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
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on
-
what bad stuff?
wj
-
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on
-
frank, my "what bad stuff?" was directed to scott cannon wayyyyyy back in this thread, but it landed there for some reason.
i dont get this forum sometimes, guess 'cause i'm old.
i like the baby corn, but it pisses me off 'cause it's a whole ear of corn wasted in one nibble. gimme sesame seeds instead, them buggers is tasty and fun to chew on after ya pick 'em outta yer teeth.
dont give stan a hard time about deductions frank, no deducts wasnt an option for everyone. folks did the best they could at the time that they did it. it's water over the dam now. best to concentrate on current issues, there's lots of 'em.
wj
-
Permalink Reply by Tico on
-
Just called Chesapeake again to straighten out my mailing address again for the fourth time and also asked about the rise in the deductions and they said the supervisors just became aware of it last week,, only after the provider raised the price in JANUARY,, it only took them 4 months that's not bad for a company the size of Chesapeake ,,,
-
Permalink Reply by Jesse V. on
-
Stan and Tico. I don't know if you have a clause allowing you to request an audit of the unit you are in. If you have that option or not I would request a complete audit of the production and deductions made from production of this unit. Add to that a complete summary of the cost that CHK is taking on. If your royalty is 15% you have the right to know that you are only being deducted 15% of your share (your share being 15% of the percentage you have an interest in within that unit) of the production costs. If the unit is 500 acres and you have 5 acres then you have a 1% interest and you can do the math from there. Stan all I can say is that I am furious right along with you and I have no interest in this. Something is not right. I would prefer, and it seems CHK should also prefer to not even bother producing if they are being hit with rates like that. I have a feeling that if you dig you will find that they are screwing you without even buying you dinner.
I don't know if you live in Litchfield but if you do you are very close to the gigantic regional office they just built close by in Athens. If you can go a knocking. I'd also let them know that you plan to hire an attorney and perhaps see if the local media would care to hear your plight. They hate negative attention more than anything. It's kind of like tapping the bee hive I guess though.
-
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on
-
Reply by Stan G
"Wyalusing Jim, I'm in Litchfield, Bradford county."
ok, i think your gas travels the stagecoach line then. i have heard that transportation costs on that line are pretty high, but still $2.77 is ridiculous.
i have a neighbor who has gas going up that line too, i'll ask him if he has seen anything similar.
wj
-
Permalink Reply by William Harris on
-
All im hearing about is how bad CHK is in dealing with. I feel for the people that are having these horrible experiences. But is there any company out there that people have had positive experiences with?
-
-
I would imagine that every company has it's issues. As always you will almost never hear from a satisfied customer. I think this is so common with Chesapeake because they came in and hit the Marcellus and other plays hard and heavy with top offers for the most part and zero regard to ethics in dealing with a landowner. They have a very savvy legal team that words every sentence in a lease and addendum vaguely and open to interpretation. They stay away signing from well formed landowner groups with good representation for the most part and throw or threw money around like crazy to make its problems go away.
I would love to see a study sometime on the different approach taken by these companies in trying to secure a lease and get an area developed. It could never be a true study because you'd never get a truthful answer to anything from these companies.
-
Permalink Reply by daniel cohen on
-
Perhaps the answer to the cleverness of the O/G companies and the shafting of the landowners lies in the landowners collectively or individually exploring the ways to legally make their case(s) and to let us all know the outcomes. Moaning and groaning works for some-not for me personally though. I would encourage our readers to see if there is a viable legal approach-if so, if money is needed to fund the effort, then getting us all in touch might be the wise way to protect/improve what we have.
Dan
-
Permalink Reply by Richard T, McFall on -
What would be very helpful for land owners not yet singed to a lease, is for people who have gotten decent deals to disclose the companies they signed with. CHK is a problem. Wish you luck..
-
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on
-
there are problems that come up if you're leased to chk, but there are problems with them all from time to time.
chk is the company that everyone loves to hate, but chk also drives lease prices wherever they go. other companies dont like them for that reason.
they are tough to get a good lease with, but it can be done. it's mostly a matter of timing and being realistic in your expectations.
one big problem with chk currently is the deductions issue. they're really pushing the envelope. it's gonna take a court ruling to put them in their place, but landowners have to get off their butts and get it done.
and if anyone is tempted to think that chk is the worst of the bunch, there's way worse. i get royalties from 4 companies. chk is second best, anadarko is way worse, and mitsui sucks. and chk is by far the best communicator of the bunch.
wj
-
Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on
-
a couple of things matt.
500 feet is a little too much, but there is a shallower interval of the marcellus that they may have drilled. it's generally 2-300 feet above the one they normally drill. cabot drills that interval and gets about half or better as much as the lower interval. the lower interval is called the union springs shale, the upper is the oatka creek. there is a limestone formation in between them that also is capable of modest production in some areas.
it may also be that they did a "toe frac" on your wells. just a few stages out at the end of the well to get it into production. for a time when prices were low chk did that to hold down production from the marcellus in an effort to bring prices back up. at some point they may return and finish frac'ing those wells.
and then of course they may have you throttled back too.
west of you, there are wells that never produced over 5 million a day. so it could also be that somewhere out there the shale becomes less productive than the monster wells.
i noticed some wells here and there in bradco that were drilled shallower in the oatka creek interval, but didnt have any contacts who collected royalties from those wells so i'm not really sure what the productivity of it is here in bradco. in the dimock area though, cabot has reported their results. they claim that their union springs wells are capable of over 12 bcf lifetime and their oatka creek wells over 7, so we are actually looking at something like 20 bcf per well "section" in the good areas. another way to put it is, that if yours are oatka creek wells, you're only seeing about a third of the total marcellus royalties that you otherwise would have, had you been drilled in both intervals, or half what a union springs well would have done for you.
wj
Top Content
Latest Activity
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
