Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on November 4, 2008 at 10:59

McClendon just lost $2 billion. Enough?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on November 4, 2008 at 11:18

How would you have liked to get the phone call from his broker?

Talk about ruining your day.

At least he can say hes not insider trading.

Permalink Reply by lambert park on November 5, 2008 at 6:01

Maybe it was the 0 sh_t sticker I have seen around town

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DoublEagle on October 23, 2008 at 16:11

How bout 2 years ago before the HS was not even heard of. and was approached to lease
and was told if we didn't sign and a well was drilled to explore and see if anything was even down there and by not signing we would not receive nothing. We signed 1/8th royalties and $100.00 per acre but now look at the going price after it has gone public. A well was drilled and lines were run across the road connected to another well they drilled and the meters on both are spinning like hell and they say there has not been a well drilled. its less than 1/2 mile from me and CHK is involved

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DoublEagle on October 23, 2008 at 16:25

A note to my post
When I signed there was not a site to go and check to see what was going on because there was no Haynesville shale
to talk about. It hadn't gotten outside the inner circle yet.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DoublEagle on October 23, 2008 at 16:58

CHK CEO Aubrey McClendon
when HS was still behind closed doors
he bought $1.7 million in stocks in CHK
and from that he had a return of over
$1. 2 billion. To me that is a snake in the grass.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Antsu-in-Japan on October 23, 2008 at 18:14

Almost bit my tongue reading that. So nice to see that they have the option to make such WONDERFUL money off of our land. And we're considered "greedy" for asking for anything above $500 per acre!

Anything lower than snakes out there??

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by wpt9452 on October 23, 2008 at 15:34

I can't imagine how upset I would be if this happened to me but it seems everything in life boils down to the dollar sign. Cheasapeake is handling this all wrong but the economy has taken precedent over everything else. People have lost their retirement and now face working many more years than they had planned on. If you look at the homes being forclosed and so many people living in their cars with no health care. Yes, it's not fair about broken promises on leases but if companies don't make a profit they cease to exist. Cheasapeake tried to give us a public image of a caring and concerned company that cared about our community. I would imagine they knew this bad publicity would ruin their image around here but they must have weighed the cost of their image to the cost to the company if they honored and paid for these leases. Yes, they got greedy by wanting so much land and we got greedy wanting bigger and bigger lease bonuses. Until our stock market and economy manage to fix itself and the economy grows again we have to wait. I was bitter when I leased for $275 and acre for my 2 acres when I found about the 20,000 dollar leases and up that came about 6 weeks later. I learned it only poisioned my attitude and made me angry. These are scary times and Americans must get their priorities in order. Cheaseapeake can't give everything to everybody and function as a business. First they have to rebuild trust and that will take time and explain in more detail what is going on now. I have other properties I would like to lease and I don't rule out any company that is interested. They have to earn our trust and pay us a fair price. I doubt many people would take less money for a lease to "get back" at Chesapeake for what they are doing now. Hopefully this country will get back on it's feet and the Haynesville Shale will develop into all our hopes and dreams we had counted on.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Antsu-in-Japan on October 23, 2008 at 16:52

Nope...if ANY company in the US is making a profit, I'd wager my Haynesville Acreage that it's O&G-related. They have the money.

I don't think greed was the factor in either case. CHK was looking to further explore their business interest and wanted more land. Landowners were trying to get the fair, CURRENT market value for their asset to be leased. That is also good business. The problem lies in moral and/or possible legal issues regarding reversal of written and/or verbal agreements.

As for your other property, good luck with it. Just watch your back...don't expect CHK to change the way it plays the game (which seems to be rather ruthless!!) overnight. Protect you and yours...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RJ on October 23, 2008 at 23:41

WPT this is about doing what you agreed to do nothing more! Cheasapeake agreed to pay a caertain amout. THey are not following through with their end of the bargin.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on October 24, 2008 at 7:18

Actually I'm not sure I've heard any of the companies blaming landowners. Most of them are blaming themselves or the industry. In times gone by, when a company had a new idea or a new play, they kept it dead secret, leased all of the land they could and then announced. That's the way it was played. I can still remember leaving work and having to open my briefcase to show security I wasn't carrying out any sensitive information because I was working on a secret prospect. Sections in the office were locked and only certain people had keys. That's how it was done. And that is exactly what some are blasting CHK for...keeping the play secret until they leased everything they could for very small amounts of money. But that is how it was done...by everyone.

The blame I've heard companies lay has been on themselves for bidding up the leases to frothy levels. They've blamed Petrohawk for actually leaking this play out in March. Floyd's comments back then cost a lot of people a lot of money, BUT made the landowners a lot of money! He should be people's hero cuz without that press release, CHK would have leased several hundred thousand more acres under $1000/acre. That I can just about guarantee because they've done it elsewhere.

So, again, I think most of the O&G's are really not blaming landowners for the rise in prices. But that doesn't mean they want to pay...they will do everything they can to not pay.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on October 24, 2008 at 10:09

Agreed. But I meant have the companies been pointing the finger? I haven't heard Aubrey, Floyd, others making those kind of comments. Thats what I was referring to. On here there's a lot of it. Heck, some of it from me! But I've lightened up a lot! Maybe I've gone soft in light of all the politics and the wonderful "O-topia" we have coming at us!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page