Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on September 9, 2016 at 5:23

Did you mean to attach  the docs?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LN on September 9, 2016 at 5:41

Hi kittycatmama, I didn't mean to attach docs, just wanted to give a description of them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LN on September 9, 2016 at 9:56

Thanks Jay.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RONNY on September 9, 2016 at 15:03

If you are in a unit with new CUL(s), your division order interest will change due to the increased unit acreage.  Post your section, township and range and we can speculate further.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 9, 2016 at 15:24

Actually the lessor's decimal interest does not change.  The units effected may or may not change in regard to acres but only if a new unit survey disagrees with the original division order acreage. The multiple units traversed by a perforated lateral are not added together to create a master unit.  What changes is that each unit is allocated a portion of production based on the linear feet of perforated lateral lying within the boundary of each unit.  As an example, a 6000' perforated lateral with 2000' in unit A and 4000' in unit B would allocate one third of production to A and two thirds to B.  That allocated production would then be paid out at the same decimal interest per royalty interest just as if that volume came from a unit well within the the boundary of each unit.  The well operator files a standard form report with the state specifying the as drilled lateral footage in each unit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LN on September 10, 2016 at 5:01

Section 24-14-15

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RONNY on September 9, 2016 at 23:47

I recently contacted Chesapeake regarding the long delay in being paid on CUL production which began in 04/2016.  I was informed that new division orders would be coming for these units very soon. I have also seen a recent Chesapeake pay stub from a friend in this same unit (15n 14w sec 30) whose original decimal interest was .00040537 and was reduced to .00017392 when paid for the CUL production (1.37 acres originally leased at 1/5 in 2008).  I made the assumption on these facts that division interest would be reduced because of increased unit size.  Thanks for the clarification.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 10, 2016 at 1:56

You're welcome, Ronny.  CHK's initial Haynesville DO due diligence was sloppy and they have what appears to be a  significant number of faulty original unit surveys.  A lot of adjustments have been ongoing as CULs do create reasons for being more accurate with the split allocation of production.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Todd Parrish on September 10, 2016 at 4:59

can anybody give me the well number or location please

thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LN on September 10, 2016 at 5:03

Section 24-14-15

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LN on September 10, 2016 at 4:59

Chesapeake did not include a decimal interest calculation on any of the forms at all.  Why is that?

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on September 10, 2016 at 9:15

What kind of "forms" are they?  Do they have a title?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page