Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Henry on October 1, 2010 at 0:49

VSC,
Nope. I'll be updating the file today. But I will need July data from all respondents, and any data that new respondents can provide to me. Look back later today.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda Whatley on October 1, 2010 at 3:24

Henry,

TAke a look at this........ http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/09/30/2510149/fort-worth-suit-acc...

Linda

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on October 1, 2010 at 4:16

The latest data are at the top of the page, contained in the attachment. As usual, I'm repeating myself: I NEED MORE DATA. Will all respondents please update me with their July numbers, if you haven't done so already? Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on October 6, 2010 at 23:10

Hello Everyone,

A brief update... One of our CHK respondents has already received corrections and back pay from CHK. The other respondent who is owed back pay should be sending me updated data in a few days. I will post the the new data early next week.

For the rest of you.... I hope you will take the time to update me with your July prices, if you have not done so already.

Thanks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by William Buffington on October 7, 2010 at 4:06

Section 19 16N 14W - Caddo
Chesapeake - No cost royalty
5/10 3.42
6/10 3.50
7/10 3.89

No deductions or taxes listed on payment stub.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on October 9, 2010 at 6:38

William,
I am going to suggest that you are having deductions taken from the gross price of your gas. Your prices are right in line with what the CHK mineral owners, who are having deductions taken, are getting. You cannot tell from your monthly statement if deductions are being taken or not -- CHK reports only the price they give you, and you cannot tell how it was arrived at.

You need to go back to your lease and see if it calls for "cost-free" royalties. To know if you have this provision, you must have words to this effect:

"Royalties shall not be subject to any deduction of post-production costs, including transportation, dehydration, compression, treating and marketing costs. "

If you do not have these words, then CHK is within their rights to take deductions. If you do have these (or similar) words, you should call CHK and get your price corrected. Many royalty owners who have a lease that calls for cost-free royalties, are finding that they have to call CHK and get erroneous statements corrected.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gary on October 9, 2010 at 6:12

Section 36-11N-15W. Leased to CHK under older lease but no expenses to be withheld,
09-09 $2.05
10-09 $3.23
11-09 $3.12
12-09 $4.07
01-10 $4.87
02-10 $3.72
03-10 $3.28
04-10 $2.78
05-10 $3.06
06-10 $3.10
07-10 $3.48

Section 1-10N-15W; Leased to CHK with newer lease with no expenses
02-10 $4.65
03-10 $3.89
04-10 $2.96
05-10 $3.42
06-10 $3.21


Regards,
Gary

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on October 10, 2010 at 7:38

Gary,
Please see my comments regarding William Buffington above, I believe you are having deductions taken out of your gross price.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on October 9, 2010 at 7:39

I have updated the data.

William Buffington and Gary: You will find your data under the owners who do NOT have cost-free royalties. You see how your numbers fit in there. If you think your lease entitles you to cost-free royalties, you should contact Chesapeake to get it fixed.

The text in the post gives more explanations.

henry

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on October 11, 2010 at 11:57

Roy,
Please friend me, so I can discuss your wells with you and we can get your data posted correctly in my database.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henry on October 21, 2010 at 3:25

I have updated the pricing data. But, I need more. Many of you have not yet sent my July or August data. If you can find time, please update me. The latest update is found in the discussion at the top of the page.

And, some good news... Two different people, who have spoken with Chesapeake, told me that Chesapeake will soon revise their monthly statements to show both gross and net pricing. The extra transparency will be good.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on October 21, 2010 at 7:03

Henry,

Great work Henry! I hope to have Chk info in a few months (depending on Chk) and I will forward to you asap. Again, Thank You for your work.

All GHS royalty/WI owners, you are necessary for Henry's Haynesville Payor Project's success. Please contribute to this project. This is a great tool for all Shalers and is a nice "spotlight" on information that historically has not been shared among mineral owners. It is a new day!

GHShalers can even go a step further. Ask a friend, neighbor to contribute. You can assure them of complete anonymity by sending Henry just the information listed on his spreadsheet.

Even if you have never before had the need to contribute to GHS or have strictly been interested as a reader only of GHS, here is a great way for all to help spread good data per all our best mineral interests. Henry's Project will become more important to us as time goes on and more data are compiled and shared. Sort of mirrors Keith's GHS Great Experiment!

Shedding Light On Anything leads to The Real Thing!

DrWAVeSport Cd1 10/21/2010

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• 28
• …
• 39
• Next ›
• Page