Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nancy Mosley on February 22, 2011 at 3:22pm

I just emailed them. Hope it helps.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by gasoholic on February 22, 2011 at 4:37pm

Great work Nancy and Thank You ! 

 

Sent mine also. I will be calling them tomorrow.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 29041431 on February 23, 2011 at 7:03am

Nancy, thanks for your help. Every call to the legislators helps. It's one thing to have the same old lobbyists putting pressure on legislators day after day. But it's quite another to have your constituents watching your every move and communicating with you on the issues they are concerned about.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Todd Charles on February 22, 2011 at 8:24pm

THIS IS WHAT I WROTE TO EVERY SENATOR IN THE HOUSE :

AS A LAND, MINERAL AND RIGHTS OWNER IN WEST VIRGINIA, I AM WRITING TO PROTEST THE "FORCED POOLING PROVISION" IN SENATE BILL 424 !

LISTENING TO THEIR CONSTITUENCY, ALL 14 MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE VOTED TO REMOVE THE FORCED POOLING PROVISION FROM HB2878...

''Just a little after 8:00 P.M. this evening, on an amendment sponsored by all fourteen (14) members of the House Judiciary subcommittee, the Forced Pooling Provision was removed from HB2878 in its entirety with the exception of the Surface Owners provision on pages 206 and 207. Other amendments were added and the bill was passed on to the full Judiciary Committee for passage.

BUT THEN :

"IN A CLOSED DOOR PRIVATE MEETING TODAY IN THE OFFICE OF WEST VIRGINIA SENATE PRESIDENT JEFFREY V. KESSLER, THE DECISION WAS MADE TO PUSH FORWARD WITH A FORCED POOLING PROVISION AS PART OF SB424. THIS APPARENTLY WILL BE DEALT WITH FIRST BY THE SENATE ENERGY, INDUSTRY AND MINING COMMITTEE STARTING TOMORROW MORNING, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2011, BEGINNING AT 10:00 A.M. IN ROOM 208W


PLEASE REMOVE THE "FORCED POOLING PROVISION" FROM SENATE BILL 424. DO NOT GIVE AWAY OUR LAND, MINERALS OR RIGHTS. THIS IS NOT A "BACK ROOM", "CLOSED DOOR" ISSUE. THE CITIZENS OF WEST VIRGINIA DESERVE BETTER THAN THIS.

PROTECT AND DEFEND THE RIGHTS, LAND AND RESOURCES OF YOUR CONSTITUENCY AND STATE - NOT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY.


SINCERELY,

KIT McGLINCHEY
ADDRESS & PHONE
DELETED FOR THIS POST

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 29041431 on February 23, 2011 at 5:40am

Nice going, Kit. That was GREAT! Thank you for standing up for West Virginia.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by brinlady on February 23, 2011 at 3:55am

I just finished calling all Senate Energy committee members and left detailed messages with their secretaries opposing SB 424, particularly the forced pooling provisions.

 

The Energy committee hearing is starting in a few minutes.

 

Brinlady

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 29041431 on February 23, 2011 at 5:37am

Thanks Brinlady. Your voices are being heard LOUD AND CLEAR! This is your opportunity to voice your opposition to Forced Pooling.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Todd Charles on February 23, 2011 at 9:07am

 

At what point can we form a legal coalition to bring legal tort or class action against forced pooling?

 

I don't believe that any interference with our rights to sell, lease, contract, or negotiate the price to sell, lease or contract - or NOT to sell, lease or contract - our land, minerals, gas or property - is legal or constitutional.

 

EVEN HERE IN WEST VIRGINIA, THERE MUST BE  SOME LEGAL RECOURSE FOR OUR CITIZENS BEING STRIPPED OF OUR CIVIL RIGHTS ????

 

Sincerely, Kit

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thomas Booth on February 24, 2011 at 10:31am

Recourse from Force Pooling--why?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Todd Charles on February 24, 2011 at 11:55am

 

WHY ?

