Famous Buell well (Buell 8H) about to be shut down!!! Chesapeake doesn't own horizontal drilling rights!

Looks like Chesapeake's "best shale well ever" is actually owned by Kenneth Buell.

You can find all the relevant court documents (very hard to get your hands on - rural public records...) and analysis here:

And the Buell well will soon look like this.

p.s. the well is in Harrison County, Ohio.

Views: 18639

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Buell Well on July 4, 2012 at 2:03pm

Jacque: hopefully you are just misinformed and don't actually have skin in the CHK/Total game in Harrison County because your days of ripping off unsuspecting landowners are over. I am a city boy myself, but I say good for the locals. You are so eager to make the losing argument, maybe you can be CHK's next attorney and get Judge Nunner to overturn his decision from 6 months ago and 100 years of Ohio case law. Owen Beetham/Brunton got Vorys Sadr fired by CHK, maybe you can replace Jones Day. Losing a huge case while billing $800/hour is a good gig, especially if you don't know Ohio mineral law and have never set a foot in a recorder's office. I say good for the locals and good for an attorney that knows the law and is willing to stand up to the big companies trying to take people for rides rather than making the easy money that comes with simply greasing the wheels. The best way to grease the wheels is for CHK to pay the Buell 8H landowner $10 or $20 million. It's not like they don't have it, right?

Permalink Reply by Frank Nesmith on July 5, 2012 at 12:55am

I'm with you about Chesapeake. I think most people are tired of them stepping on landowners in Ohio and in PA. Why are all the people in Beaver County suing them? I really don't know. They say invalid leases. They built an entire well pad on land in Beaver County and if they lose that case, that's even more they will need to explain at the end of the day. I agree with another post that says CHK is in the business of flipping land and not drilling. I'm beginning to believe that.

Best of luck to Mr. Buell. Hoping the good guy wins this one, and I also hope the folks in Beaver County win. Word on the street is they were paid NOTHING for their land and CHK treated them like dirt.

3rdk2fq1zz77dPermalink Reply by 3rdk2fq1zz77d on July 5, 2012 at 3:56am

Sure, pay Buell landowner $10 or $20 mil... to secure the rights to produce a well that CHK expects to produce $20 mil in net profits.  Sounds like a whale of an investment to me... where do i sign up for that gravy train??

Permalink Reply by Buell Well on July 5, 2012 at 8:42am

Ignorance is bliss if you are Chesapeake and Total; and if you ignore the facts you can conclude anything you want. Fact is, it's not simply the Buell well, it's several wells because it's thousands of acres around the Buell. There are two permitted wells that have been unable to drill for nearly a year because of this case. Have you ever seen this picture? That well pad (located maybe 2 miles from the Buell well) has looked like that since 2011. So 3 wells (minimum) x 20 mil a well = $60 million. Heck, actually Buell could probably demand $30 million of it, because otherwise CHK see's zero of those profits. A 50/50 split is generous, on Mr. Buell's part.

3rdk2fq1zz77dPermalink Reply by 3rdk2fq1zz77d on July 5, 2012 at 9:00am

...I smell another escrow wager

3rdk2fq1zz77dPermalink Reply by 3rdk2fq1zz77d on July 5, 2012 at 10:08am

Not sure why I am even wasting my time providing you with a legal analysis that you aren't likely to appreciate or grasp (and I am truly not being condescending when I say that, you simply aren't likely to be trained in contract or property law)... but here goes.  This attachment shows the precise language that the coal company has in the deed to Jewett Sportsmen.  The decision of Judge Nunner went horribly astray when he started jumping through a bizarre set of hoops to reach a tortured interpretation of the phrase "through and under".  Nunner stoops to quoting Random House Webster's College Dictionary to drum up a definition of the word "through".  And then Nunner really pulls a rabbit out of his hat by deducing that the use of the conjunctive "and" instead of the conjunctive "or" denotes a CLEAR intent on the part of the Grantor (Coal Company).  Nunner cleverly concludes that this deed is not ambiguous and thus he precluded any extrinsic evidence being admissible to determine what the intent of the parties was.  If this isn't an ambiguously worded document, then I've never seen an ambiguously worded document (and trust me... I have seen plenty of them).  Really... you have a mineral reservation from a document created in May of 1959, long before the existence of horizontal drilling and you have a reservation that allows for the Grantor to have access to removing minerals (including oil and gas) not only from this property, but also from any adjoining properties that the Grantor might come to own... and yet this deed is not ambiguous... Give me a break. 

