Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Linda Whatley on October 1, 2010 at 6:15

Barron,

According to what you've told me, the section is a mile wide at the north, and a mile long from the north to the south on the west side. All of my proerty is located on the west side, so most of the decrease in total acreage should be on the east side of the section............right??? But again, what do I know!!!!

Linda

Permalink Reply by Linda Whatley on October 1, 2010 at 6:49

Barron,

Since the north side is a mile wide, and the west side is also a mile long, won't "most" of the decrease in total acreage be on the east side of the section?

Linda

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on October 1, 2010 at 9:09

Two Dogs,

I saw the other maps including the Dolet claims, I did not see a map with the 633.3 acres. Personally I prefered the old web site.

That being said, the surveror certainly would have run the whole section when the well was staked. Linda you may want to consider calling Nolan & associates, they will know.

Permalink Reply by BirdDawg, plain ole' idiot on October 1, 2010 at 9:13

Baron,
Do you know if CHK is having unit surveys done in the HA?
A current survey could vary from the GLO plats by several acres, could be more, could be less. Also, if the acreage is say 630.80 acres, all fortys will not be the same size, (as in 630.80 divided by 16).
There will be some proration involved, but it most likely will not be consistent throughout the entire section due to the varying lengths of the section lines. I find it interesting that this section is not shown subdivided into forties, but the adjoining sections are.
Probably would need to consult the applicable "Manual of Surveying Instructions" for the time period of the original government survey in this township.

Permalink Reply by Linda Whatley on October 4, 2010 at 4:10

Hey Everybody,

I just got a call from Chesapeake informing me that yes, there was a mistake on my Division Order. The analyst, Bradley Brown, said they used the wrong map information, and that the actual acreage of the section is 630.80, and yes, I would still have 31.25% ownership. So they are correcting my DO accordingly.

Thanks for all your help.

Linda Laffitte Whatley

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on October 1, 2010 at 4:30

Linda, keep in mind that the % on the lease has a greater propensity to be inacurate inasmuch as the lease was taken before an attorney's title opinion was rendered and the Division Order should be based on the title opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on October 1, 2010 at 9:09

Your welcome, Linda, but I must point out that Baron knows way, way, way more about land issues than I do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DeeDee on October 7, 2010 at 7:03

Linda, I'll be contacting you when I get my division orders.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on October 1, 2010 at 4:26

Lindas division order problems aside, which I feel is off topic, Hurray for the Royalty owners!!!!

Maybe they can break through the veil and see for certain if CHK is indeed cheating the mineral owners by sellig gas to its own wholly owned subsidiary.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on October 1, 2010 at 4:44

The discovery process on this lawsuit will be very interesting!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda Whatley on October 1, 2010 at 5:08

Spring Branch, mineral owner,

Yes, the outcome of this lawsuit will be interesting to say the least....... and a great big thanks for the information you provided to me in reference to my issue. I don't know as much about all this stuff as most of you guys, but I'm learning.

Have a great day!

Linda

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda Whatley on October 1, 2010 at 5:12

ANd a big thanks to you too Barron......... sorry I got off topic!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page