They need to clarify what happens to the unleased owners under negotiation after the company gets the 51%.
Does your leasing option then go to a take there best offer or to a 12.5% with deduction lease or they will drill it anyway.
The companies say it is for the interest owners and heirs they are unable to locate, they should clarify this in there legislation and not left up to the companies to decide how to apply it.
They should have something for the interest owners that are unable to locate, to Be able to drill as long as it will not effect an owners right to negotiate fair leasing terms.
This is extremely frustrating. There should be a permanent law against no forced pooling. Year after year we have to spend time, money, energy, to fight a legislature. Once a law is defeated, it should not be permitted to be re-introduced.
There are several issues that I am aware with this law, and they are very serious. I hope people understand and aggressively fight this. For example,
1) If you own 100 acres of minerals, but the oil and gas company only wants to include 20 acres in its well definition, you lose your ability to ensure all of your land is leased. And, of course, you won't be able to lease your other 80 acres to any other company
2) The company might have the Marcellus shale leased, and begin a forced pooling procedure to drill a well in the Utica shale formation. Mineral owners lose their ability to ensure the oil and gas company first fully develops the Marcellus shale before it explores the Utica. This is not right. What it does is to serve the oil and gas company's benefit because it then holds all the acreage and formations with as few wells as possible, but it does not permit minerals owners to pursue to make sure their minerals are fully explored, especially in a timely manner
3) Oil and gas companies are notorious for improperly calculating royalties using inaccurate price information and deductions. This legislation will deny mineral owners the ability to put into their leases the ability to define how to calculate price, and what penalties their should be when the royalties are not properly paid. For example, a good lease should state that the mineral owner can terminate the lease if the royalties are not correct. The mineral owner will lose this ability
There are additional items that go into a proper oil and gas lease. The WV legislature, that I am aware, is not considering the terms of a good oil and gas lease when it does forced pooling. This is essential because the legislature is forcing a contract on the mineral owners, whereupon the contract will be minus many necessary protective clauses.
Please make no mistake, this is another attempt to take away mineral owner's rights, as well as their financial interests. After taking the risk to buy and own the mineral rights, then plan to use the value of the minerals for education, health care, retirement, land improvement, the WV government is determined to steal the ability to manage personally owned interests and give them to the oil and gas companies, and of course to itself. The WV government benefits, and wants as many wells as possible, because it immediately establishes a well tax against all mineral owners. Thus this legislation not only takes away value from one's lease, it forces even more taken away with a required and very expensive well tax. This is precisely a Boston Tea Party event, using oil and gas substituted for tea. I wish every citizen of WV could read this, and the legislature, but unfortunately the readership here will be limited. I have no faith in the WV leaders to do what is right for the people