Perhaps CHK's legal counsels biggest failure was to not raise the fact that this well will in fact be used to produce hydrocarbons which derive from the property owned by this surface owner... it just so happens that this well will also serve to produce hydrocarbons that are attributable to other adjacent properties.  You cannot isolate molecules... gas commingles with the perforations from ALL of the horizontal lateral... they don't rise to the surface with name tags on them.  I defy Jewett or Buell to pinpoint which molecules are which. 

This case has absolutely zero chance of NOT being overturned... it is ripe with judicial error.

Attachments:
Permalink Reply by Buell Well on July 5, 2012 at 11:32am

Interesting but irrelevant in so far as you are not Judge Nunner - maybe you should file an amicus brief when it gets appealed...The Buell well is getting shut down, we both agree on that. So ou keep talking about appeals, which is all fine and well, but Buell is getting shut down for a minimum of 6 to 9 months and no drilling will happen in the vicinity where CHK desperately wants to drill. As long as landowner rights are upheld, the rest is details. In the longrun this hard lesson will make CHK a better operator in Ohio, assuming continuity of life is something that's in the company's future. Is it?

Permalink Reply by Buell Well on July 5, 2012 at 11:37am

Actually, I didn't even read your analysis. Why would I? Are you Judge Nunner?

Permalink Reply by Buell Well on July 5, 2012 at 11:45am

So, you attached a deed. What is your point?

Permalink Reply by Buell Well on July 4, 2012 at 2:55pm

Jacque and Marcus:

Just look at the latest court documents and legal analysis, which are linked here

3rdk2fq1zz77dPermalink Reply by 3rdk2fq1zz77d on July 8, 2012 at 1:30am

I didn't "guess" that there is some kind of injunctive relief that CHK can obtain (nor did I ever state that CHK would be successful in obtaining any).  Injunctive relief isn't necessarily limited to being an actual injunction.  A "stay" can provide the relief that CHK seeks while they wade through their complex set of legal obstacles in preparation for an appeal. 

It appears you have some preoccupation over whether or not Total is upset over the results of the Jewett case...perhaps you should pick up the phone and call them if you are so concerned, as opposed to entering into purposeless speculation over Total's reaction.  I'm sure they would be happy to fill you in. 

Yet again you fail to address your original statement that "Buell actually owns the well".  Ownership is defined as:

The process and mechanics of ownership are fairly complex: one can gain, transfer and lose ownership of property in a number of ways. To acquire property one can purchase it with money, trade it for other property, receive it as a gift, steal it, find it, make it or homestead it. One can transfer or lose ownership of property by selling it for money, exchanging it for other property, giving it as a gift, being robbed of it, misplacing it, or having it stripped from one's ownership through legal means such as eviction, foreclosure, seizure or taking. Ownership is self-propagating in that the owner of any property will also own the economic benefits of that property.

I took the liberty of putting "having it stripped through legal means" in bold print for you... show me again exactly where in Judge Nunnery's published ruling that "ownership" of the Buell well is handed over to Mr. Buell... I seem to have trouble locating it.

3rdk2fq1zz77dPermalink Reply by 3rdk2fq1zz77d on July 8, 2012 at 1:52am

You know what Mr. Buell... I get it that you don't particularly like CHK or hold them in high esteem, neither do I.   Is it really that difficult for you to simply admit that you let your dislike for CHK lead you to being a little "over the top" and factually incorrect with regard to your statement that Mr. Buell owns the well? 

The fact that nobody has stated anything other than Mr. Buell and Jewett own surface rights only... no mineral rights, not under their own surface, nor under the adjoining parcels that CHK's horizontal lateral extends... how is it that simply because Judge Nunner stated that CHK's use of the surface is limited to producing the well, insofar and only insofar, as it relates to extracting oil and gas that under the Jewett\Buell surface, somehow confer well ownership upon Mr. Buell??? 

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service