Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on February 21, 2016 at 4:04am

I am making this reply in two entries because my computer is giving me fits. 

This issue seems like a matter for a class action suite perhaps.  if any attorneys read this site, I would think dollar signs would appear in their eyes.  But first, it seems people should be ringing the phones of their various state representatives off of the wall concerning what appears to be some kind of concocted land grab without any kind of judicial process or legislative exploration.

Permalink Reply by paleface on February 21, 2016 at 5:12am

The word ( ORDINARY ) high and low water mark is crucial for the land owner.If the state claimed high water mark that could be 100 year flood high water mark. The state gave us a break there.

Permalink Reply by Janice L. Hancharick on February 21, 2016 at 7:10am

Would checking real estate law and land/water acreage descriptions put any light on this subject?  It's true that navigable waters are determined by what exactly one is trying to float!

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on February 21, 2016 at 8:29am

Brian,

Let's see ... the DCNR gets a $4000/acre bonus for 5 year paid up-leases.  The DCNR land (or other state/federal property) can't be taxed by school districts.  But the state does pay a $3.60/acre/yr PiLT.  So even if a court decided the streambeds are classified as state-owned land,  it would be a "moral" rather than financial victory.  

You might be interested in reading about the struggle some landowners had regaining control (right of reversion) of land that had been abandoned by railroads.  
Example:http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/27/rails-to-trails-a-train-wreck...

Permalink Reply by Deb Reynolds on February 21, 2016 at 9:00am

that example is rather apples vs. oranges, Ann. The land we are discussing--private waters, defined as unnavigable--is privately owned, the state has no claim on it. The Rail-Trail controversy was based on the idea that the railroad maintained an interest in those properties because of prior leases. 

This discussion is very interesting, keep us posted!

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on February 21, 2016 at 10:16am

I thought the rails-to-trails, etc, disputes might be something Brian would be interested in.  Primarily for the court cases.

I believe this discussion was initiated by my post, "SWEPI O/G Leases of "Publicly-Owned Streambeds" in Tioga County" - which *is* land owned by the state.

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on February 21, 2016 at 10:56am

I will read these posts Ann, thank you.  Right this minute though, I'm not sure this relates perfectly because it is a surrendered right issue with lands owned previously by the railroad.  I am not contesting that the state cannot actually lay claim to some of this stream bed land. "Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's"  (Spell checker says I really slaughtered poor Ceaser again!")  I am saying that refunds for taxes and repairs to the banks and beds funded by the uninformed land owners should be paid out before any lease can be written or royalties paid.  also, any future taxes should be adjusted for the loss of acreage.

I am finding the bonus rate and the royalty rate paid to the state extremely interesting, considering the current economic climate for oil and gas.

Are there any land owners out there who know that their acreage will be impacted by this new arrangement with the state who wish to speak up as to how they feel about the situation?  Frankly, I don't think that I am affected at all by this situation.  If I am, it will be on a small scale.  I suppose a good captain could pilot a jet boat up Locey Creek from Keeneyville clear to the base of Butler Hill at high flood in the Spring.  That would make the creek technically navigable.  it would be a wild ride and I'd like to be there to watch.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on February 21, 2016 at 12:32pm

Check r-to-t out if/when you want ... or not. There won't be a quiz.

The state does particularly well with the royalty on their leases. A recent PGC lease:
"The agreement involves the lease of the Game Commission’s oil and gas rights under 5,870 acres of State Game Lands 12 and 36 in Overton and Elkland townships in Bradford and Sullivan counties. ... Chief Exploration and Development LLC of Dallas, Texas was the lone bidder, agreeing to pay a one-time bonus payment of $2,500 per acre for a five-year paid-up primary term, and 20.55 percent in royalties for all oil/gas and other liquids or condensates produced and sold from the proposed tract. Additionally, the bid provides the Game Commission a well-pad location fee of $75,000 per well pad ..."

Permalink Reply by paleface on February 22, 2016 at 2:56am

http://fee.org/articles/the-dark-secrets-of-rail-trails/

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on February 28, 2016 at 6:56am

Josie,

No, it's a Liberty well. 

http://www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/eFACTSWeb/searchResults_singleSite.aspx?S...

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on February 28, 2016 at 11:08am

The well is:  Miller 394 23H  
Permit #  117-21755
Go to: "PA DEP Oil & Gas Reporting Website"
https://www.paoilandgasreporting.state.pa.us/publicreports/Modules/...
Select "Well Details" on left side of screen
Enter the Permit# for the well ... and wait ...
You will find that the well did produce for 8 days at the end of 2015.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on February 29, 2016 at 1:55pm

Josie, just discovered that there are two Delmar Miller wells that produced in 12/2015

117-21755 MILLER 394 23H SWEPI  [72580.02  8]
117-21756 MILLER 394 25H SWEPI [87198.4  9]

.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 66
• 67
• 68
• 69
• 70
• …
• 157
• Next ›
• Page