Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on June 28, 2013 at 12:38

Wondering if the Former Mr. Chesapeake is privy to ALL the deduct info on his 2 percent of every well he "participates" in????  aka Founder Well Participation Program... Participant of one...  Wouldn't you love to see his tax returns...   CEMI bought ALL CHK gas.  IMO  That polluted and poisoned the water...  100% transparency for our mineral transactions with these companies should be the standard business practice. 

CHK will tell/say anything...  I for one have heard it all!  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on June 28, 2013 at 15:01

I wonder how it would work if a legal firm created a company owned sub firm to represent an opposing party...?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dion Warr, CPL on June 29, 2013 at 5:02

P.G.:

Would it work about the same as financial houses which would create funds that would invest in, say, collateralized mortgage bundles while also creating hedge funds that would be invested in the defaults on said securitized instruments, as well as investing revenues and proceeds internally in a third set of investments based upon the "best case" performance of either one, without telling the investors in either of the first two classes about the existence of any of it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jim rodgers on June 29, 2013 at 9:44

I am an unsigned mineral owner, force pooled by CHK,  The quarterly accounting statement from CHK showing the payout status of the well reported a gas price of $2.17 with CMI as purchaser.  The well will never payout at this price.  Is there a lawsuit in progress that I can join against CHK?? JIMR

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on June 29, 2013 at 10:04

jim, no there is not.  If class status regarding legal action against an operator was a simple process there would be hundreds by now in the area of the Haynesville Shale.  Courts have declined to certify class actions against energy companies for reasons such as those under discussion here based on extremely stringent requirements for class membership.  The only current cases of which I am aware involve relatively small numbers of plaintiffs.  A few attorneys who were not experienced in O&G law and litigation took some cases on contingency in the early years for groups of mineral owners, not a class.  Those that followed through to trial did not prevail in court. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Bacle on July 3, 2013 at 3:03

Looks clear as mud to me. ;-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Larry G Smith P.E. on July 4, 2013 at 3:10

Well I guess this some more of CHK's whitewash. I am a landowner and leased to CHK, I, we have NOT received any notice from CHK about greater  transparency. Just received our royalty check for March 2013. Same thing, nothing explained but paid us only $2.53 per MCF.  We are still waiting for the correction that we are due from the Jan 2013 check. They paid us for 23134MCF and the production for that month was 31691 MCF. I contacted CHK and was told that is what XTO paid them for. I then contacted XTO and they said they had made a mistake and were sending the money to CHK and would receive our money in the next royalty check. Then on the Feb check  CHK paid us for 27108 MCF which was the correct amount for that Production month but only paid us 2.32 per MCF. Then they "refunded"  the State tax that was taken from our royalty checks in the May 2011 and Oct 2011.

I am tired fooling with CHK and XTO and plan to take every thing I have collected todate to the Attorney Generals office, there is reason to suspect GROSS FRAUD going on. With the infomation I have collected todate, the Atty General for the State will look into it. He told me to bring him the information and he will look at it and if it shows some problems they will be very happy to look into it.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by P.G. on July 4, 2013 at 5:17

Perhaps someone needs to send the AG a link to this forum...with all the unhappy talk here about what's going on ..one would think it would at least spark a bit of interest for the AG to "look into it".....

So far it looks like the AG is looking the other way....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Larry G Smith P.E. on July 4, 2013 at 7:15

The AG can only look into the problem if I/we can show Fraud in any way. I  am going to ask him to also look into the dealing of CHK and that Judge in Shreveport. I think that is where the AG will be interested in checking what went on there. Please if any of you  have additional information, send it to my email address, lgspe@bellsouth.net. I need all the information I can get, he has told me that if I show him any thing that looks like fraud on the part of anyone from the Landman to CHK and/or XTO. In fact any thing going on that may be wrong with any other company operating there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JK on July 4, 2013 at 5:29

Larry,

We will look forward to the results of your meeting with the Atty General.

Sounds like this will give us real information.

Thank you!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on July 4, 2013 at 6:30

Good for you Larry!  If more people would go to the AG, maybe something would happen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 1kw6x71km1v37 on July 4, 2013 at 7:24

Unfortunately, fraud is not a crime. Theft is, and that is much harder to prove in contractural matters. Of course, oil companies know this, and it's why they jerk landowners around so much on royalties. It is almost entirely intentional, either by design or feigned  ignorance. The clerks who do this may be working on a percentage of the net take. Just my honest observation. I may be wrong, but at least I'm not a lying corporate SOB.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 8
• Next ›
• Page