Chesapeake announced the sale of their Ohio Utica interests today after the market closed.
Chesapeake Energy Corporation (CHK) today announced that it has entered into an agreement to sell its interests in the Utica Shale operating area located in Ohio for approximately $2.0 billion to Encino Acquisition Partners, a private oil and gas company headquartered in Houston, Texas. The transaction, which is subject to certain customary closing conditions, including the receipt of third-party consents, is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2018. The purchase price includes a $100 million contingent payment based on future natural gas prices and is subject to adjustment for certain customary items at or following closing. Chesapeake intends to use the anticipated net proceeds to reduce debt.
Here's the link to Encino's web site with their press release.
Cool, good riddance CHP. Sounds like EAP will be operating "multiple" rigs in the Utica. Might mean some drilling on properties that I have interest in.
I received a letter from Chesapeake this week with a copy of the news release.... and a request for me to consent to the sale/assignment of my lease. I will not be signing until they pay up on what they owe me for the past 5 years of underpaid royalties......
Latest update on the class action lawsuit: https://gomarcellusshale.com/forum/topics/zehentbauer-family-land-l...
I found a notice from the mailman taped to my door from Chesapeake, on Friday. I figured it was about the sale but I am kinda surprised that they are asking for consent to the sale.
I doubt if your consent or non-consent of the sale will change anything pertaining to the sale. But maybe ,if you don't consent, EAP may not have to pay you either? Better find out .May be worth paying a good oil&gas attorney for an hours work.
Same with us being outrageously underpaid. CHK has been in default with our lease from day one- 4 years now. Many other grievances since. They owe us!
No way we are signing either! By signing we're all signing their contract and acknowledging their con leases we have are legitimate.
You know it's a contract because the last sentence above the signature line is in all caps. They still think they're slick, and they are because they know most don't know all caps means you're in a contract.
ALL CAPS MEANS YOU ARE IN A CONTRACT ?? What junk food box did you get your law degree from?? They are slick and most people are fools for signing signing something they didn't even read or understand if they did read it. Capitalization is meaningless and not binding in any way.
It's not sufficient to simply not sign. You will need to respond stating that you refuse consent and give grounds for refusing consent. My wife and I are discussing this and considering our options.
We have a no deductions (SURE) lease covering a number of production units and at one point CHK was taking deductions to haul away NGLs that we weren't even getting paid for. Trying to do something about it before didn't make sense because of how arbitration works. We may refuse consent and let them take it to arbitration. Play the game their way for a change. I expect it won't queer the deal though. It's more difficult for us because the bulk of the SURE group landowners stayed with REX, North of Carrollton, and we are South of there.
You were not getting paid for NGL's? I believe others on this site including those with CHK have been paid for NGL, even showing a check stub. How can they square that? On another note I just noticed that the lease I inherited is also an arbitration lease. I guess it isn't a good thing if you have a legitimate problem with the producer.
I am aware of the suit against Chesapeake and the reputation they have but I really have no complaint about them from our two year relationship. Of course they could have been cheating me, I cannot possibly know for sure, but I have a gross/no deductions lease and they have never on paper deducted a single item from my royalty.
I hired representation before we were due to begin receiving royalties. I will be contacting him for advice on how to proceed as it pertains to the lawsuit. I am generally opposed to class action lawsuits but only having 12.5 acres in production with Chesapeake probably makes it of more sense to go that route as I doubt that any errors in my royalty payments would be sufficient to sue them one on one, but who knows.
As it stands currently I hope the new guys treat us as well as Chesapeake has, I have over and over cautioned people that things can get worse, an issue few consider before complaining and jumping to ill advised conclusions minus factual information.
I'm not here to change anyone's opinion of Chesapeake. Obviously some people feel that they are being treated fairly while others do not feel the same.
I have the same lease that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit have (no deduction lease based on gross proceeds). I am in one of the pooled production units that is part of the lawsuit. I have seen how CHK manipulated the royalties:
1) They have taken deductions out of MY royalty checks despite the fact the lease clearly states without deduction or expense.
2) They sold the oil/gas to themselves at a SEVERELY discounted price and that was the basis for the royalties that I did receive,,,, even though my lease expressly states that the price is to be determined by an "arms length transaction with an unaffiliated purchaser". I am receiving a royalty on an old Clinton shallow well with another company for the same months and saw CHK was paying less than half the market price per MCF gas and barrel of oil.
3) In almost all my royalty checks, CHK goes back several years and "recalculates" the market prices that they say they received and lowers the price paid,,,, which they then deduct the difference on my current check. One time, the difference was so severe that I didn't receive any royalties for 6 months. How can they change the price YEARS later??????
I'm sure that the lawsuit will never get to final judgement and none of these facts will ever be public. CHK will settle out of court:
1) In 2014 CHK agreed to pay $11 million for a similar scheme in Pennsylvania: https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/news/chesapeake-agrees-to-increase...
2) Last year, CHK agreed to pay Pennsylvania landowners $30 million in royalties owed where they did a similar heist: http://www.post-gazette.com/powersource/companies/2017/12/26/Chesap...
3) A separate lawsuit against CHK by the Pennsylvania attorney general is still pending for the same crimes.
Thanks for posting articles. On another subject one of the articles state that the leaseholders in the lawsuit will have a do over and can choose their lease language concerning payment and deductions going forward. It reads:
"Landowners could opt to be paid royalties based on a local published “in-basin” gas price, with no deductions. Or they could choose to allow Chesapeake to market the gas, at potentially higher prices, but pay a proportionate share of the post-production costs. Such a “net-back” arrangement is similar to the disputed method the company now uses to calculate payments."
What will the leaseholders choose? Just curious as to the better outcome for them. Does anyone know? The later option sounds like the "Market Enhancement Clause" many of us have in our leases now am I correct?