Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Henry on August 11, 2011 at 23:17

I quote:  "...it didn't make any sense to have two different checks from two different companies..."

 

Many Haynesville Shale mineral owners, who leased to CHK, currently receive two checks -- one from CHK and one from PXP -- as a result of the joint venture.  PXP routinely pays the mineral owner about 75 cents more for the gas -- same land, same lease.  Does this mean CHK plans to increase their payments to bring them up to what PXP is paying mineral owners?  Henry Hood --- how about it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JHH on August 12, 2011 at 0:35

This has the making of a BIG mess.  If Total is deducting... what will the Chinese do?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on August 12, 2011 at 3:31

JHH,

 

The way I read Chk's VP's statement...Sounds like maybe Chesapeake didn't read all the FINE PRINT on its Total Deal???  Maybe Chk needs a good O&G Attorney's advice and READ CONTRACT before SIGNING.  LOL

However, Something is up with this.  I think Chk just found a way to "tweak-it-to" royalty owner, again.  On another web blog, blogger says Chk tweaked his "no-cost" royalty addendum to add a "however,..." statement at the end, which blogger believes negates the no-cost clause. 

Henry, and JHH, This still stinks to high heaven (IMO).  Looks like Chk is still the LOWEST Royalty Payor in every Shale Play, Oil or Gas...????  Wonder Why????  CEMI Association maybe?  Maybe Chesapeake needs to FIRE CEMI?   Looks like using CEMI to make their DEALS, Chesapeake sure gets the LOWEST prices for their nat gas.  Fault me for lying, but I was under the impression that O&G sellers were looking for the highest bidders?  Maybe not...

 

Maybe, Henry needs to open up his "Price" Survey to other Shale Plays.  Barnett Royalty Owners may want to participate too. 

 

Just a good morning opine on a TGIF.

 

Have a Great Day GHShalers.

 

P.S.  Henry...Still waiting on the Chesapeake Pony Express Mail...

 

DrWAVeSport Cd1  8/12/2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on August 12, 2011 at 5:24

Just thought of one more "now that you think about it."   If Chesapeake Energy attributes its  post production costs, e.g. gathering, compression, transmission, etc., as reasons/justifications for its 99+ percent-of-the-time, LOWEST royalty payor payouts...across the board...WHO IS CHESAPEAKE DEALING WITH?  Does this sound like a "prudent operator?"  It doesn't make financial sense to have the highest costs to produce/gather/compress/transport nat gas/oil shale?  One would think that the Largest Guy On The Block would be able to negotiate better post production deals?????   Maybe HE does, and, just keeps them for HIMSELF/Chk?????  And one more thing, Henry's "Price" survey shows that Chesapeake royalty owners, with or without no-cost royalty leases, and umo's "always" receive the lowest $/mcf???  The ODDS/Statistical ODDS of this happening...every check...every month...every nat gas field...every royalty owner (in survey)...(possibly) in every shale/oil play...and it occurring with/happening to ONLY "ONE" Operator????...Impossible.  (IMHO)  Maybe, Chesapeake should put some VPs on this one?  Mr. Hood may be able to find another $.70 or so to make up for the $.70 Chk will be "slashing" from Tx royalty owners' checks.  They seem to make every GREAT deal in every other area, why not where post production costs/royalty checks are concerned?????   It makes no sense.

 

It reminds me of the scam most infomercials run on consumers.  "Buy this for $0, and YOU only pay the SHIPPING & HANDLING CHARGES.  And, If YOU act now, WE will Double your ORDER for nothing...YOU just pay the additional SHIPPING $ HANDLING COSTS.  (LOL) 

 

DrWAVeSport Cd1 8/12/2011

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on August 12, 2011 at 7:36

CHK is not worried about their wellhead price. They make their money on hedges.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on August 12, 2011 at 9:09

Baron,

 

Ergo, the Chesapeake mineral owner was just "the means to an end," (if you will:  shill) of which Chk's discounted prices to CEMI at the wellhead equals larger margins on hedges equals Chk royalty owner essentially underwriting Chesapeake's ability to "gamble/make bets." 

