Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

State in middle of battle

October 27, 2013

A portion of the Loyalsock State Forest known as the Clarence Moore tract has become the focal point of a battle between environmentalists and energy giant Anadarko Petroleum Corp....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Oct-28-13 8:05 AM

Thanks for explaining Texas.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-27-13 7:17 PM


Sounds like the gas company screwed up. Normally they have better procedures because the law suit could be worse or the mineral owner said they were holding out for a higher royalty and maybe could get it in a court of law. Or if it happened to me, I would say that I want a working interest in the well and then proceed to pay my share of the well costs from the revenue proceeds of the production.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-27-13 7:11 PM


In Texas, the operator applying for the permit would be required to file a plat that shows the "pooled" acreage attributed to the well and would have to indicate they or their partners have rights to it.

There is a minor exception. If the lease is an undivided lease but they can not track down minor interest owners after various reasonable attempts, the property can still be pooled. An example is parents leave their property to children with equal interests without actually splitting up the acreage. One of the children moves to a foreign country and family members have never heard from them for 20 years. After repeated efforts to locate them no one is successful in finding them. Escrow accounts would be set up and their royalty portion would go into them, in case they showed up. But some states have passed laws that the money goes into the state coffers and if anyone ever shows up to claim it, the state would pay them.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-27-13 4:39 PM

Check out this story Oct. 22, 2013 Newsworks.

"DEP issues well permit for unleased land".

I guess accidents do happen sometimes, thank goodness this couple found out this information before they drilled.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-27-13 4:25 PM

So tell me Erik, where did you get your law degree? I ask this because if I were you I would file a malpractice suit against the university. You obviously know little to nothing about the realities of this issue. Anadarko has little or no standing in this case and will not even file a suit in this case when they are denied access, which is why they are not pursuing this. You are simply being the same Erik everyone is used to hearing from, the gas industry shill. Mark Szybist on the other hand is an experienced attorney who has studied this issue at length. Your consistent act of the informed professional is an embarrassment to all those who really do care about and understand this and other fracking issues. You are nothing but a paid industry mouth piece that would tell these people anything if you thought it would further your master's parasitic behavior. Nothing you say can be considered anything but propaganda.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-27-13 1:30 PM

Texas is right, it is illegal to drill into unleased land, even if the well originates in leased land.

It is also true that they cannot drill right up to the line, but must provide a buffer zone.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-27-13 9:11 AM

Francine, I don't know all the laws in the state of PA on the issue but if they are consistent with the state of Texas, they would not be able to drill onto another property without having the mineral rights.

In fact, many times, there are standard spacing/set-backs that still require you to be so many feet from a lease line, excepting that the regulatory agencies can grant exceptions if a geological interpretation can support it.

Of course, mineral owner B/C might be willing to grant access to drill across their property without a company actually producing the natural gas, but doubtful.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-27-13 7:59 AM

Lastly, environmental groups need to understand that no drilling is not an option here.

If they stay stubborn, they will lose in court.

This is a case where reasonable compromise is required on all sides.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Oct-27-13 7:58 AM


Absolutely not.

Now, if Anadarko owned the surface & mineral rights to land adjacent to the Clarence Moore tract where they only own the mineral rights, they could drill down on the adjacent property and then horizontally into the Clarence Moore area.

This would ensure the surface of Clarence Moore is not disturbed.

But, given the size and probable location of the shale, this is not a likely scenario.

In this case, if the state tries to bar Anadarko completely, it will lose in court as going to far.

The state must allow some use. It is just a matter of coming up with a solution that everyone can live with.

This is why DCNR and Anadarko held those closed-door meetings with environmental see if there is some common ground that could be found.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 9 of 9 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web