Current Events/Links/Press Releases/General Info
Consol issued a press release today updating their operations, including info on drilling activity in the Marcellus.
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=66439&p=irol-newsAr...=
Randy
Views: 25184
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by dr j on -
Although it did not happen "directly" to me... our property was found to have an old storage lease that force signed under eminent domain in the 50s. That lease originally not only prevented us from signing a new lease, it offered zero protection for our land and a minimal "yearly" fee if there ever was development. That lease is/was held by another large company - although not an exploration company. Fortunately for us - and due to a large amount of research on our part, we found our lease was no longer valid ( although the other company tried their best to make us think it was). I guess that situation which we would have sadly tolerated endlessly if not for the current change in climate is much more upsetting. A company has "sat" on our mineral rights for over 60 years- on a contract that was force signed for a pittance ..... or nothing. SO I guess the point is... this is nothing new under the sun.
I also don't consider a lease at signing a "promise" of anything until the due diligence is done- title searched, recorded/executed etc. Both lessee and lessor have used that to their advantage- until the money is paid/check cashed it's not an agreement either party has to "live by" - for whatever reason.
-
Permalink Reply by 2s72s0k9mm8gd on
-
Very true doc.....till that bird is in your hand you don't even know for sure if there is one in the bush!
-
Permalink Reply by craig on
-
I mostly agree with what you are saying, however I don't believe it should be legal for one party to sign a lease and then have to wait for the other party to maybe sign.
What needs to be done is that all due diligence is done before EITHER party signs the lease, and then BOTH sign it at the same time. That would be one good law our state gov'ts could put forth somehow.
-
Permalink Reply by dr j on
-
I agree with you Craig. It seems like it would be prudent to approach the landowner after the due diligence was done. I am sure there have been many landowners that assumed that since they were presented a lease, that meant they were free and clear even with someone telling them it's not necessarily the case.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Litwinowicz on
-
It costs a lot of money to do a full deed search. I'm told it averages around $2500 but could be higher for complicated histories. For a company to do the search prior to negotiating a lease adds a lot of cost and risk to the leasing process. Hard to justify doing all that work and risk having a landowner sign with someone else. And imagine the madness at the courthouses if five or six companies all wanted to do a full search of large tracts of land at the same time.
Most will do a quick glance to see if they are currently leased but will hold of on the full search until they are signed or at least have an oral agreement. As long as your lease states that the only reason for non-payment is a title defect a few weeks time waiting should not be a problem. The title defect clause will prevent flippers from tying up your rights for several months while they try to find a buyer.
-
Permalink Reply by craig on
-
The argument that it would cost them too much money is a non started for me.
Using that argument one could say that it is costing the landowner too much money and risk to sign a lease not signed by another party.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on
-
Just to show that I can post about CHK without it being critical of them:
http://marcellusdrilling.com/2011/08/methane-present-in-11-of-wv-wa...
Methane Present in 11% of WV Water Wells Before Drilling Begins
In response to a study released in May by Duke University showing elevated levels of methane in water wells near active gas wells being drilled, Chesapeake Energy has released its own water testing data. One of the chief criticisms of the Duke study is that baseline measurements were not taken—that is, Duke did not test water wells before active gas drilling took place to eliminate the possibility that methane in those water wells was naturally occurring. Chesapeake has that data for wells close to its active drilling sites. The results are indeed interesting.
The Chesapeake data concerns West Virginia was provided via email to The State Journal:
Chesapeake Energy–funded laboratory tests find dissolved methane in about 11 percent of northern panhandle drinking-water wells before drilling for gas in the Marcellus shale ever begins.
Two wells of 1,312 tested in Brooke, Ohio, Marshall and Wetzel counties turned up with potentially dangerous levels of methane.
The state Department of Environmental Protection requires oil and gas operators to test the drinking-water well of any landowner or resident within a 1,000-foot radius of a proposed gas well who requests testing. If there are no requests, the operator has to sample a well or spring within 1,000 feet or, if none [if no water wells are within 1,000 feet], within 2,000 feet of the proposed well.
Chesapeake offers free water quality testing to anyone within a 2,500-foot radius, according to spokeswoman Maribeth Anderson.
Hired consultants collect the water samples and send them to third-party laboratories for analysis, Anderson said.
Of the 1,312 West Virginia water wells Chesapeake sampled, it detected methane in 11.1 percent: 11 percent in Brooke, 17 percent in Marshall, 8 percent in Ohio and 18 percent in Wetzel county. In Bradford County in northeast Pennsylvania, about 25 percent of wells have methane [before drilling begins], Anderson said.
The two West Virginia drinking-water wells that topped the 20 mg/L threshold were in Ohio and Marshall counties. One, Anderson said, was determined by chemical analysis to be from shallow coalbed methane; she did not explain the other.*
-
Permalink Reply by craig on
-
I've posted good things before as well regarding CHK.....Heck, I still wear my CHK ball cap at work and talk the positives and negatives of my experience with many customers. My brother had his water tested, his lake tested, and the creek tested, and he was close to 2500' from the well site. Samples sent to two independent labs, with a fistfull of papers showing the results. Very professional. That is a good thing. Then things started turning for the worst in his case.
-
Permalink Reply by Kathleen on
-
I would be concerned about sending it with the drilling company. Our well for the 15 years I've lived here has problems with methane I think. Is this were you could light your water on fire? We have had coal mining around us until a few years ago so maybe that could have a hand in it, but again I do not know enough about this subject (our water also turns black with coal dust so I will never trust any mining company since this is the fault of the coal mining who will not take ownership of it). Since we know we have problems we have only tested though water treatment companies so someone in the government doesn't force us to drill another one. I'm not sure what to think of people finding this in their water later since in so many wells it's already present. For me this is a tough one.
-
Permalink Reply by craig on
-
We have someone in the family that knows their stuff about the science of water reports. All three samples reflected the source to some degree so we know they weren't faked or just duplicated one test sample.... and the labs were very thorough with the testing they did. We are quite happy with the water sampling process and results.
I too have a hard time trusting these oil/gas companies. You can't really believe anything they tell you unless it is written down and signed by someone, period. On more than one occasion, actually many now, family members have been told explicity xyz, then later on, no it is abc.
Don't judge the these companies by what they say, judge em by what they DO.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack Straw on
-
A USGS report: Methane in West Virginia Ground Water:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2006/3011/pdf/Factsheet2006_3011.pdf
Must have been all those dirty Marcellus Shale fracers!
Oops, the data were collected 1997-2005 – well before any Marcellus Shale activity.
This is a short and interesting read.
The wells which had the highest recorded methane levels were those wells where the well water was coming out of rocks of Pennsylvanian age (Upper Carboniferous).
This is the age of rocks which subcrop the soil in most all of Western PA and Eastern Ohio.
The mantra of the Ant-Frac'ers - "Don't confuse me with facts!".
JS
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
