Famous Buell well (Buell 8H) about to be shut down!!! Chesapeake doesn't own horizontal drilling rights!
Views: 18630
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Frank Nesmith on -
Any time a landowner with more/new knowledge can renegotiate, it's a good thing for the landowner. I think just about everyone (except for a small minority) are fed up with the heavy handed tactics of Chesapeake. I know the people right over the line in Beaver County are. They seem to want out of leasing their land for drilling altogether. CHK leaves a bad taste for all drillers. Here's hoping Mr. Buell can get that thing shut down soon and get what he deserves. A good chunk of change!
-
Permalink Reply by craig on
-
Hmm, With the lease language as it is can CHK drill on a neighboring land and drill horizontal under the Buell property. They could eliminate this problem, unless all the nearby folks have the same kind of lease i suppose.
-
Permalink Reply by Buell Well on
-
The relevant question for the Sportsmen Club and Buell is a mineral deed, not an oil and gas lease. Your general point is well taken, though CHK has done nothing of the sort to this point. At least 5 square miles around and near the Buell well has the same mineral deed language. So yes, that may have something to do with it.
-
Permalink Reply by Frank Nesmith on
-
I would assume they would have to renegotiate all the leases.
-
Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on
-
"Like many other landowners in Ohio, the Utica shale energy bonanza is passing him by. He doesn’t own the mineral rights." http://www.thenewsoutlet.org/2012/03/ohio-landowner-misses-out-on-u...
If he does not own the mineral rights I see no way he could lay claim to them even if the well was shut off.
-
-
That's an old article (from March). Before it was revealed Wiseman v. Potts applies to his mineral estate.
-
-
You should take a look at the Motion to Intervene and Motion for Permanent Injunction here. It explains why he owns his mineral rights. Even if he didn't, he still owns the right to shut the well down since the pad is on his property, which is just as good for practical purposes.
-
Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on
-
With seeing this it is a whole different ball game. But what is the purpose to get what should be a current fair lease agreement with back royalties? Is it a attempt to more or less break CHK with a competitor under the radar? Could it be possible for CHK to say ok State of Ohio we are abandoning it and by law we have to plug it which wouldn't be cool for Mr Buell. Would it not be possible to even black ball the well where no one would transport the gas through their lines or even purchase the oil?
Surly there is more going on than we know.
-
-
Chesapeake does it again: three landowners, $100 million in damages.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-10/chesapeake-told-to-pay-...
Everything is bigger in TX, but the Utica is supposed to be better than the Eagle Ford. And CHK's best Utica well is about to be shut down, and the two most geographically proximate drilling permits (Jewett Sportsman Club) have been shelved for nearly a year. Why wouldn't CHK just drop a zero, give Buell $10 million and make it all go away? Is it possible to make it go away at this point? Remember, one unbiased observer called this deed language "fairly common" throughout eastern Ohio. This has gone from one anonymous plaintiff to a second plaintiff who is the most famous landowner in the state. Maybe there'll be a class action to follow soon. If so, $100 million will look like lunch money to what CHK will likely be paying then.
-
-
And remember, Buell has TWO arguments: (1) CHK does not the right to drill horizontally from his land, and (2) North American Coal Royalty company does not own the mineral rights, and thus the lease they signed with CHK is void and Buell gets to sign a new lease for...$10,000, $15,000/acre?
The first argument is the better one, in my opinion, but even the second has been recognized by a judge in Morgan County.
-
Permalink Reply by Billy Park Whyde on
-
Whats a fair settlement here? A screw up occurred and it is sounding as if this is a personal vendetta and is looking not at a reasonable settlement but a out and out kill on CHK which looks to me as a competitor wants to see CHK shut down. Almost the dreams of a anti fracker if one can see through this.
However the oil is here and even if CHK gets busted there are others in line and you best believe their I's and periods in all transactions will be exact. You will probably see legislation lobbied for that will also give the O&G companies even more of an edge against a landowner as well.
-
-
This is about protecting landowners rights. That's the bottom line. It's odd how RIGHTS get forgotten when CHK starts waiving money around.
Bill, you sound like well meaning guy. I'm afraid that if you think being pro-fracking or pro-oil/gas production in general means ignoring landowner rights then nothing will persuade you otherwise.
But that's why we have judges, because individual citizens sometimes lose site of what's important and fundamental. Far from oil and gas companies trying to compete, we've seen how they work together and how landowners/individual citizens bicker between each other after coming onto this site with big talk about taking a stand and not allowing themselves to be steamrolled by a big, rich drilling company. I suppose some people say it because it's fashionable, others because they actually believe it. Just like some people protect the Constitution and others, like Obama, take an oath to defend it and then tear it down when convenient.
Personally I have no idea what a fair settlement is. Only the parties to the litigation know that (though I ideas what I might hold out for given the leverage Buell has given the information that's available at the Courthouse and Recorder's Office).
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
