http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-12/chesapeake-loses-bid-to... written by Margaret Cronin Fisk.
"Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK), facing claims by mineral rights holders in multiple states over canceled oil and gas lease offers, lost a bid to reverse a $19.7 million judgment to a Texas lease owner..."
Maybe CHK's strong-armed rampant disregard for Mineral Owners' Rights is not quite as immune from the Courts Eyes & Ears & Actions as Mr. Chesapeake and Mr. Hoodwink proclaim...
DrWAVeSport Cd1 9/15/2012
I'm kind of curious.... How many members of GHS.com signed one of these things and had CHK back out on them?
I'd prefer to hear from those who had clean title and were still scammed. But the others may still speak up, too.
Luckily, I negotiated hard with CHK over an extended period of time as they were drilling/proving sections next to (and near) a tract of my family's land; yet we never came to "fair" terms. The negotiation went on for almost a year with one peanut offer after another from the broker representing CHK.
Total hogwash. Such lying crooks.
So, thank goodness we never inked a deal or even agreed to a deal memo.
Indeed, knowing what I now know about crooked CHK, I absolutely would not want my family to have to deal with Chesapeake on a long-term lease.
Never. In other words, not signing their b.s. offer was to our benefit.
Also, since we have a number of tracts of land under lease to several other operators in different locations, and having super HA wells in certain of those tracts (with old hbp leases and with yet another tract with much more advantageous well-negotiated new lease terms) -- helps gives us a perspective in how we manage our complex mineral estate.
So, I'm glad the good Doc has posted this thread, and it's nice to see that there are some clear-thinking judges who are making the right call to balance the scale of justice.
Finally, I did have a distant relative who had a pending deal with CHK that was pulled by the OK headquarters (I was told), yet it was just a verbal negotiation and there was nothing in writing. So, in that particular case, I would construe those terms to be a failed negotiation and not a breach of contract or a breach of a deal memo, etc.
Hey, have you ever wondered which landman/men on GHS are working for CHK and who aren't telling us who's actually paying them for their time on here?
Of course, we all know the helpful PR work Katie McCullin has done on GHS to correct some of the many problems our members have had with CHK. Her ability to get things done is quite impressive. Too bad there aren't more like her in the main office in OK.
No. I don't think anyone believes Kassi had her offer rescinded for any reason other than ambiguity in her title. (BTW... has that yet come to trial?) However,there were others in Kassi's coalition who signed the Agreement to Lease, and were subsequently told by CHK to take a hike. The only reason given was that CHK decided they did not want to honor the commitment. I am interested in hearing how many people were treated as such.
The Rambin Farms portion of Kassi's group has a trial date sometime around the end of the year. Some portion of the remainder of Kassi's group filed suit and received a settlement from CHK.
Kassi negotiated all the terms of the lease (bonus, royalty, lease language) with CHK's reps. Once that was completed, CHK asked all members of Kassi's group to sign a contract that obligated them to lease with CHK, provided their title was good. The contract obligated the members of the group to take their land off the market while CHK was running title.
In Kassi's case, the detailed title search showed that Kassi's land, and that of her nearby neighbors, appeared to be HBP by an old lease from the 1950's. This lease did not have a horizontal Pugh Clause, and so Kassi's land was HBP by some well she didn't even know about. This allowed CHK to back out of the contract, since the title search showed Kassi's minerals to be HBP.
The lawsuit with the trial date for later this year involves (I believe) the issue of whether or not the landowners even own their mineral rights. They obviously believe they own the mineral rights, and the o&g company (not CHK) thinks differently. If I've explained it wrong, someone can chime in and correct me.
Your pretty close, Henry. Kassi's group is in litigation with EXXON, not with CHK. EXXON owned the lease from the 50's. The lease covered about 1,000 acres but only 40 acres was ever included in a producing unit. The old lease did not contain a horizontal Pugh (pooling) clause. EXXON claims the lease remains in force and CHK declined to honor the leases for Kassi's Rambin Farms group because of the title defect. At the request of EXXON's lawyers the trial has been rescheduled for April.
Hi, GD - I appreciate your kind words in regards to my history on GHS. It's always been my goal to reach out where I could be of help and try to expedite any issue remediation. I get a lot of personal joy out of helping; it's just a perk that it's part of my job. I'd like to stress though, that I am the only Chesapeake representative that is paid to speak on behalf of Chesapeake on this site. Part of my daily duties include maintaining the company's presence in social media, including discussion sites such as this. If a landman, employee or other representative connected to CHK chooses to provide information in this space, it is purely on their own accord and not by any other motivation. I hope this provides some insight! Thanks! Katie
Chesacheat screwed everyone even more in addition to renigging upon their lease offers. They sold the production from the wells to CMI (Chesapeake Marketing, a susidiary of Chesacheat) who in turn marketed the production to the end Buyers. Whjen I called them about the varience in prices( more than 1/2 less than what I was receiving from other Operators) they said that I was getting the same price that they were getting from CMI. When I asked what CMI got from the end Buyers they would not tell me. Sounds like another Class Action is needed.........anyone ready for THAT?