Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Randy on December 26, 2009 at 13:43

I'm confused I don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know what he is referring to about the purported fact stuff or whatever.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on December 26, 2009 at 14:13

I can agree without knowing him, I honestly wasn't trying to defend him at all, just 'talking'.

I'll reiterate, I don't know anything about this situation personally, or by word of mouth. I was just giving an opinion based on what I read. I don't know this Korman person, and I have no dogs in this fight. I have no agenda that I'm aware of.

Going to dinner, if I dont respond promptly please don't think I have an agenda and refuse to answer.

Permalink Reply by Randy on December 26, 2009 at 17:40

All I said in reference to the guy (Korman) was:

I think he is trying to say that we just don't have enough information about what was really said or the other details that may have been inadvertently 'left out' to make a judgment call.

If that implies I know him, sorry, I retract it. I'm not sure how I'm dishonest, I really wasn't trying to stir up crap. Sorry. I'll refrain from interjecting my opinions my friend.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on December 26, 2009 at 18:02

Maybe MOs paying for the pipelines wouldn't be such a bad thing!
They could lease the pipelines to the drillers (since they own it) for perhaps a monthly or annual fee, huh?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on December 26, 2009 at 18:25

See if you think this has anything to do with it (expensing costs).

http://www.cailaw.org/iel_advisor/industry_news/dc_ferc.html

"In Interstate Natural Gas Ass'n of American v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, --F.3d--, 2007 WL 2089743 (D.C. Cir. July 24, 2007), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's accounting order, instructing natural gas pipeline companies to expense the cost of certain programs, including the cost of writing Integrity Management Programs ("IMPs")."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by intrepid on December 28, 2009 at 5:57

P.G., That's my first thougt to, but probably not what Encana had in mind.

If the mineral owner pays part of the pipeline cost why wouldn't the MO own a share of the pipeline?

Give me a cent or so for everything that goes through it and I would probably be really happy.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by stroud on December 27, 2009 at 19:02

can anyone say encana has been straight up with them...........i do not know of any land owner big or small that will tell you that they are honorable people to do business with ........we people in the South are not use to dealing with people who deal in half truths and deception..........from reniging on there pipe line gethering fees to over producing the IP and limiting the total ER return for a few more bucks for them now.......of course this is just my opinion........this may read like i dont like encana, not so, this is just the way they operate, know respect for landowner, rolyality owner or goverment offical..........they will do nothing that is not TOTALY in their self interest........if you have to deal with them dont GIVE them a thing, let them know payback in red river parish can be hell........most gas companies give a lot of money for good community couses and good will, not encana a few dollars here and there and they think we should give them the parish........once again i am not mad at encana, its just the way they think.........IMO

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Explorer on December 29, 2009 at 1:50

Mr. Bethard is making quite a bit of money and in my experience, is not really helping most of the landowners. As far as EnCana goes, did you deal with an actual employee of EnCana or a contractor that is representing themselves as EnCana? My experiences and dealing with EnCana have been great.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by stroud on December 29, 2009 at 3:21

seismic david
everyone in r r parish who has contact with encana will be through a sub contractor.........encana has chosen to hide behind some poor here to day gone tomorrow BOY
to relay messages, when they want to change the deal they just run in a new BOY and renige on the first deal.........

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Explorer on December 29, 2009 at 4:27

stroud - what exactly has happened to you or people you know specifically? The contractors would want to keep things on the ground and in the field and not let it get back to their client. EnCana may not have knowledge of some of the things that are going on.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by stroud on December 29, 2009 at 7:47

seismic dave

with all do respect .............we can start the "specifically" with encana ignoring the no gathering gas fee charge, why did they choose to sluff off their pipe lines, maybe it could be they wanted to put their infrastructor cost on the r.o. it is obvious they never intended to honor that lease clause......once again with all due respect all the encana sub contractors want to do is keep a very good job.........and to keep their job all they have to do is deliever the note, and they are very good at that

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bobi Carr ("parker") on December 29, 2009 at 8:37

I'm just wondering if Encana is particularly worse to deal with than any of the other companies.

It would be nice to hear from someone who has dealt with several and can actually compare the experience.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page