to wit, if the seismic goes poorly the lease may never even be offered.  This would mean loss of bonus money.

After a lease is signed, the landowner needs to cooperate with the gas company where seismic is concerned.  If there's no gas that is not the fault of the gas company.  No gas (or poor prospects) means no royalties whether or not a well is drilled.  You let them run the seismic and both parties hope for a favorable outcome.

That proposed legislation for surveyors would not, it seems to me, give a green light for seismic.  But it is important nevertheless for its own sake.

The driveway permit thing makes sense to me as a practical matter.  I see no downside for landowners there.

And the ERI leases you mentioned also seem reasonable to me.  I can understand why the gas company wants to ensure it has permission to run seismic on leased land.

But going back to Janice's post, I remember when the thumper trucks came here my land was years away from being leased.  I'm not happy that they just showed up and commenced testing.  It did not, as things turned out.  But that testing could have cost me a lot of money!!

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on August 20, 2015 at 8:07am

Frank,

I assume the proposed surveyor legislation applied primarily to pipelines.  But it wouldn't be much of a stretch to consider shot hole placement as "surveying".   Couldn't drill the holes, but could operate vehicles on ones land without permission.  
My problem with a driveway(s) I hadn't approved is that it would create access for trespassers.  
I dn't say that the seismic "clause" in a lease was unreasonable.   My point was that some third-party seismic may be in violation of leases.    

Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on August 20, 2015 at 9:37am

Well, Ann

I did read the proposed survey access legislation and I'm not seeing an opening to run seismic in there.  Course the way things are today I guess anything is possible.

I didn't think of the pipeline aspect, and I'm really glad you raised that point.  I hope you are wrong but you easily could be right on that one.  It's scary.  Landowners who have not agreed to a pipeline across their property should not be forced to allow trespass to facilitate a pipeline they do not want!!!  That's nuts!!

Regarding the driveway thing, you're right, but the gas company is going to need to be able to conduct their operations.  So that's a tough one.

Finally, I agree third party seismic NOT ordered by your Lessee should remain squarely within control of the landowner.  I think Lessors need to monitor carefully how their lease is worded on that one.

Altogether a bunch of interesting issues here, Ann.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page