Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on July 1, 2012 at 4:24

Les B:

As Jo Ann indicates in her reply, she is probably not due an amendment or notice of assignment per her lease agreement. This would not be altogether unexpected. Most leases with private individuals do not contain provisions requiring notices of assignment, disclosures of lease ownership or consent to assign, even if negotiated by good counsel.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on July 2, 2012 at 8:13

Les B,

Did PXP really have "29 rigs actively drilling horizontal wells at year end..." in HS?

"At December 31, 2011, there were 148 gross exploratory and 37 gross development wells (34.1 net exploratory and 6.5 net development wells) in progress including 147 wells in the Haynesville Shale area where we had approximately 29 rigs actively drilling horizontal wells at year-end. .." per PXP's 2011 10K. 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 18, 2012 at 3:55

DWS, I can only assume this means they had a working interest in 29 HS wells that were being drilled at the end of 2011.  Plains does not operate any wells in the Haynesville Shale.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on July 18, 2012 at 6:10

Les B,

Thanks.

The above statement in their 2011 10K SEC filing is a real "stretch."   

"...including 147 wells in the Haynesville Shale area where we had approximately 29 rigs actively drilling horizontal wells at year-end..."  PXP 

No wonder I get confused reading O&G SEC filings...  LOL

Thanks again.

DWS 7/18/2012 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by nrp61 on July 12, 2012 at 11:00

I have a DO with PXP on the same well along with Petrohawk.  Although my original lease was with Chesapeake.  So...Chesapeake is responsible for paying 80% of the royalties and PXP 20%.  (even though Petrohawk  won't pay Chesapeake!!)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on July 12, 2012 at 11:48

nrp61--- did you talk with PXP-- are they paying you only their 20% or all 100% of your royalty? Has PetroHawk (now BHP since they acquired PetroHawk) and CHK also been paying you a prorated share? Look at your lease and check what is says if they the Lessee assigns any part or all of your lease to another operator about who pays the royalty. PXP are nice helpful people and they should be able to inform you on who will be paying what to the Royalty owners in the well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Donna Thornton on July 13, 2012 at 7:10

I have a lease with CHK that sold 20% to PXP.  No notice.  No problem though, as PXP gives no problems (in my experience, at least).  I actually wish that more of my lease would have been sold as PXP pays a fair price on your volume and the volume you get paid is in line with the records on Sonris at the LDNR.  Can't say the same for CHK.  They pay the cheapest price and short you through volume as well.  When you have an 80/20 with CHK/PXP, that DOES NOT mean your net with CHK will be 5 times what you received from PXP.  I did really well in math in school, guess I was going to the wrong school, hmph!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on July 13, 2012 at 14:02

Donna,

I don't know that CHK is shorting you on volume....  Their reported volume on the monthly statement is different from what they show on sonris.  But there is a reason.  CHK reports volume at one pressure on your monthly statement, but at a different pressure on sonris.  I don't know why they do this.  But the difference is about 3%.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Donna Thornton on July 17, 2012 at 6:13

Hey there Henry.  For the most part, the difference is 2.5% to nearly 5%.  One month is 18.75% less and another is right at 50%.  Now, the 50% month is EnCana's fault according to CHK.  In which, I have spoken to EnCana about.  Thanks for the explanation.  PXP pays according to Sonris.  I wonder if this 3% average is their "enhancement expenses to get a better, more marketable price" which in turn actually pays less?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on July 18, 2012 at 6:18

DST,

It's one of those modern miracles that no one can explain or tell how it occur or what happened...

CHK "enhances"  their nat gas in a great (costly) effort to sell their nat gas to CEMI at the lowest price of all other HS nat gas Producers...???

 

I cannot ponder that one too long...or I get a severe headache...

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on July 18, 2012 at 6:56

Donna,

I don't think there is anything illegal or wrong in their use of different pressures for reporting of volume.  I just don't know why they do it.  Maybe someone who actually knows something about the oil and gas business (as opposed to me) can respond as to why they do it.  Maybe Katie could find out and tell us why.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Les Bamburg on July 18, 2012 at 16:21

Henry, most gas pipelines utilize a standard pressure of 14.73 psia while the State of Louisiana utilizes a standard pressure of 15.025 psia.  The good news is this only effects the reported volume (Scf) but not the reported energy (Btu) which is the unit for gas purchases. 

• ▶ Reply

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