Anyone have any comments on the following letter:




to an agreement by and between Chesapeake Exploration, L.L,C. ("Chesapeake"), EnerVest Energy


Fund lX, 1.P., EnerVest Energy Institutional Fund lX-Wl, L.P., EnerVest Energy Institutional Fund


1.P., EnerVest Energy Institutional Fund Xl-Wl, 1.P., CGAS Properties,1.P., Belden and Blake Corporation

{coliectively "EnerVest"},

Chesapeake and EnerVest, collectively Sellers, and TOTAL F&p USA. lNC. {"Total"},


Buyer, (i) Chesapeake intends to assign an undivided twenty-five i25%) percent of all of its interest in the

above-referenced lease

{the "Lease"); and {ii) EnerVest intends to assign an undivided twenty-five \25%t


of all of its interest in the Lease, insofar and only insofar as to all rights below the stratigraphic

equivalent of

300 feet beiow the top of the Queenston Formation, to Total. These assignments do not affect

the terms

of the Lease.

ln this

regarci, Chesapeake and EnerVest respectfully request your consent to the respective assignments to


Please evidence your consent by signing in the space provided below and returning by facsimile to


within 15 days of receipt. Failure to respond within 15 days of receipt will be deemed consent

Views: 3247

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Id send a copy Fed X inside a weighted empty Johnny Walker box ya know dang well they would sign for it! 

  I signed the do not consent and also sent a letter for negotiations with the certified mail article number type on the bottom of the page.  So I'm good about them receiving it and I followed up with a phone call also. This was back in July though, the response was they weren't neogotiation at the present time.

As recommend I removed some info, but I am re-posting the important info for others future reference


They way 8) reads, it would allow allow an assignment like CHK is doing with Total.

Why does that last addendum look like it was Photoshopped onto that document?

       I know #8 looks like it was a last minute thing and type by another person.  That however is recorded like that. 

It probably was the "dealbreaker" for the landowner and had to be added last-minute to get them to sign.

Between your "no assignment" clause and your "no unitization" clause, I'd say that you are in pretty good shape to renegotiate a brand new lease. Run it by a gas and oil attorney and see what they think.

With gas prices where they are, I'd tell you to take a hike.  I don't think they really want to deal with you in today's environment.  Unless you own 10's of thousands of acres, its just not worth the trouble.  If you won't make a simple consent to assign, it highlights problems down the road.  At $3 gas, there are a lot of other things to deal with.

   My main concern wasn't the money, I did ok with the lease on my other property.   My real concern was what was possibly hidden within this consent  and was it changing my surface rights  and any other issues.   Ex. If I consented to the assignment is it hidden that the well can be much closer to my house and structures, testing of my water well? What about maintenance for a drive to access any possible well site.  They currently do not maintain the drive which was in existance before the clinton well was drilled on my property, also my driveway.  ect.  When you receive a generic letter like that it is hard to see where, what or if anything is changing in your former lease.   

They are only transferring a 25% interest in the leasehold.  Nothing transfters, lease is not altered.

thanks Mmmarkkk.....thanks for the observation.   I didn't really read it as thorough as I thought... I deleted that post.  but here is the link to the info about the lease percentale sale:

I think I am still getting over having a o&g lease with a clause that states that if there is a shut-in that the payment to the owner (Lessor) is only $5.per acre per year??   how did that one get by in this day and age?  and I am not the only one with that clause in their lease.   Why do I think it so low..cause of the tactics of some companies explaining that the lease is only for five years and not fully explaining the terms of unitization etc. so that the lease really becomes indefinite.


sometimes I think our discussions get read quicker and more thorough and even get a response when we make an error...thanks be to helping one another!


Enervest transfered leases to Chesapeake in our area back in September with no notification to any landowners. Just happened to stumble on to it at the Courthouse one day.

Now that I think about it, they may claim this as being public notice. People in our area are very respectful of their land, and I feel this is going to cause big problems.

Trespassing is taken very serious in this area.

I would never consent to anything like that in the mail. 


© 2022   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service