Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Perrie Wesley Ryals on September 12, 2009 at 0:16

Yes, that's what we were offered.

Permalink Reply by Kane Bennett on September 3, 2009 at 15:45

Recently received a letter from J.W. Porter inquiring about leasing our property near Converse. Any information regarding this company / firm? Thanks, KB

Permalink Reply by ken hatcher on September 3, 2009 at 17:00

Well, last year they leased a lot of land for chesapeake. When thing's started winding down some of the people did not get what they had been offered from porter representing chesapeake. You being out of state i would say '' head's up "........

Permalink Reply by Henry on September 3, 2009 at 23:39

Ken Hatcher,
Agree. But, let's defend Porter (a little bit). They are pawns and only do what Chesapeake says. The real devil in the deal was Chesapeake, who backed out of numerous commitments with landowners. Look all over Northern Louisiana, and you'll find a zillion landowners who feel that Chesapeake (working through any number of land companies) did not honor their commitments.

Permalink Reply by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on September 4, 2009 at 3:01

maybe thats a reason to go with Petrohawk this time around?

Permalink Reply by Jon Williamson on October 15, 2009 at 19:42

Hello Henry,

I have no dawg in this fight, however understand that Chesapeake only had a commitment if they had a commitment. Most lease offers are just that, offers with rights. It does pay to educate yourself and I would recommend you learn about about leasing your rights before you spew hate or make accusations.

Lease offers are a very timely thing. Those who's lease offers were not honored were obviously holding out for better terms. The market went to hell. Do you seriously think that the holdouts have no responsibility with regard to the deal not happening. I'm a mineral owner myself, but it amazes me when I see greed accusing greed. Lighten up and learn from past mistakes. The pot calls the kettle black.

Permalink Reply by NUDOG on October 16, 2009 at 2:54

I understand what u are saying about greed and always wanting more, but what I think makes land owners try and get more money for their minerals is the fact that there is such a big difference in lease bounus amounts around the play. Of course I understand about location, location but u cannot tell me that amounts should be different from one section to another. I have heard of one sec getting 5K and right beside it they are being offered 1500pa. Thats what gets land owners angry and wanting to hold out. I think if a company would come in and offer x amount "whatever that magic number may be" across the board instead of making all the low ball offers. If I am offered x amount and everyone around me gets the same then I would be happy with that and I think the majority of land owners would agree!! But, of course u are still going to have a few greedy ones out there that may just have to go unleased!!!

Permalink Reply by Pam on October 16, 2009 at 3:08

We did not "hold" out for a better offer; but accepted the first one. We had an "agreement to lease" for said amount that specifically stated it was "binding to both parties". CHK sent us a lease which we signed, had notorized, and returned. They did not execute it at their end and did not pay us as agreed. This isn't spewing hate or making accusations, just plain fact.

Permalink Reply by grasshopper on October 16, 2009 at 6:10

Thanks Pam. You told it exactly the way it happened. No one could have done it better!!!!!!

Permalink Reply by Henry on October 16, 2009 at 9:38

Jon,
Please read my words. I did not fault Chesapeake for backing out of offers. I was very careful to use the word "commitments." There's a big difference.

Permalink Reply by ken hatcher on October 16, 2009 at 10:14

The only way to settle this is the way burr/hamilton did. (just joking) What a firestorm, that quote was over a month old. Really don't see any animosity there.....i mean what it is is what it is.

Permalink Reply by Henry on October 16, 2009 at 14:17

Ken,
I agree. I'm not taking on any fight here.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 6
• Next ›
• Page