Pennsylvania

JPZenger

(6,819 posts) Tue Dec 31, 2013, 10:35 AM Dec 2013

PA. Court rules frackers can use as much of the surface of land as they want, under typical leases

http://foxrothschild.com/newspubs/newspubsArticle.aspx?id=15032392487

A new PA. Superior Court case involved a dispute between a landowner and a fracking company. When a landowner leased their land, they expected to get some a couple well pads and driveway. They were surprised when they also had a 13 acre water impoundment constructed on their land.

The Court ruled that the language of the lease allowed Chevron (the fracking company) to use as much of the surface of the land as they wanted for gas-industry related purposes.

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

PA. Court rules frackers can use as much of the surface of land as they want, under typical leases (Original Post) JPZenger Dec 2013 OP

Greed atreides1 Dec 2013 #1

One should always read the fine print! femmocrat Dec 2013 #2

Another reason to have a lawyer deal with the leases. Curmudgeoness Dec 2013 #3

Here is the actual opinion, it is from August 13, 2013 happyslug Jan 2014 #4

atreides1

(16,079 posts)

1. Greed

Reply to JPZenger (Original post)

Tue Dec 31, 2013, 10:54 AM

Dec 2013

The landowner was only seeing dollar signs at the time he signed off on this contract...and now his greed has come back to bite him on the ass!

femmocrat

(28,394 posts)

2. One should always read the fine print!

Reply to JPZenger (Original post)

Tue Dec 31, 2013, 11:06 AM

Dec 2013

Those leases let the gas-holes do pretty much whatever they want in perpetuity. They can even keep the landowner off of his own property.

Curmudgeoness

(18,219 posts)

3. Another reason to have a lawyer deal with the leases.

Reply to JPZenger (Original post)

Tue Dec 31, 2013, 02:35 PM

Dec 2013

If you lease your land, you had better have a lawyer as good as the lawyers with the drilling companies, and let the lawyers know what you expect, and do not expect. Not that any of us would probably have considered a toxic pond---although people should.

happyslug

(14,779 posts)

4. Here is the actual opinion, it is from August 13, 2013

Reply to JPZenger (Original post)

Wed Jan 8, 2014, 02:43 PM

Jan 2014

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8689083841948970213&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Reply to this discussion