Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on November 18, 2010 at 5:42

Which lease are you looking at? And, which search did you use to find those figures? I'm happy to help but it is hard to do without knowing how you found those numbers.

Also, the production for a JV (or any) well will be reported by the operator of record. Dividing the production, between JV partners, is an internal book keeping function and wouldn't appear on RRC allocated to each JV partner. So, trying to compare reported production, by operator, would not be helpful.

landownerPermalink Reply by Kathy on November 18, 2010 at 6:37

It is the Coats #1 well. I looked at the production report by lease.

RRC Identifier #244488

Operator # 253162

Permalink Reply by jffree1 on November 18, 2010 at 8:35

OK, I see where you found the 10,995 mcf. But where do the other figures come from? If you find 1/2 of 10,995 you get 5497.5. Does your second figure have a transposed number (5947), maybe? I think that, if the two companies are showing different production figures for the same well, someone should explain what the difference is. EOG is the operator so that is the correct operator number to use in production queries by operator. Petrohawk is the gas gatherer, though, and they may be getting different numbers from their meter (just a guess?). I'd question it with both companies if they don't coincide on the checks. Maybe someone, who has experience with split royalty payments, will come along and add their opinion.

landownerPermalink Reply by Kathy on November 24, 2010 at 5:30

The other figures come directly from the check stub and no there is not a transposition error. When I saw your response, I was hoping that was it, but it upon reviewing the check stub, it is exactly as written. Does each company have their own meter on the well? I wish I knew more about what was going on. I feel like I'm flying in the dark. Thanks for you help anyway.