Replies to This Discussion

landownerPermalink Reply by Henry on September 20, 2010 at 3:12

I just updated the numbers. They are found as an attachment in the main discussion at the top of the page, entitled "Upload 2010_09_20."

A brief summary shows the gap between what Chesapeake pays and what the others pay has closed some. Once I got past the errors in two peoples' payments/statements, and I got a better understanding of the differences in reporting deductions among operators, I am seeing Chesapeake come closer in line with the others. As of now, the data are too sparse to draw solid conclusions. We will need to wait a while for more wells to come on line and more people to respond.

Those of you whom I've contacted.... please get back to me, so I can better understand your numbers, and put your prices back into the database.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by JD on September 20, 2010 at 3:34

Katie,

I can't speak for Texas, but in Louisiana it appears that CHK does not itemize deductions on their check stubs when CHK is the actual operator. If CHK would show the sale price for gas and then itemize transportation, compression etc... it might reduce the confusion.

Can you explain why CHK elects not to itemize the deductions for the Louisiana owners?

• ▶ Reply

Oil & Gas ProPermalink Reply by Katie McCullin on September 20, 2010 at 4:32

Hey JD - we understand some royalty owners want to see each of the itemized deductions on the royalty check, and we invite you to contact the Call Center (1-877-CHK-1GAS) where they will be happy to provide that individual information.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by VSC DeSoto South on September 20, 2010 at 4:44

I was wondering why CHK would not print the deductions on the check stub? It is s simple program change in the check writing software and a standard data item to include.
For the sake of those affected, is it on the horizon to to be included on the check stub? If so, when would an affected owner expect to start seeing the dedeuctions on their stub?

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by JD on September 20, 2010 at 5:01

Katie,

With all due respect, it doesn't make sense for us to have to call month after month to get that information. Nor, is it the most efficient use of the time of your call center to have to look up and provide that information month after month. I receive royalties from multiple operators and they provide the breakdown on their stubs.

Like VSC asked/suggested, is providing the breakdown on the check stub a possibility in the future?

Respectfully,
JD

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by John Hanson on September 23, 2010 at 7:26

I agree with you Katie. Transparency brings trust. It is only logical that people will question everything when they don't have the same information.

Please notice you received no response.

Regards,

John Hanson

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by John Hanson on September 23, 2010 at 7:52

:) I meant to say, "I agree with you JD."

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by Henry on September 21, 2010 at 12:57

Good evening,
I've updated the data to include almost everyone now. There are only a few of you who aren't in here. If you are one of them, please accept my friendship request, so I can ask you some questions about your numbres.

To summarize the findings... the gap between Chesapeake and the others is closing fast. With more data, it may close entirely.....

It is hard to read too much more into this right now, given that many operators have only a single respondent. What is interesting is how different prices can be. One mineral owner (grogan field) with a single well gets two checks -- one from SWEPI and one from EnCana. You would think she should get a similar price for the gas...

I still need more data from all mineral owners, however. The number of respondents is still very small.

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by John Hanson on September 23, 2010 at 7:31

Thanks for your efforts Henry. I am hoping you will get a greater response. The data you collect and summarize will have a great educational benefit later down the road.

John Hanson

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by G-Dawg on September 23, 2010 at 13:56

Henry,

I have spoken with several royalty owners in the section we are in and have ask them to contact CHK to verify their lease contracts are being handled correctly and that they are being paid the right price for their gas. I also urged them to go on this website as it would help them better understand what they should do as a royalty owner. I received an email back from one of those individuals informing me that they had received a response back from CHK and was advised that deducts had been applied to his checks and should not have been as they had a cost-free lease They were told it would be corrected on their next check.

I believe this raises the count to 3 CHK lease holders who have had incorrect payouts. I urge others to contact CHK and verify they are being paid correctly especially those who have older leases. Ours did not have an addendum yet it was written as a cost-free lease. Everyone just needs to verify with CHK if they are cost-free or not. That seems to be where the big disconnect is taking place.

I also want to say you have done a fantastic job in raising everyone's awareness regarding this issue and to say "THANK YOU" for all your efforts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joyce on October 7, 2010 at 6:01

Attn: Henry
I am Section 31, T 11 R 14. I have recieved from Chesapeake. I do know about no cost royalties
07-09 $2.83
08-09 $2.36
09-09 $2.06
10-09 $3.22
11-09 $3.10
12-09 $4.06
01-10 $4.85
02-10 $3.71
03-10 $3.27
04-10 $2.76
05-10 $3.08
06-10 $3.10
07-10 $3.492 Thanks, Granny B

• ▶ Reply

landownerPermalink Reply by VSC DeSoto South on September 30, 2010 at 18:37

Did this topic move? It is quiet here for the last few days?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• …
• 39
• Next ›
• Page