Trending
ELKINS -- Four area representatives answered questions about the state's oil and natural gas situation during the Elkins-Randolph County Chamber of Commerce's Legislative Luncheon at the Arts Center this week.
Republican District 11 Senators Robert Karnes and Bill Hamilton, and current District 43 Delegates Ty Nestor, a Republican, and Cody Thompson, a Democrat, were on hand and each spoke after moderator Jennifer Griggs presented them with an array of questions.
One of the questions Griggs asked was about Senate Bill 694, which relates to oil and natural gas conservation. The bill, which was passed in March by a 55-44 vote, deals with property rights of surface owners and farmers relating to drilling for natural gas and horizontal wells.
Hamilton, who voted yes on the bill, was asked to speak first.
"This bill has been our agenda for well over 10 years," Hamilton said. "The major players in it are the West Virginia Farm Bureau and the Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia. They could never come to a compromise, one wanted this part and the other wanted the other way.
"The bill is basically where you have a pod of acreage and they got 68 percent of the people to sign on (to sell), and maybe they couldn't find one of the heirs or another simply wouldn't sign on. In the past I voted against the bill, but this year I said it's time we solve this and voted yes."
Nestor, who is running for the newly redrawn 66th District Delegate seat in the primary, spoke next.
"I voted no as a matter of principle," Nestor said. "I think when a property owner buys some property, that's their property. The bill has been called a number of different things, they called it a conservation bill this year, but essentially what it boils down to is if your neighboring tract owners want to sell some property and there is an agreement among them of 68 percent, it forces the other person to come and sell their mineral rights under other people's terms.
"As a matter of principle of living in a free country, living in 'Mountaineers are always free,' if you have a piece of property you own what's underneath of it and what's above it. And quite frankly, if you're not willing to part with your minerals for whatever reason that's your business. If you own something and it's yours and you don't want to part with it on terms that are not your own, then you shouldn't have to.
"It was more of a moral principle decision for me and I really want to get the pipeline back," he said. "But I felt the bill was rushing into things and people were going to lose some valuable property that they didn't deserve to have compromised."
Thompson, who is running for the newly redrawn 67th District Delegate seat in the primary, said he had a personal stake in the bill.
"They may have called this bill the conservation bill, but what this bill really is, is forced bullying," Thompson said. "I'm not sure if you guys are familiar with that term or not, but basically that's putting everyone together and whether you want to sell your mineral rights or not, you have to do it.
"To me this could very well affect me one day because of some property that has been deeded to me. I also share with some of my cousins. If everyone is in agreement to sell those mineral rights and I'm not, I would be forced to sell.
"To me, land is sacred and especially if it's been passed down through generations of family," he said. "I don't think it's right to force someone to give up the rights to their land. I can't stand that someone may be forced to give up their mineral rights. It was an easy decision for me when I voted no."
Karnes, who voted yes on the bill, was next to speak.
"This is a difficult issue and in the past I have voted on both sides of it," Karnes said. "I believe this year's bill did as good of a job as could be expected. Both the Farm Bureau and the industry came to the table on this bill and agreed on it.
"Something that is important to know is this is not where you own a piece of land or mineral rights 100 percent and you're forced into selling. This is where there are multiple owners, 75 percent, associated with a particular piece of land and a majority of the interests want to sell."