ShareThis Page
Editorials

Problems with 'pooling'

| Sunday, Aug. 4, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

No longer just a hypothetical concern, Marcellus shale drillers' expediency trampling private-property rights under a new state law that forces “pooling” of leased properties has become a practical concern with EQT Corp. suing for survey access to 70 Forward properties under that law. But landowners at least can have their day in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court.

If, that is, they're willing and able to wage a legal fight against a deep-pocketed firm — which points out yet another unfair aspect of this ill-advised law.

It strips landowners whose leases don't explicitly prohibit “pooling” — which enables sideways drilling with fewer well pads — of their rightful leverage to renegotiate better lease terms in exchange for allowing the practice. They're left at drillers' mercy — a quality EQT's decision to litigate seemingly lacks.

The law's sponsor says EQT — surprise! — lobbied for its passage. And its advocates maintain that by requiring all pooled properties to already be leased, it doesn't force unwanted drilling.

The lawsuit shows that's true only until a driller decides to use the law, forcing a grim choice on landowners: Knuckle under or fight a steeply uphill legal battle.

EQT-style use of the law may bolster drillers' bottom lines but will win their industry few friends. Landowners statewide will watch this litigation closely, hoping courts will show more regard for their rights than the Legislature, Gov. Tom Corbett and EQT have.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me