Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Larry G Smith P.E. on August 7, 2012 at 1:02

Henry, your reply to LN was DELETED,  do not know by who but we need to start another way of replying without someone deciding they do not want that said in here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on August 7, 2012 at 6:23

Larry,

I deleted it.  I wrote it, and then decided it didn't contribute materially to the discussion, so I pulled it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Knotts on July 24, 2012 at 7:58

Not only is Chesapeake, stealing form the royalty owners by price per mcf, now they are reporting gross volumes a lot less than the operator and other partners are reporting, this has got to stop.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Larry G Smith P.E. on July 24, 2012 at 8:14

David, can you give me numbers and volumes? If we want to do something we have to have exact numbers and volumes, field name, etc. I suspect the same thing and have a little information but will need much more if we are to stop this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Larry G Smith P.E. on July 24, 2012 at 8:27

I have a question to any and all that have interest in this discussion about Royalty payments in the Haynesville Shale and particular in DeSota Parish, Brushy Bayou sections. How many of you have received your Royalty payment this month? Also, my last payment was for the month of February, am now owed for March, April, May and June with July nearly finished. My lease is with Chesapeake, I have called them and they said that the operator, XTO has not paid them which I do not beleive. But have sent an e-mail to XTO, they replied that since I do not have contractural relationship with them, they would not answer my question. I replied back to XTO that I was sure that they had contractural relationship with Chesapeake and since I had contractural relationship with Chesapeake (my lease) they XTO was responsable to me. If I do not hear back from them, I am thinking about filing a lein against the well and XTO, Chesapeake for non payment of Royalty. Have been checking and that may be a solution to every ones problems with the operators.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Knotts on July 24, 2012 at 9:00

Well is in Desoto ph, sec 31-15n,12w, operated by Exco , 2-12 Exco & PXP (partner to Cheaspeake ) reported 156,467.88 mcf gross volume, Cheaspeake reported113,844 mcf, 3-12 Exco & PXP reported 196,475.89 mcf, Cheaspeake 144,206.82, 2-12 Exco & PXP paid 2.30 mcf Cheaspeake 1.55 mcf 3-12 Exco & PXP paid 1.95 mcf, Chesapeake 1.23 mcf

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roy Austin Smith on July 24, 2012 at 9:41

Cheasapeke is screwing the landowners from day one.   The wheels Desoto Parish got big money for leases, and big money royalites, till everythig slowed down. the small landeowner was paid way below the price other companies paid and now I see and i am sure they were cutting down on the check stubs the amount of gas produced. Normnal operations for Cheasapeke. Who is supposed to be in the justice dept. to stop all this . many, many complaints about them

Exco is reporting gas produced and small amount of oil etc produced on two wells in Desoto., One well has been shut for about two years as a future utility well and i have checked these two wells a good number of times. the future utility well always carried the same amount as the producing well. JUst recently the shut in well has been cfhanged to a active producing well with the out going valve complely closed. ABout two weeks ago my wife got a seven dollar check and i went by both wells. first well valve closed tight. it has a line going to the other well. Meter on the line at other well 000000 second meter going to seperator 00000. second well valve on xmas tree closed. compress down. meter reading 00000. and they are still hold ing the lease.  fine oil companies. oh, yes i have photos and date of the valves, the meters and the compressor. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on August 2, 2012 at 11:24

chk is paying much less than other operators for the same gas, are they trying to get every landowner who leased with them to sue?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on August 2, 2012 at 12:05

essay,

CHK knows you won't sue.  It takes a ton of money to sue a big company.  Unless you are getting royalties from a thousand (or more) acres, the amount you might win at trial won't cover what it costs to sue.  And, you could always lose at trial, and then you'd be out a ton of money in attorney fees.  I have no idea if CHK's low payments are legal or not.  But, as far as I can see it, the only way to find out is to convince the Attorney General's Office pursues this.  GoshDarn has posted their contact information numerous times on this site.  If they hear from enough mineral owners who think they are being cheated, they may look into it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Roy Austin Smith on August 2, 2012 at 12:38

Henry: you know, i know that Cheasapeake is paying lower prices than others. Almost impossible to sue a company that owes 22 billion dolllars., maybe they will go bankrupt. too many lawyers on the pay roll. too many rude employes, that are being told to lie to you. Of course they have if they keep a job. they have pulled out of east Texas and Desoto Parish. A new company has moved in and is drilling more Haynesville wells in Caspaina area. My gripes was forwarded to the company by an employee on Haynes ville shale. did not suprise me, i did not hear anything. they pay off big to the cities and the police juries, school board, but the small landowner is left out. No big suprise.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on August 2, 2012 at 14:39

i wouldn't be too sure about it if i were them, they're pissing off quite a few families that have large holdings.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on August 3, 2012 at 0:17

Yes, those families with large holdings will have the financial ability to sue  The little guy has no recourse.  Anyone who tries to sue will need to show that something illegal is going on.  I have no idea if it is or isn't.   It may be that CHK's tangled web of subsidiaries and affiliates lets them sell gas back and forth among themselves enough times that somehow the whole thing is legal.  It would be very hard and very expensive to prove anything illegal is going on.  The burden of proof is on the plaintiff - the discovery phase of any trial like this could cost a bundle.  One would have to gain access to all the contracts and legal documents that establish the subsidiaries, understand all the contracts and agreements that govern the relationships among all these companies, etc.  Not cheap.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page