 

''I BELIEVE THAT IT IS MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT - AND MINE ALONE - TO DETERMINE WHETHER (OR NOT) TO LEASE, SELL, CONTRACT OR GIVE AWAY MY LAND, MINERALS, GAS, RIGHTS OR PROPERTY - AND - MY RIGHT TO DETERMINE FOR WHAT PRICE I WANT TO LEASE, SELL OR CONTRACT MY RIGHTS, LAND OR PROPERTY.

I VIEW ANY ATTEMPT TO VIOLATE, DISRUPT, RESTRICT, PREVENT OR PROHIBIT MY RIGHTS TO (OR NOT) LEASE, SELL, CONTRACT OR GIVE AWAY MY OWN LAND, MINERALS, GAS, RIGHTS OR PROPERTY - TO BE ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I FIND IT DISGUSTING THAT ANY WEST VIRGINIAN SHOULD FEEL WE MUST DEFEND OUR RIGHTS TO THE LEGISLATORS AND SENATORS WE HAVE ELECTED TO DEFEND, PROTECT AND SERVE - IN OUR BEST INTERESTS.

PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE LAND, PROPERTY, RIGHTS AND PROSPERITY OF YOUR CONSTITUENCY AND WEST VIRGINIA - NOT THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY AND THEIR LOBBYISTS. ''

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by brinlady on February 24, 2011 at 12:16pm

Senator Bob Williams (D-Taylor) advised me by email about 15 minutes ago that the forced pooling provisions have been removed from SB 424.  (He represents Senate District 14, which includes my home county of Preston.)

 

Kit posted the same information which she just received from Sen. Mike Green on the GoMarcellus thread titled "West Virginia Forced pooling Bill Moved....."

 

Thanks to all for your input, but we can't relax yet.  This is far from being a dead issue, and we must continue to be vigilent in protecting our property rights.

 

Brinlady

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thomas Booth on February 24, 2011 at 1:08pm

Hi Todd,

I enjoyed reading your response to my question.  A very principaled stand and I understand your point. 

 

But I have had a different experience with Force Pooling in other states and and seem to do better in those states.   I have lived in WV, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Texas in my life and have acquired mineral rights in all those states.    Oklahoma and North Dakota have force pooling laws, and not so in Texas and WV.

(Of note, Oklahoma and N. Dakota are very politically constitutionalists, yet seem to

have enacted and practice force pooling laws; I have not seen any particular complaints by mineral and landowners about abrogation of rights in my oil and gas experience.)

Most of my experience with Force Pooling has been in Oklahoma with the Corporation Commission, which holds hearings on all wells drilled and ajudicates the terms of the force pooling, including spacing orders.   The advantage I found to this system are as follows:

• Smaller mineral interests can not be orphaned by larger leased and drilled interests.  I have had minerals in Texas that have been contiguous with a larger lease on which the operator has drilled a well near the lease line, and and has depleted my resources, not paid me a lease bonus, and not paid me a royalty.  I suspect this will occur frequently with many of the smaller parcels in WV (less than 60 acres) since a Marcellus well will require at least 60-80 acres in size.   In Oklahoma, the CC establish the spacing unit, and then allows the mineral interest to be forced pooled-- mineral owner, if he has not signed a lease, is paid the highest bonus paid to any lessee, or the going rate in the area.  In addition, the CC establishes the going royalty rate (18.75%) in a well.   Additionally, the mineral owner is allowed to participate in the drilling of the well and become a working interest owner, at a prorated share. 

I think the bigger problem for WV in force pooling is how to set up spacing and drilling units that are contiguous, given land boundries are irregular, unlike the spacing units in the west (WV ownership must have preceded Thomas Jefferson's surveys of land division present in the midwest and west.

 

I would recommend you to speak with land and mineral owners in North Dakota or Oklahoma about their experiences.  Clearly the law must be fair to the mineral owner, and the government agency must be immune to political or corporate pressures.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page