Chesapeake sent me a letter stating that, ..."All revenue adjustments concerning your unit interest will be made effective first production."  Also included were forms requesting my address, soc. sec.#, electronic funds transfer (EFT) enrollment form and a map of the well location for three different wells.

Please explain.

TIA.

Views: 1152

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Did you mean to attach  the docs?

Hi kittycatmama, I didn't mean to attach docs, just wanted to give a description of them.

Thanks Jay.

If you are in a unit with new CUL(s), your division order interest will change due to the increased unit acreage.  Post your section, township and range and we can speculate further.

Actually the lessor's decimal interest does not change.  The units effected may or may not change in regard to acres but only if a new unit survey disagrees with the original division order acreage. The multiple units traversed by a perforated lateral are not added together to create a master unit.  What changes is that each unit is allocated a portion of production based on the linear feet of perforated lateral lying within the boundary of each unit.  As an example, a 6000' perforated lateral with 2000' in unit A and 4000' in unit B would allocate one third of production to A and two thirds to B.  That allocated production would then be paid out at the same decimal interest per royalty interest just as if that volume came from a unit well within the the boundary of each unit.  The well operator files a standard form report with the state specifying the as drilled lateral footage in each unit.

Section 24-14-15

I recently contacted Chesapeake regarding the long delay in being paid on CUL production which began in 04/2016.  I was informed that new division orders would be coming for these units very soon. I have also seen a recent Chesapeake pay stub from a friend in this same unit (15n 14w sec 30) whose original decimal interest was .00040537 and was reduced to .00017392 when paid for the CUL production (1.37 acres originally leased at 1/5 in 2008).  I made the assumption on these facts that division interest would be reduced because of increased unit size.  Thanks for the clarification.

You're welcome, Ronny.  CHK's initial Haynesville DO due diligence was sloppy and they have what appears to be a  significant number of faulty original unit surveys.  A lot of adjustments have been ongoing as CULs do create reasons for being more accurate with the split allocation of production.

can anybody give me the well number or location please

thanks

Section 24-14-15

Chesapeake did not include a decimal interest calculation on any of the forms at all.  Why is that?

 

What kind of "forms" are they?  Do they have a title?

RSS

© 2020   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service