Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe Bezel on June 10, 2016 at 4:02pm

Rick, there was a bill passed last year, House Bill 8, that was intended to streamline the process.  The impetus was a landowner who wanted to lease their property to be drilled, but ODOT owned part of the proposed unit and ignored requests by the E & P company to come to an agreement.  The resulting bill would have addressed that, but was otherwise a terrible deal for landowners.  Nevertheless, it passed the House unanimously, probably because nobody actually read it.  A few months later, someone put eyes to paper and read it.  Reflecting with horror at the atrocity of their crime, they convinced the Senate to let it die a quiet death without acting on it.  I don't know if the matter has been taken up again, but I will check with my sources and see what I can find.  I'll repost when I know more.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on June 10, 2016 at 8:26pm

Thank you Joe B.

We're all standing by.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick S. on June 11, 2016 at 1:49am

I did receive some info on this from a forum member and found out the bill was sent to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee  on 3/25 where it just sits.  I am told mainly because of the anti land owners wording.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on June 11, 2016 at 2:43am

If it's anti-landowner (and even much of the initial unamended Bill was anti-landowner rights IMHO to begin with), instead of sitting in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's Offices, it ought to be incinerated and a new amended pro-landowner's rights Bill ought to be drafted and passed.

JMHOs

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0ym9x5ag7ury2 on June 11, 2016 at 3:34am

During a meeting held in 2010 a state representative told a large audience present that the existing forced pooling law allowed 5 Citizens per year per Producer to be force pooled. He went on to say if we don't cooperate the law would be changed to allow the number of Citizens needed to be force pooled each year. "This drilling is going to happen" was made clear to us as if we were kids being told to clean their rooms. 

I remembered the details but didn't realize the implications of having a government that "tells" it's Citizens what they want, rather than asking the People what they want.

A Native American Indian recently scolded me for not fighting this "attack on Mother Earth". I recalled the above presentation and told him Ohio Citizens actually had no choice according to what the state representative told us. "This drilling is going to happen".

This theft Landowners under production are experiencing was never discussed by the same officials. They could have told us ahead of time that O&G producers invited into the state were going to take what they wanted and by government decree these thefts would be "Civil Matters" not Criminal Matters that they actually are. I figure our governor scoped this out at Governors Meetings, and learned how to handle his Citizens to allow his shot at the White House and his "untold" accumulated wealth. 

Chesapeake started taking what they wanted from Texas as early as 2005 and PA was being stolen from in 2008, so those in charge of the state already knew what to expect in Ohio. 

Those in charge of the State may not have expected the States Citizens to realize how large this theft would grow to with all NGLs being taken free of royalties or taxes.

Do you recall that Chesapeake Stated: "We are in Ohio for the NGLs". They left out the word Free in front of the word NGLs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on June 11, 2016 at 3:45am

The drilling is a good thing but forcing landowners into circumstances they find unacceptable is not.

That would include being forced into a lease that originally was trimmed for an old vertical well development - which is also sub-standard to modern Utica Long Bore Horizontal Leasehold Agreements (for only one thing).  To me it's like invoking 'Eminent Domain' without paying the land / mineral owner for it.  To me it's a seizure of 'Valuable Consideration' without compensation.

• ▶ Reply