UBELIEVABLE,, DID NOT SEE THIS COMING

Just got our January and february check from Chesapeake, after not being paid for last month thought things would be a little better, uh uh, two months check from cheasapeake was $52, and they took out $383 for gathering, pretty soon I guess I'll be paying them to pump all the gas, they said that their producers rate went up, wish we would have never got involved with Chesapeake. Guess I'll have to join one of the class action lawsuits against them,, wish I lived at my place in pennsy, but I'm in jersey

Views: 11366

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Marshall Ives on April 27, 2013 at 8:01am
This is a perfect example why a landowner, especially an absentee one, must thoroughly investigate and understand the lease being offered. All things in life are negotiable! Learned counsel with experience fin representing landowners should be sought. Les Greevy did a great job for me-simply cutting to the bottom line of what must be included to properly protect me, but still make the deal!
Permalink Reply by Jim on April 27, 2013 at 8:40am

Tico

What are the production numbers for this well?

Permalink Reply by Janice L. Hancharick on April 27, 2013 at 11:07am

This happen often  when a poor lease is drawn up.  Was no  O&G lawyer involved?

Permalink Reply by Trapper on April 27, 2013 at 1:35pm

I think it very misleading to suggest that any contract could dictate to any company how they regulate production on their wells. The best landowner lease in the world cannot dictate to the company how they conduct their business as far as regulating production to try maintain a certain price level for the product. The landowners must be aware that we are a very limited partner in this process. How many Chesapeke contracts have you been involved in negotiating? Are all of your customers overjoyed with the results?

I have read thread after thread regarding dissatisfaction with CHK , and can't believe that none of these landowners had a lawyer involved in their lease negotiations. Please , it grows exceedingly tiresome to always have someone sneak in self-serving commentary , alluding to placing blame on us "ignorant,uneducated landowners"who signed without the sage advise of an expert who could have spared us from from our ignorance and brought forth flowing milk and honey through their expert guidance.

Where was all this sage advice early on , BEFORE  CHK grew to the giant status it is today?

JMHO

Glenn

Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on April 27, 2013 at 3:02pm

^^ +1 ^^

reminds me of paul harvey, and im waiting to hear "the rest of the story".

wj

Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on April 27, 2013 at 3:26pm

Hi there, Glenn:

OK, so you're saying that the reason we are not witnessing a legion of complaints against other gas companies, such as what we see with CHK, is that for all those other gas companies, their Lessors paid for legal counsel;  but CHK Lessors generally did not.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.  Here is mine:

Commencing five or six years ago, or whatever, Marcellus landowners did not know squat about CHK or the other gas companies, either.  CHK had not, back at that time, distinguished itself in the eyes of Marcellus landowners as being "special" in the treatment of landowners.

It's true many landowners, who did not hire lawyers, would have been well advised to do so when dealing with CHK.  But the percentage of "non-lawyered" CHK leases is roughly the same as for all the other gas companies . . . because nobody knew back then about the special peril with CHK.  Yet today, even with roughly the same percentage of "non-lawyered" leases, you are not hearing the legion of horror stories from Lessors who signed up with other companies . . . only with CHK.

I'm not saying Lessors, "back in the day", should not have lawyered up.  They should have consulted a lawyer for sure before signing a lease.  But the price for failure to do so, for CHK Lessors, is higher on balance than it is with ethical gas companies.  

Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on April 27, 2013 at 3:37pm

lol, i always get a chuckle when frank tells everyone how much it sucks being leased with chk, and oh thank god he wasnt so unfortunate.

one thing you forgot in your opinion there frank is the number of folks who once again, you rarely hear from, but nonetheless are perfectly satisfied with their relationship with chk.

i'm not saying that they are the majority, but there are lots of us.

and it'll also be interesting to see the reactions when something occurs which ticks off a landowner with one of those "ethical" companies and they suddenly seem unethical too, until the rest of the story comes out that is.

wj

Permalink Reply by Frank Walker on April 28, 2013 at 12:30pm

Jim here's the thing:

Many CHK Lessors with good leases are doing just fine.  You are one of those.  Congrats!  You did a good job with your lease, but then you're smart about leasing compared with the average person.  Of all the posters here, among us non-lawyers anyway, you have to be one of the top two or three most knowledgeable.  If I had to do a lease today (thank God I don't) I'd hire you in a New York second to help me.  It's because you know your stuff when it comes to leasing.  Sadly, though, not everyone knows leasing like you do.

Now on your post, your first paragraphs are way off the mark on all counts.  I totally concede CHK Lessors with good, carefully written, leases are doing just fine.  It's because CHK has yet to find a way to mess with you folks.  Don't worry, Jim, they have an entire department of lawyers working on this!  (LOL)

But seriously, Jim, even you concede in your post that you lucky CHK Lessors might not be in the majority.  I honestly don't have a handle on the percentages. All I know is the number of posts I see, here and elsewhere, from CHK Lessors who are getting bashed by CHK.  It's those posts that are the basis for my very negative reaction to CHK.

On your last:

You have nailed a key reason I'm so outspoken with my CHK criticisms.  It's because I'm scared or, if you prefer, frightened.  While it's true I personally have been fortunate so far, by no means do past outcomes offer certainty of good things going forward.  Said another way, I take nothing whatsoever for granted.  Thus, there will be no warm smooches for CHK from me so long as they continue to treat their more vulnerable Lessors, those with poorer leases, as they do.  Instead, I will continue to criticize CHK at every opportunity.  I don't want reps from other gas companies, who might visit here from time to time, to get the impression CHK's bad behavior garners love.

Permalink Reply by Doug Duffield on April 27, 2013 at 5:43pm

Sorry to inform ya Frank but alot of landowners signed with Anadarko and got drilled by CHK through a JV, there are Fortuna (Talisman USA) leases in some CHK units also. Have there been issues? yep, but a few phone call have gotten thing straightend out, as a rule i don't hear a whole lot of complaints about the way things have worked out.

Permalink Reply by LW on April 28, 2013 at 9:59am

Exactly, we had a lawyer, now wish we had a better lawyer.  Hindsight. moving on.

Permalink Reply by Tico on April 27, 2013 at 2:07pm
My father signed the lease in 20081, and he was 80 years old at the time and he's a minister so unfortunately he believes everybody is upfront and correct, I bought the property from him in 2009 and realize most people aren't
Permalink Reply by JK on April 27, 2013 at 12:01pm

As I said before, CHK had turned off 2 of our 4 wells for 6 months now.

I was told by the well tender he would turn them back on soon.

Our wells are on timers, only allowed to run for a couple of hours a day..

We are HBP on 1267 acres.

Just got a check for $211.95.

 This nightmare needs to end..

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service