Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNo to ‘fracking’ doesn’t mean no - Landowner refusal can’t stop drilling
Last edited Mon Jul 30, 2012, 10:32 PM - Edit history (1)
from The Columbus Dispatch Sunday July 29, 2012
Steve Neeley estimates that he has spent more than $500,000 over the past 12?years to build a country estate in southern Portage County.
When a Chesapeake Energy land man approached him months ago with an offer to lease the Utica shale mineral rights beneath his meticulously landscaped 9.5-acre property in eastern Ohio, Neeley declined. Thats when, Neeley says, the land man told him, Well just take it.
Neeley and 23 of his neighbors are the first group of Ohio landowners forced to take part in Utica-shale drilling under a seldom-used state law. The law lets companies add properties to large drilling units even if leases with landowners havent been obtained, to maximize access to deeply buried oil and gas. Even the state isnt immune from the law. The Chesapeake Energy drilling unit of 959 acres in Portage and Stark counties includes a 4-acre corner of Quail Hollow State Park northeast of Canton. That makes it the first state park in line for fracking.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources officials say the unitization law guarantees fair compensation, and that the properties of unwilling landowners wont be damaged.
...
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/07/29/no-to-fracking-doesnt-mean-no.html
I find this kind of discouraging.
(edited to add bold text)
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 1713 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (11)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No to ‘fracking’ doesn’t mean no - Landowner refusal can’t stop drilling (Original Post)
limpyhobbler
Jul 2012
OP
PDJane
(10,103 posts)1. How do you compensate for water quality and lost farmland?
What's fair compensation for the loss of a way of life?
grantcart
(53,061 posts)2. Milkshake drinking
CK_John
(10,005 posts)3. Mining has been a favored industry going back to colonial times.
Back then it was necessary to grow the early coloniies. Mining was encouraged and had little or no restrictions.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)4. I find it disgusting
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)5. I have always known I don't own the mineral rights beneath my property
Do some folks really think this is a new phenomena?
Don
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)8. In this case the landowners do own the mineral rights.
But it doesn't matter. Gas companies get whatever they want.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)6. What exactly is stopping these folks from forcibly evicting these unlawful tenants?
They haven't signed a lease, the land does not belong to them and they have no rights to drill it. I'd go over and lock them out and tear down anything they put up.
JPZenger
(6,819 posts)7. Was proposed in PA, but hasn't passed
This is known as "forced pooling." It was proposed last year in PA, but wasn't passed. Apparently several states do have it.