| Opinion/The Review

Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Pooling's purpose

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

Letter to the Editor
Sunday, Nov. 3, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

The news story “Hilcorp Energy first in Pa. to test law allowing access to gas without property owners' consent” and the editorial “Forced pooling? Change the law” (Oct. 6, Oct. 9 and regarding the 1961 state law that allows forced pooling for Utica shale natural-gas drilling seem to portray a misperception, implying that forced pooling of mineral interests allows drilling companies to “take” a person's property.

Such pooling does not impact surface rights. Landowners cannot be “forced” to allow drilling activity on their land without a lease agreement. Most know that natural gas may flow deep underground across property boundaries. Forced pooling simply attempts to account for this by “forcing” unleased landowners to accept the same payments as leased owners in the same drilling unit.

The true reason for forced pooling is actually the exact opposite — so that a mineral owner with small acreage may not unfairly prevent his or her neighbor from drilling.

A drilling unit must have a majority of property leased before unleased acreage can be included. The news story stated Hilcorp leased all but 35 acres out of 3,267 in its drilling unit (99 percent) — multiple horizontal wells can be drilled from just a few surface pads and a few acres there.

Would it be fair if a few small property owners were able to prevent the majority of their neighbors from accessing mineral rights? Similar laws have existed in many states for many years, for good reason.

Karl Kimmich


Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.



Show commenting policy

Most-Read Letters

  1. USW not cause of ATI woes
  2. Outrageous & delusional
  3. Seal the borders
  4. States & secession
  5. Not one-sided
  6. Major issue, no action
  7. Catholicism & science
  8. Inspiring & welcome
  9. ‘Deflategate’ fault NFL’s
  10. Bright lines: Budget battle
  11. Work with lawmakers, Gov. Wolf