I would find a listing of ongoing suits against CHK to be of interest to me. I suspect that others may find suits against other companies of interest as well. Would it be possible/worthwhile to have such a listing on this site?


Views: 2388

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You'd need a whole new site just to fit all of the lawsuits into one place.

Well, Dexter G., that's good to know in itself.

Dexter, perhaps breaking them up into categories might prove useful and better able to be handled. For example, Class Action Suits: Settled Suits:Suit Status  or perhaps by topic, such as Royalty Payment Suits to name just one.

Or  is this a task too large to even consider within this framework, as you seem to suggest? As Joseph observed, just making folks aware of the scope of discontent may in itself prove useful.


Yes, it would be very helpful to me! We are suing Chesapeake cause they, of course, don't even answer any correspondence. They claim to hold our lease from a lease signed in 1973, haven't been paid a penny since 1983. We can't lease with anyone else until they release us. It's absolutely ludicrous but that's Chesapeake for ya!

Gas Heir,

     What state are you in? Have you looked at the gas well interactive maps for OH, PA, or WV to determine which well you are in? If your county has electronic records it should be easy to figure out what is going on.

If you want I'll take a look.

You're right CHK doesn't follow the rules and doesn't answer certified mail. I saw where they are so use to cheating, they couldn't get it right back in 2011 when dealing with the Dept Of Interior, they kept cheating on their production reports since they don't know how to work like honest people do.See the article below and decide for yourself.

They like to go to court, and I believe their ceo (little letters for a little person of course) is on his way to the MI courts, later who knows.

Chesapeake Defrauding US Citizens:

Chesapeake Energy Company fined $765,000 over royalty reports

 The Department of the Interior’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) announced today that it has assessed Chesapeake Energy Company a $765,000 civil penalty for “knowing or willful submission of inaccurate information” on its oil and gas royalty reports.

“We are fully committed to collecting every dollar due to the American taxpayer, and it is simply unacceptable for Chesapeake Energy to misreport sales volume information,” said ONRR Director Greg Gould. “Chesapeake Energy has been repeatedly warned about its inaccurate reporting on this oil and gas lease from May 2011 through July 2012.”

During an audit that began on Oct. 1, 2009, of an American Indian oil and gas lease held by Chesapeake Energy, ONRR directed Chesapeake to report additional volumes on its royalty reporting forms. Chesapeake failed to comply at that time.

The company eventually made the required corrections through April 2011. ONRR auditors, however, discovered that Chesapeake, during the very next month, resumed its practice of submitting inaccurate royalty reports. ONRR auditors warned Chesapeake of these continued violations in an order dated Oct. 6, 2011, and again on Sept. 4, 2012, following a separate review.

“Despite these repeated warnings, Chesapeake failed to take actions to prevent such incorrect reporting and continued to submit reports with the same inaccuracies,” said Gould.

As a result, ONRR concluded that Chesapeake’s behavior in submitting inaccurate information was “knowing or willful,” and issued the civil penalty on March 13, 2013. The company – headquartered in Oklahoma – may request a hearing on the civil penalty.

The Office of Natural Resources Revenue, part of the Department’s Office of Policy, Management and Budget, is responsible for collecting and disbursing revenues from energy production that occurs onshore on Federal and American Indian lands, and offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf. During Fiscal Year 2012, the agency disbursed more than $12.15 billion to states, American Indian Tribes and individual Indian mineral owners, and to various Federal accounts, including the U.S. Treasury, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the Reclamation Fund.

Ron Hale

It's a really long story and it took me forever to unravel but essentially.....Columbia had our original lease, signed by my grandpa, they sold shallow to Mitchell energy who drilled a shallow well, not on our property but a neighboring property but never put it into production. We were included in the pool. 480 acres. My grandfather was paid shut in until 1983 then they stopped paying. I think my dad figured lease was up. Had even leased it a couple of times to other companies. My dad died in 2011 we tried to lease with Shell in 2012 and found out that Chesapeake had bought Columbias interest in the well which is producing house gas for the property owner, not us. So they say it is a producing well therefore it holds hostage 480 acres! We are in Mercer County, Pa. Shell kind of said we needed to do quiet title whether we win or lose will be a benefit because we just need to settle who holds the lease. If we don't no one will ever lease a property with a clouded title. Even if we lose then another company can buy the lease and hopefully drill, unfortunately it would be the lease terms from the 1973 12.5% royalty.

Gas Heir,

Clearly you're following the right path in first quieting the title to remove the cloud, and to be involved with a good lawyer to help you to do so. Are there royalties being paid to someone other than you?


Yes, but the plot thickens.....a little wildcatter took over the well on 1997 and is selling gas to the church beside it and the farm implement dealer across the road. No production has EVER been reported to the ststa. The implement dealer is paying something like $2800 in the winter to this wildcatter. The guy getting royalties is getting about $300 bucks a year. So some serious fraud is going on but that's not the avenue I want to take. I just want Chesapeake to release us because by the time that money gets divided up amongst 480 acres it comes out to about $2.38 an acre.

Quite a tangled web indeed. So actually the county and state have not received any returns from that production/sale of gas. Sounds to me that the county commissioners and the state attorney general would be most interested in that. Have you explored that route yet?


Gas Heir,

    Your lease with Mitchell Energy can be overturned if they haven't put a Release of the lease in the courthouse.

Consider suing Colombia Gas since they had no right to your property after they sold to Mitchel Energy.

Since no one produced in paying quantities to the people in the unit the minerals should go back to the landowners. An oil and gas company has no right to hold your minerals after the primary term of the lease typically 5 to 10 years unless they pay you for production or the shut in fee.

Oil and Gas companies don't like to let a lease go even though they know better, so they fail to put a release in the court house then sell to someone else to cover their tracks hoping the owner lets the minerals go.

In the courts their is a question about what paying quantities are, but in your case no payment is easy to decide in favor of the mineral owner.

Ask around for a good attorney in your area that deals in freeing up minerals. I've seen a lot of advertisement in the past few years but haven't paid attention to where the lawyers operated from.

Also, I would pry the minerals out of Chesapeake's hands since they came by your minerals improperly and are as proud as Nigerians when they steal from the landowners.

Did I mention the state governments need to be held accountable for allowing CHK to steal from the citizens they are paid to protect. Hopefully Homeland security will take all that data they have collected and use it to imprison those who are taking money from Chesapeake.


That is one powerful reply. Are you an attorney?


Gas heir;  Check out this Pa court ruling.  It says that non--production invalidates a lease ;


Has house gas always been produced ?  Or has it been intermittent?  Not sure how the ruling affects leases with just house gas produced.  See links embedded in story for other court rulings.

I told a friend about this who had a well in Mercer Co tying up 64 acres. Used this court ruling to get it released and they then leased for over three grand per acre.


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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service