Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on May 19, 2010 at 7:50

Can't Help Knock 'em......LOL

Thats fantastic, I too have had a simialr experiance with CHK.. I think their strategy is to just wear you down till you don't care anymore.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KAYBABY on May 19, 2010 at 7:16

Is your acreage wrong or do you suspect the Unit acreage is wrong?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on May 19, 2010 at 7:51

I too am curious about this, What exactly is the nature of your problem?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary on May 19, 2010 at 8:16

The acreage reported in the D.O. for "BPO Net Ac" as well as "APO1 Net Ac" is being understated, and because of that error, the PBO and APO1 Unit Int. percentages are being understated. The Deed clearly indicates the portion of the Section (West half of the Southeast Quarter). The "UNIT ACRES: reported on this D.O. indicates 640.174793
The Net Ac should be 80 or above, and is listed as less than 80.
Can you shed any insight as to what may be going on?
Regards,
Gary

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary on May 19, 2010 at 8:33

FYI: We are holding off Signing and returning the D.O. as we attempt to get this resolved. A lot of runarounds, and being directed to incorrect people by Chesapeake personnel; however that is merely an annoyance and could also be typical with very poorly run organizations, which is NOT my primary concern. I am interested in getting the problem resolved, and have been very respectful and professional in my dealings with them. I am eager to learn from you smart folks, to help me navigate the rough waters that may be ahead.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 19, 2010 at 8:51

How much less than 80, Gary?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary on May 19, 2010 at 9:00

Not much. They list as 79.28000
However, this will add up to real money over the years. Do you have any idea how they could possibly arrive at such a number, when the deed is so clear, AND seem so unwilling to correct it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 19, 2010 at 9:19

I suspect that the lease language may include the phrase, "more or less" after the 80 acres. Although the W 1/2 of the SE 1/4 is 80 acres in a section of exactly 640 acres, it is rare that a tract measures out at exactly 80 acres. A Metes and bounds description (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metes_and_bounds) is often used in addition to the other more general description. Most metes and bounds descriptions would figure out to something other than an exact 80 acres. Almost always the tract is a little more or a little less. Also property descriptions are often borrowed from preceding conveyance documents which may contain inaccuracies. I suspect that CHK has performed an actual survey to arrive at your 79.28 acres and will stick by that figure. If you wish to force them to change it, you will likely have to pay for your own survey as CHK, nor any operator that I am aware of, will use the language in a lease description over the results of their survey. If your lease contains a metes and bounds description, you can have some qualified professional figure the acreage. If they come out with more than 79.28 that could help you decide if you will invest money to pursue your contention. The argument that the tract is W 1/2 of the SE 1/4 on the lease and therefore exactly 80 acres is unlikely to get you any results.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary on May 19, 2010 at 9:57

Skip:
CHP claims the size of the Section exceeds 640 acreas, as they state the Unit Acres: 640.174793 within the same Division Order, as I have previously stated in this thread. Are you stating that the UNIT ACRES: listed in the Division Order is a don't care typo? Can you comment on the relative importance of the entries in the Division Order for Net Ac and Unit Int.? The Unit Int. value happens to be the portion of the total Unit proceeds that are earmarked for the Owner, which seems to me to be the real bottom line that is incorrect, due to their error. The original lease "covers all lands owned by the Lessors in Section___ Township ___, Range ___ and Section ____, whether properly described herein or not". The deed is unambiguous and states the west half of the southeast quarter of the section. The ONLY variable left is the size of the Section, which CHP states in the D.O. What could be simpler? Please help me to understand how this can be less than 80 acres. Note the original lease covered properties spanning more than one section, but the description of the section in question/dispute has no ambiguity.


I don't think I'd mind paying for a proper survey if that would result in correcting the problem, but I kinda think that effort would have NO positive value -- I may be wrong.

Respectfully,
Gary

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on May 19, 2010 at 10:05

Gary, I have never run across a section that is exactly 640 acres. All vary to some degree in size and most that I recall are greater than 640. Somewhere on the site is an old discussion that covers this topic quite well and had a number of members with survey experience participating. The variance from 640 is not evenly distributed, it occurs in a particular portion of the boundary. In other words the additional 0.174793 of an acre is not evenly distributed throughout the section. And a section could be 650 acres in actual size and still have a tract as described less than 80 acres. Somewhere there is a metes and bounds description. If not in the lease then in a deed or donation that conveyed the property in the past. I'll look in the GHS archives to see if I can find the discussion but there are several members, The Baron comes to mind, who can possibly explain better than I.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on May 20, 2010 at 4:30

The irregularities can be for several reasons, for one, the Earth is round, sections have to compensate for the curvature of the earth. Also, the s-t-r was set out in the 1800's. The duty of a surveyor today is to retrace the steps of the original section surveys.

Here is a good read

http://doa.louisiana.gov/SLO/PDFs/ORY_PORET_BKLT.pdf

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on May 19, 2010 at 10:12

Gary,
The "West 1/2 of the SE 1/4" is a very valid legal description. It's actual acreage would depend on the overall dimensions and shape of the entire section. If your section is over 640 acres, one would think that your property may be over 80 acres because any excess or shortage is prorated along each section line, and then the section is subdivided accordingly. One possibility is that the dimensions of the Southeast 1/4 could be shorter than 2640', and other parts of the section could contain some excess.

• ▶ Reply

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