Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by RONNY on January 31, 2014 at 3:55

I had another thought from a shareholder perspective.  Should I be happy they short their royalty recipients therefore improving their bottom line?  Or should I be disappointed they can't negotiate a better price for their gas?  Just wonderin' 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on January 31, 2014 at 6:23

An idea: NO company wants bad publicity. Get a group of people together who are being shorted, get a good reporter from a lg. newspaper, and head to their corporate headquarters.  Hang out in their lobby everyday. This is a lot more effective than the legal route as you are right, they have corp. attorneys on payroll who just need something to do

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on February 1, 2014 at 4:41

I suggest Ronny contact Dan Gilbert of the Wall Street Journal.  He is one of their energy reporters, and is aware of many of CHK's schemes and tricks.

(Incidentally, CHK does the same to my family.  My mother has a CHK lease where her gas prices are significantly below my BHP prices.  So go for it, Ronny.)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John L on January 31, 2014 at 3:58

Ronny, Consider yourself lucky to get $2.64.  We got $2.17.  You are correct that this is no more than theft. These crooks are taking money from the elderly and unknowing at will and without recourse.  I have been told that it is just too expensive to fight them in court and most attorneys are waiting for a judgment against them to set precedence.  This may not happen since they come in and settle before a judgment is passed down.  We really need help from our legislators on this.

Does anyone have any ideas on how to get the word out to the proper people?  Any suggestions for a good attorney?  we have not been paid at all for a well that has been producing for 5 months. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Greedy Landowner on January 31, 2014 at 4:58

Many of us get ripped off every month, I am no different. I hate to be blunt about it but honestly about all you can do is get over it. Its not going to stop unless voters pressure our elected officials enough to make a change. The majority of voters dont know or care enough to make in an issue.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 1kw6x71km1v37 on January 31, 2014 at 15:58

Legal theft or contract dispute, here is some good reading. Be sure to visit the rest of the site for more good info on your rights and etc.: http://www.shaleadvice.com/royalty-auditing/the-schemes-for-underpa...

I believe this link has been cited here before now, but this one bears reading again in view of all the recent complaints on under payment/no payment:   http://www.propublica.org/article/unfair-share-how-oil-and-gas-dril...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Max on February 1, 2014 at 4:11

GL, I would think that the average voter doesn't care about mineral owners. 

I can see the ad campaign now; Greedy mineral owners responsible for increased Energy prices....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on February 1, 2014 at 4:36

Max,

I don't think CHK is being a good citizen and doing the average consumer a favor by keeping prices low.  Rather, I suspect that they are selling gas to their affiliate at a low price, and then the affiliate turns around and sells it in the market at a higher price.  The affiliate then pockets the difference between the higher sales price and the low price paid to the royalty owner.  The price that consumers pay is not affected by this scheme.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Bradstreet on February 5, 2014 at 6:05

You are exactly right, I forced them to show me an accounting for the gas, It was sold 8 times before I was paid, which in my opinion is illegal, my gas should be paid on at the first meter it passes through, but they wouldn't get all their fees

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by w.r. frank on February 5, 2014 at 15:21

Henry is absolutely right. The market is the market. Power generators buy NG at regional hubs (Henry, Perryville or Carthage) for HA Shale NG. When CHK makes a fraudulent bookkeeping transfer from one wholly owned subsidiary to another wholly owned subsidiary (CHK Operating to CEMI) solely for the purpose of cheating royalty owners with "no cost" royalty addendums, that theft money goes into the pockets of CHK. The power generators pay market at the cash hubs. In no way does the consumer benefit from CHK's fraudulent activity. Oh, by the way, it doesn't matter what language is in your lease.

I will give campaign contributions to any candidate for any judgeship (district, appeals, or supreme court) that runs on a campaign promise to protect LA landowners from flagrant disregard of contractual agreements. NOBODY does this as bad as CHK, not BHP, XCO, ECA, SWEPI or others. CHK knows the average small landowner cannot afford to take on the cash costs of litigation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on February 1, 2014 at 4:36

Past discussions have plowed this ground before with little or no result.  That's not surprising as it is a challenge difficult to overcome with state elected officials whether that is your local legislators or the Attorney General.  The only option that appears to have any chance of success from my prospective is the election of appellate level judges.  The appeals court is where a lot of decisions in favor of land/mineral owners at the district level get reversed.  Elections for seats on the appellate courts come up regularly owing to staggered terms.  Those election districts are relatively small and vulnerable to grass root campaigns to elect judges who are more in tune with the rights and problems of land/mineral owners.  These elections tend to fly under the radar.  There is little open campaigning and the only truly involved stake holders involved are the legal community.  A well financed, professionally run campaign with a candidate supportive of mineral lessor rights has the potential to create a significant impact.  The majority of cases involving mineral related issues which have set precedents over the last five or so years have been heard by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Shreveport.  That's directly related to Haynesvillle Shale development but has implications for mineral owners all over the state. 

Electing several judges over consecutive election periods in the First and Second Districts would be a reasonable possibility IMO.  Those two circuits courts will hear cases on appeal related to the Haynesville, Brown Dense and TMS.

http://www.lasc.org/about_the_court/map02.asp

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by richard v. simmons on April 6, 2014 at 11:35

May still be legal in Louisiana, but it really is not right! I'm gonna keep plowing! Wells in same field one mile apart!                                                                                               October-13                                                                                                      Encana $3.44                                                                                                     Shell $3.43                                                                                              Chesapeake $2.89                                                                                    November 13                                                                                               Encana $3.43                                                                                                     Shell $3.40                                                                                          Chesapeake $2.91                                                                                   December 13                                                                                              Encana $3.78                                                                                                 Shell $3.74                                                                                           Chesapeake $3.19                                                                                     January 14                                                                                                  Encana $4.31                                                                                                    Shell $4.30                                                                                           Chesapeake $3.75

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page