Environment & Energy

xchrom

(108,903 posts) Sat Jun 14, 2014, 07:11 AM Jun 2014

Yes, frackers can forcibly drill your land, even if you don’t want them to

http://grist.org/news/yes-frackers-can-forcibly-drill-your-land-even-if-you-dont-want-them-to/

?w=470&h=313
Jump in. You have no choice.

***SNIP

Newsweek took a trip to Marcellus Shale country and interviewed Suzanne Matteo and Bob Svetlak, two of the residents who’ve been stymieing drilling plans by refusing to sign agreements that would allow Hilcorp to frack their land in Pulaski Township, Penn., in exchange for per-acre payments and royalties:

[L]ate last August, the company filed an application with the state to drill on a large swath of land that includes property owned by Bob Svetlak, 73, … and now the company was trying to use a 1961 “forced pooling” law to access the natural gas beneath his 14.6 acres without his consent.

Matteo says that when she heard about Hilcorp’s move on Svetlak’s property, she knew hers would be next. She, along with Svetlak and two other property owners, represent 35 holdout acres within the 3,267-acre area that Hilcorp has proposed as a drilling unit. Sure enough, a neighbor who had leased to Hilcorp soon showed Matteo a letter from the company encouraging leaseholders to attend a meeting before the state Environmental Hearing Board to cheer on its forced pooling application (referred to as a Well Spacing Application).

“By integrating the tracts in red, Hilcorp can potentially drill twice as many wells into your unit, allowing Hilcorp to fully develop the minerals beneath your land,” the letter said, adding that without forced pooling, more wells would need to be drilled and less gas would be produced. In short, the letter implied to the leaseholders, unless their holdout neighbors were forcibly pooled, their own future royalties would be in jeopardy.

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Yes, frackers can forcibly drill your land, even if you don’t want them to (Original Post) xchrom Jun 2014 OP

No...they can't FBaggins Jun 2014 #1

Not if you own the mineral rights. newfie11 Jun 2014 #2

the people in the story likely owned their mineral rights FBaggins Jun 2014 #3

We'll that sucks if true newfie11 Jun 2014 #4

When we went to settlement it was recorded the we owned all mineral rights newfie11 Jun 2014 #5

FBaggins

(26,721 posts)

1. No...they can't

Reply to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 07:25 AM

Jun 2014

But the overwhelming majority of your community and their representatives can.

Just like any other property right.

newfie11

(8,159 posts)

2. Not if you own the mineral rights.

Reply to xchrom (Original post)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 07:50 AM

Jun 2014

Here in western SD and also on our old ( now sold) farm near Scottsbluff NE we made sure we owned the mineral rights.

There are plenty of properties for sale out here that mineral rights are owned by someone else.

When buying do your research!

FBaggins

(26,721 posts)

3. the people in the story likely owned their mineral rights

Reply to newfie11 (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 12:49 PM

Jun 2014

Other ownership schemes are comparatively new

SD also has compulsory polling and unitization... which means your mineral rights wouldn't help you stop them... they would just ensure that you were the one receiving any payment.

newfie11

(8,159 posts)

4. We'll that sucks if true

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 01:54 PM

Jun 2014

Thanks for the info. I will be checking on
This.
When it is recorded in the courthouse and means nothing, what a crappy country I'm living in.

newfie11

(8,159 posts)

5. When we went to settlement it was recorded the we owned all mineral rights

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #3)

Sun Jun 15, 2014, 07:16 AM

Jun 2014

Also I did find the following about SD mineral rights.

43-30A-2. Abandonment by nonuser and failure to file statement--Vesting in surface owner. A mineral interest shall, if unused for twenty-three years, be deemed to be abandoned, unless a statement of claim is recorded in accordance with § 43-30A-4. Title to an abandoned mineral interest shall vest in the owner of the surface estate in the land in, or under, which the mineral interest is located on the date of abandonment.
Source: SL 1985, ch 338, § 2.

We live in the Black Hills and just walking through the woods you will find old gold mine claims in old baby jars ( lids nailed to trees).

I suspect that's why this clause was put in.

I was adamant to the settlement attorney that we must own all mineral rights and he did check at the court house.

I remember as a child (we moved a lot) going past a strip mine of ole Peabody Coal. It left a lasting impression and that is why every property ( we live in rural areas) I have ever purchased had to have all mineral rights included in sale.

Reply to this discussion