I'm leased with Noble Energy. My royalty checks have declined due to the low selling price of gas, but
the checks have been decent. I received my latest check today and was quite shocked, The amount per
acre I received from last months check to the current one went from $118.29 per acre to $4.16. Why the
big drop? The wells have only been producing for 2 years now, so there's plenty of gas left. Did they cut
back on production that much? Has anyone else experienced a drastic decline in royalties. I have no
deductions of any kind taken from my checks by the way.
When the next big Alternative Energy Device is invented, the materials required to build or fuel it could come from the Appalachian Basin, under your land. No one knows at present what this new source of power will be.
Will it need Titanium as the base metal to contain the reaction. Uranium or hydrocarbons as the fuel? Again no one knows.
Your Great Grandfather sold your lands coal rights but kept all the other minerals, you can see how that potentially has benefited you today, so what minerals do you need to keep so your offspring will have under there feet the same potential wealth you have? You don't know.
It's sound advice to Know The Value Of What You Are Selling , or Suffer "Sellers Remorse". How can you value your minerals when you don't know their future value? You Can't.
This theft we are experiencing may be acknowledged soon.
One more thing, that pledge we all took "...with Liberty and Justice For All", includes Landowners.
Could the royalty percentage the landowners are getting be considered theft? In my opinion, the percentages are too low, the landowners aren't getting the royalties they deserve. It seemed everyone was so eager to "sign" that they couldn't see the forest for the trees.
We also heard from the other side saying...."the O&G companies are doing all the work and investing all the money"....why should landowners get a higher percentage.
This whole journey has been an eye opening experience for us. Some have made out and prospered due to this, but many are depressed, disappointed and disillusioned by the windfall they never received.
Ron, I still own all my mineral rights, so I don't know what you are talking about.
Your tone is getting a little weird, even by my pathetic standards, so let's reflect a bit before posting and cool it a bit, ok?
Some of your statements above are starting to creep me out, just a bit.
I get the same very weird vibe from Mr, Hale that you are getting INVICUTS. I can take the story of his lawsuit to a writer at a paper with a huge readership, but he road blocked me.
And I still haven't seen any court date for the next step in the lawsuit process he writes about constantly.
And, he seems to be entirely tone deaf to all of the criticisms about how he is received, even by those of us most sympathetic to his cause.
You can, if you seriously wish to, look up the case number of the court case, and find out the entire docket, possibly by just going online to the clerk's office. Or you might simply ask Ron. I see nothing creepy in his quest for justice. It is a little humorous though since he only has 2.5 acres, and somewhat ironic, since people with 100 acres or more seem fairly unconcerned with being possibly cheated out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, while the guy with so little at stake takes up the cause. Must be a life lesson there somewhere.
I have 3 times requested of Mr. Hale the very information you referenced, with as yet no date, time or place.
I have also twice offered to go to a contact I have at a major Ohio newspaper, one of the big 3, Mr. Hale wrote he that "he will write the story".
I feel for Mr. Hale but you have to admit it is quite odd the manner in which he behaves, even more so when you consider his total land size.
It is nothing personal, but, if you have a cause you have to sell your cause and Mr. Hale is a poor salesman. Too many times he passes of rumor, too many times he makes very broad assertions that he could not possibly prove.
He is his own worst enemy.
Ask yourself, is what Mr. Hale is doing working ? Perception is reality, why do so many others perceive him in such a negative light ?
Much of the story with Mr. Hale does not add up real well. I wish him well but he could do much better fronting his cause.
The complaints that Ron and others have have been well described in the Pro Publica article which he has made available to all of us. Whether they will stand up in court or in arbitration is of course another question altogether, but for myself I am fairly convinced that the sales some companies make to their own subsidiaries and to companies in which they may have an ownership stake, are not arms length transactions, but are exercises in self dealing, shrouded in secrecy, onto which Ron has thrown some light.
The more a person puts himself out in public and attempts to provide information, the more subject he is to criticism, but after spending a lot of effort complaining to various public officials, Ron is doing the right thing in taking this to the courts. You ask for proof, but proofs you want can only be revealed in the legal discovery process, which is going to take a long time to resolve. What we do know is that Chesapeake has been taken to court many times in many states, winning some battles and losing others. I hope that when these issues are finally settled the settlement won't be subject to a non-disclosure clause, so that we can all obtain the validation you wish for.
Lawsuit settlements, by their nature, are generally subject to non-disclosure language. Further, when interviewing with a variety of firms a lead plaintiff, it was made clear to me that the O/G producer would attempt direct contact with me (and other lead plaintiff's if there were any), and attempt a private settlement, thus undermining the entire plaintiff action.
Language within the attorney/client agreements for representation will generally bind the non-attorney plaintiff to some sort of "loyalty to the cause" language that tries to protect the entire action from this infiltration and disloyalty from occurring.
The bottom line is that any settlement will exclude any public disclosure of valuable information gathered in the course of the case's prosecution from being revealed to the next plaintiff (or the public), thus settling the case.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but non-disclosure is a condition of settlement which can be rejected by the plaintiffs who wish to pursue a just settlement on behalf of the public, and can continue the case to ultimate victory. Any one of these plaintiffs can also petition the judge to release documents in the public interest, especially after the defendants have been found guilty or made monetary compensation in case after case.