Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael on September 6, 2015 at 8:06pm

All of these conversations about leases not being renewed, is this for "dry" leases, in other words, leases that were not receiving royalties?

Permalink Reply by B. Jones on September 6, 2015 at 8:50pm

In our case, yes.  According to the rep, we were close to a site, just not close enough.

Permalink Reply by craig on September 7, 2015 at 10:38am

Michael:

If your leased land was receiving royalties the company would not have to renew your lease as it stays enforced via production.

Permalink Reply by B. Jones on September 7, 2015 at 10:45am

Michael, other than the signing bonus, we did not receive any royalties.  I didn't know the information you just wrote.  Thanks. Barb

Permalink Reply by marilyn nesbitt on September 7, 2015 at 11:27am

I am the one that started this conversation. Had I known it would create these feelings I would not have said anything. I really thought other leases would be renewed too.
The one thing that had been in our favor was we were okayed for a well by the EPA. They spent two days on our farm.I don't know why they never drilled yet.
I just don't understand why so many people have it in for CHK. They never did us wrong and low royalties could have been taken care of by a lawyer.
What am I not seeing?

Permalink Reply by B. Jones on September 7, 2015 at 11:40am

Marilyn,  I'm not upset with CHK.  Just disappointed that market conditions are depressing the spending of money for leases.  We've had a nice cordial relationship with CHK, and if they can find a way to offer a lease, we'd be interested.

Permalink Reply by marilyn nesbitt on September 7, 2015 at 2:42pm

Thanks for the reply. I think we are among the minority when it comes to CHK. I don't know what I am not understanding!

Permalink Reply by Gregory L Cardosi on September 7, 2015 at 3:01pm

Marilyn,CHK might have had a list of leases they were definitely going to renew. Why some, not others, I'm sure they have their reasons.

I don't think it's so much for "having it in" for CHK, as just  disappointment (as us) why they chose to sit on so many leases, while other companies such as REX were drilling everywhere.

Permalink Reply by craig on September 7, 2015 at 8:41pm

Marilyn, your post did not create the feelings some of us have for CHK. 

Your post allowed me to post feelings based on facts.

Here's why  a lot of CHK royalty owners are upset....

I just received my royalty check for June's production. The deductions taken off my royalty check were exactly 47.7% of the total...deductions not taken just a few short years ago.

Permalink Reply by Todd on September 7, 2015 at 9:15pm

Thanks for the real oil and gas world example Craig. Unfortunately, even a bullet proof lease by the most skilled of oil and gas attorneys has the chance of having your royalty % to be taken advantage of. I hope the PA Supreme Court wakes up and realizes they should support their citizens' property rights over corporations' exploitation of "post-production costs" and any other deductions that drop an "at the wellhead" lease below 12.5% gross.

Permalink Reply by Trapper on September 7, 2015 at 3:58pm

Consider yourself lucky you got re-signed. May I ask what your per acre bonus is?

Permalink Reply by Richard M on September 7, 2015 at 6:24pm

even if you did not get re signed. you know the gas is here and they will be back when things get better and they will be back. those of us that were drilled  within the last year will never get another signing bonus because we are being held buy production. and they are selling our gas real cheap

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