Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Henry on July 7, 2011 at 8:19

layla,

 

I hear from many people who send me their gas prices, and this is what I can tell you.

 

Originally, CHK did NOT show any deductions for things like transportation, treatment, and marketing on their statements.  They had some confusing wording that says you are seeing the gross price, but it was the gross price after deductions but before tax deductions.  You had no way of knowing if anything was deducted, or how much was deducted (unless, of course, you follow my survey).  The only way to find out if there were deductions for trans, treatment, marketing, etc. was to call or write and have them tell you.

 

Now, some people are seeing a breakout for transportation, marketing, etc. on their monthly statements.  I don't believe everyone sees it yet, but I know some people are.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JHH on July 7, 2011 at 12:47

if you live in Texas... it is against the law to "net out" expenses or deductions from the price of natural gas.  those deductions must be listed separately on your pay stub.  if that's not done, you can request deductions by sending a certified letter... include your owner number and well identification.  don't know the law in Louisiana.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by layla on July 8, 2011 at 6:50

I have small acreage in three different sections that are leased to CHK.  They are paying royalties currently on two.  The royalties are listed one below the other on the check so one needs only casual observation to see there is a discrepancy.

 

The first customer relations person I talked with said that I didn't have a cost-free clause for the property on which CHK was paying cost-free and I did have a cost-free clause for the property on which they are clearly making deductions (HUH?).  I told her that I have cost-free clauses in all three leases with CHK.  She then tried out to tell me that the problem was that I had recently acquired the property from **** and I had to explain to her that the property was purchased by my father in the early 1970's and that I had inherited it in 1995 when he passed away.  Then she tried out the idea that the well was too far from the pipeline and I had to pay for transporting the gas and I explained that transportation is excluded in my lease.  Then she said that since there weren't any deductions on the check then obviously there weren't any being taken.  I advised her that I was aware that CHK did not currently show expenses on the check but just lowered the unit price to compensate for whatever figures they were using for expenses.  She assured me that CHK did not do that anymore and that all expenses deducted were shown on the check.  It was like trying to explain quantum mechanics to my cat.....

The next time I called Revenue, I got someone in customer relations who did seem to try to help but finally came back on the line after 10 minutes on hold and said everyone was busy and I would just have to call back through the toll-free number at another time.

I called again a bit later and got a young man who said that I had been told what I needed to do and that I should send a letter asking for review.  I asked to which department and he said Revenue.  I asked if I could fax the letter and he said that I should fax it to Division Orders.  I asked him which was the correct department for the review and he said it didn't matter-either was correct.  I was left with impression that Santa Claus was in Revenue and the Tooth Fairy was in Division Orders.  I asked how long it might take to get a response and he said they didn't have any specific time frames which sort of confirmed by suspicions about Santa & Tooth Fairy.. He did finally refer me to a person in Division Orders who had nothing to do with the DO on the property I was asking about but is the person who is doing the DO on the third piece I own.  (The well in this section was turned to sales in November 2010 with still no DO as of today.)    I did call and leave a message asking this man to contact me even though I said I wasn't sure he was who could help me.  Haven't heard back but the message was just left yesterday....Hope springs eternal!

 

Dealing with CHK is like being on an extended trip into the Twilight Zone where one is trapped in a flash mob takeoff on a Saturday Night Live skit starring Jon Lovitz.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on July 8, 2011 at 8:00

layla,

"..like trying to explain quantum mechanics to my cat.."

You are close.  If you read up on the paradox of Schrodinger's cat (yes, Erwin Schrodinger, of quantum mechanics fame), you will find varying explanations of the paradox.  The paradox involves an observer making simultaneous observations in which a cat is observed to be both dead and alive.  Your lease is like Schrodinger's cat -- CHK seems to make simultaneous observations in which your lease has cost-free royalties and does not have them.   Yes, it's Bizarro World.

 

I would suggest you and Roy Austin Smith contact Katie McCullen on this site.  She might be able to put you in touch with someone at CHK who will be more responsive.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on July 8, 2011 at 16:32

and sometimes, apparently even if you have a cost free lease, they still can't manage to pay around what everyone else does, and oh did i mention it appears that they sell most of their gas to the subsidiary they conveniently spun off not too long ago...  there have been some rumblings from larger landowners in desoto and red river, and they're not happy...  i heard secondhand from a guy that talked to his production monitoring company and he was talking class action...  /shrug

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on July 8, 2011 at 16:44

essay,

Rock and Roll!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on July 8, 2011 at 13:55

If One has time to read, check out:  Cherie Vanoven v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., et al., and BP America, BP Energy Co., et al.  Class Action suit filed March 2010.   Many Answers to Questions we are asking per Chk royalty checks are being sought in this lawsuit.  Looks like this will be a jury trial:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/03/15/EnergyCA.pdf

Latest filings:

March 22, 2011,  Chk seeking to have Lawsuit dismissed, and Court's Conclusion per same:

http://ar.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110322...

 

May 26, 2011,  Chk seeks "Confidentiality Order" to seal business records:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arkansas/aredc...

 

DrWAVeSport Cd1  July 8, 2011

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on July 8, 2011 at 16:22

DrWav,

Thanks. You are the man!

• ▶ Reply