So, Baron, that still doesn't answer the question of why the 2nd largest U.S. producer of nat gas pays its royalty owners the least?  Something is wrong with this picture. 

If not, then Chesapeake needs to tell all mineral owners upfront, before you sign a lease with us, just know...you will receive the Absolute Lowest $/mcf in royalty moneys of ALL OTHER LESSORS, we just hedge your shale nat gas/oil for ourselves.  And, through our own Marketing Boys CEMI, we will guarantee you that we are the LOWEST COST PROVIDER...royalty-wise that is.  Oh, and one more thing, Once you sign that life-long, HBP royalty contract, We don't give a #$@@##.

Bet ya that's not in the landman's schpeel.

My opine only.

 

DrWAVeSport Cd1  8/12/2011

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on August 12, 2011 at 9:53

Meant " Absolute Lowest $/mcf in royalty moneys of ALL OTHER...LESSEES..." 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Zydeco on August 15, 2011 at 18:05

Hood winked ???  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on August 16, 2011 at 6:09

Zydeco,

 

Just checked my e-mail.  Signed in to GHS, and just got a great LOL.  Thanks!  That's a great one.  "Katie" needs to forward this one to Mr. Hood.  Maybe it will give him a little LOL while he's pushin that Total "Bus" off the cliff.  (LOL)  FYI, One always knows when some things are just not "right," when a VP of a Company starts sending out press statements....   Nothing like havin a fall guy around...

Thanks for the reply!  I will be smiling all day!

 

P.S.  Henry...Still "glassin" out the window for the Chk Pony Express Mail Service.

 

Katie, question.   Will we UMOs get 2nd Qtr. 2011 statements "before" the 3rd Qtr. 2011 is over?  Just being humorous Katie.  You do a great service on GHS for Chk royalty owners.  However, You nor I, nor any other Chk stakeholder is privy to the answer to why the 2nd Nat Gas Producer in U.S. pays out the lowest royalty checks?   No one over at Chk will ever give up that one.

Thanks again Katie for your offer of help, but I have spoken with a Chk Lawyer, even got a nice letter from him, and "Nothing,"  "Nada."  No one's talking.  And, final answer..."You get what you get."

 

Well, maybe not "Final" answer.   We will see...

 

Have a great one Zydeco, Katie, and Henry.  GHS!

 

DrWAVeSport Cd 1, 2011  8/16/2011

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on August 16, 2011 at 7:19

GHSers,

Think I will try and find an "analyst" to get in on Chk's 3rd Qrt. conference call, and what about "analyst" putting the question to Chk's CEO?  "Mr. McClendon, there are reports that Chesapeake pays out the lowest in royalty checks to its HS royalty owners.  Reports show that this is across the board, e.g. those with or without 'no cost' royalties and your unleased mineral owners.   Mr. McLendon, Chesapeake is the 2nd largest producer in the country, and the largest producer in the Haynesville Shale.  Can you explain to us what accounts for this? "    "And, why should royalty owners in other plays, natural gas or oil, sign Chesapeake leases for royalty checks that are not on par with other Oil and Gas Producers, sign life-long leases with Chesapeake for, more often than not, prices by the $1 per mcf lower than that paid out by other Oil and Gas payors?  For mineral owners, that is quite alot of money lost over the lifetime of a shale play, isn't it?"  "Wouldn't it benefit mineral owners, over the long term, to sign with some one other than Chesapeake, just per royalty moneys received?"

"Mr. McClendon, knowing Chesapeake pays out the lowest dollar per mcf to its royalty owners, would you as a prudent businessman, or as a prudent mineral owner looking over the long term leasing contract, sign a lease with your own company, Chesapeake?"

 

Just thinking out loud... 

 

DrWAVeSport Cd1  8/16/2011

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on August 16, 2011 at 8:22

they'll get away with it until they don't.  it ain't over till it's over, and like you suggest, it ain't over.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on August 16, 2011 at 8:25

Essay,

I think the battle has just begun...

 

 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page