By Rory Sweeneyrsweeney@timesleader.com
Staff Writer

Several local legislators have removed their support from a bill purported to protect landowners from unwanted gas drilling near their property, after learning about potential unintended implications in the legislation.

State House Bill 977, introduced by state Rep. Sandra Major, was announced in February to “extend the Oil and Gas Conservation Law to development within the Marcellus Shale deposit,” along with other protections for landowners, according to the co-sponsorship memorandum distributed throughout the House.

Those protections, however, would allow in the Marcellus area so-called “forced pooling.” Defended as a way to reduce land disturbance by maximizing the area each gas well drains, the practice essentially forces landowners into leasing if surrounding land has been leased for drilling.

State Reps. Karen Boback, R-Harveys Lake, Phyllis Mundy, D-Kingston and Jim Wansacz, D-Old Forge, have removed their support of the bill in response to that potential threat.

Mundy asked legal counsel for the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee – where the bill has been sitting since March – to investigate the implication.

“The issue of forced pooling is a double-edged sword,” the analysis concluded. Without it, gas companies are free to drill as close to property lines as possible and siphon off gas from neighboring unleased property that naturally drains out – known as the “Law of Capture” – without compensation. “Yet the remedy of forcing the unwilling landowner to open up the land for drilling is unsatisfactory as it infringes upon individual property rights,” according to the analysis.

Major, R-Montrose, acknowledged that potential interpretation of her bill, but maintains that wasn’t the intent. She said she is open to amending the bill’s language to unambiguously protect landowners’ rights. Mundy, Boback and Wansacz noted that they would consider supporting the bill with changes and acknowledged that their support was based on the claims in the original memo rather than the bill’s wording.

“What we did is we assumed it. Up here, you take people for their word. Bills can be interpreted many different ways,” Wansacz said.

He said he felt confident that, had the bill ever been subjected to hearings, the issues would have arisen and been addressed. “Before a bill becomes law, it never ever looks like what it started out,” he said.

Mundy said she will support existing bills that individually address the other proposals in Major’s bill, such as prohibiting drillers from drilling through unleased land and ensuring that extraction costs aren’t deducted from landowners’ royalties.

Rory Sweeney, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 970-7418.

Copyright: Times Leader