Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gary Keeney on June 23, 2017 at 1:31am

 glad to have this back.  Hope this gets back like it was and things get moving in the gas around here.

Permalink Reply by Lynn Wigglesworth on June 23, 2017 at 4:56am

There's not much to discuss. My situation is no different (as far as I know) than it's been for years...leased, but not in a unit.

Also, I still haven't figured out how to use this site. No matter how I sort the discussions ("Newest discussions", "Latest activity") I DON'T get the recent discussions I was looking for, but I get discussions when the most recent reply was 2 years ago, with newer discussions randomly mixed in..screen after screen of them, and.they don't seem to be in any particular order..If I'm looking for something in particular, I have to scroll through years of discussions.  I generally give up without finding it. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but I don't have problems like this with any other site, so I don't think it's me.

Permalink Reply by Lynn Wigglesworth on June 23, 2017 at 5:58am

I'm also totally confused about the shaleforum.com site vs. the gomarcellusshale.com site. All too confusing to me.

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on June 23, 2017 at 2:55pm

Now the darn thing is working.  Anyway, hello all.  How many of you out there got dinged acreage from the state for creek bottoms etc?

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on June 24, 2017 at 3:32am

I'll start a new discussion about it in a bit.  Pa state is claiming ownership of mineral rights and thus the associated royalties for stream beds on peoples' land.  We are not just talking major rivers, but even tiny creeks.  This sounds like the workings of a class action suite.

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on June 24, 2017 at 4:13am

This goes back to

Permalink Reply by Ann Ticopa on June 24, 2017 at 4:34am

This goes back to 2010, when Chesapeake leased 1,500 acres beneath the Susquehanna waterway bed in Bradford Cty.  The DCNR designates what is "navigable" and issues the leases. 

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on June 26, 2017 at 2:18pm

I just finished a phone conversation with a landowner friend  of mine along Crooked Creek that was very interesting.  He did loose lease rights on the stream bed of Crooked Creek on land that he owns.  This corresponds to the maps which you have so kindly provided.  His real estate taxes acreage has not been adjusted for this loss.  Additionally, he has lost acreage for creek bottom under a very tiny stream - more of a ditch really- that flows into Crooked Creek.  This ditch only has water in it a week or two out of the entire year.  This ditch does not appear on your maps.  his taxable acreage has not been adjusted down for the ditch either.  It seems to me the maps are inaccurate.   It seems to me there likely is a Bunch of people in the same situation as this landowner, and a Bunch of people about to be in the same situation.  Can you people with better research skills discover why the maps do not show all streams concerned?  Can we start a volunteer data base or rouster of people who have lost leasable acreage due to stream beds and how much acreage is involved?   If the numbers are big enough, perhaps a law firm will find pursuing a class action suite worth while.  

Permalink Reply by Bullfrex on June 27, 2017 at 11:16am

The important distinction here is "between the low water marks".

Looking at the SWEPI/Marsh Creek lease agreement from this list, the calculated average width of Marsh Creek where it flows through Delmar and adjoining townships is approx.18.944 ft.. I have driven by there many times, and that creek bed appears to be wider than that in many places.

Not saying this is fair, just thinking it could be a lot worse.

Begs the question; have the gascos been required to pay twice for the same acreage that was previously private ownership leased, before this came about?

Permalink Reply by Brian Day on June 27, 2017 at 4:21pm

My understanding is that if a person owns 100 acres with a creek running through it and the state lays claim to it, the state gets all royalties for that creek bottom (At 20% with no deductions) and the land owner still pays taxes on it.  the land owner no longer receives royalties for that creek bottom.