Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by wyalusing jim on May 27, 2013 at 10:42am

without knowing your acreage, unit size and R% I cannot work those numbers back to determine how each is reporting and what percentage of production each is marketing. (i'm not suggesting that you make those numbers public either)

if you call chk, they will provide you with the exact percentages that each company is marketing from the total production.

one reason that I bring this up is that after a couple of checks I did that. I then called the other 3 companies and asked what percentages they marketed. guess what? their numbers did not agree with what chk had told me. I let it ride since I was basically getting paid for about 110% of the production, until I received new division orders from Anadarko roughly 2 years into production. they reduced the next check to recoup their 2 year overpayment.

I was also told that the percentages that the individual companies marketed could vary month to month. they wouldn't necessarily issue new do's, just change the multiplier.

it makes us stay on our toes as mineral owners if nothing else.

wj

Permalink Reply by Wayne Miller on May 27, 2013 at 1:09pm

No, the unit acreage, my acreage and R% is all calculated in the owner interest # in the D.O. and all 4 should be the same and they are except that Anadarko and Mitsui are multiplying theirs by their percentage ownership in the unit that they state in the D.O. So Mitsui is multiplying the total production times the price times the owner interest and I agree with that. Their reported production # should be the same as what CHK reported to DEP. It's close.

Statoil is multiplying the owner interest times the price times a production # I'm assuming is equal to their % ownership of the unit.

CHK and Anadarko are multiplying price times a different owner interest # times some other production # so they are changing 2 numbers.  

I have not been able to make any of the numbers  agree. Everyone should be getting their prod #s from CHK since they are the ones operating the unit, right?

Permalink Reply by melissa humphrey on May 28, 2013 at 9:03am

Wayne- nice comprehensive narrative there.

We see 3.50 apid by Anadarko for March gas, May check. Have nit seen the others yet.

 

NOTE - there is legislation coming up for vote requiring  min standards  in r Royalty checks.

That will hel p some. CHK uses their % of prod Xs the standard DI, decimal interest. Andarko uses gross well prod and cuts the DO down to  their 33%. Etc.

 

BTW per a post above, mist SE Bradford units a start at 50-50 CHK-APC but some are different odd #s even, 41% vs 59. And then the StatoilUsa and Mitsui  have .325 of CHK an APC respectively.

Looks like Mitsui who paid 14,000 to get in vs Statoil paying 5750 / got the better deal. APC has consistent, very productive acreage, probably 90% will be drilled.

 

Chesapeake, Marcellus way back looked like 25-30% would be productive. Now it is looking like 710% of their 2 million was it, is prospective. Like a drunk sailor, CHK leased anything, that had made big $$$ in 03-08, felt rich and  overspent , like that bro in law we all have.

Permalink Reply by melissa humphrey on May 28, 2013 at 11:22pm

typos, geez. CHK is looking like 10-15% of their 2million is prospective.

 

Our interests are sold by the WI owner. Gas may be sold anytime through the month

a buig variable. Cabot sells the 3rd week of the month, vs trying to be a hero.

BTW there is no such thing as hold off in a rising mkt or sell quick in a falling mkt. That is

No ill intended but taht is ridiculous, markets are ramdom short term, up 3 days has no bearing on day 4 etc. If you rolled heads 20 Xs, what are the odds it heads again etc. If someone "knew", what the mkt was going to do, they would own everything in 30 days. 

 

The seasonal (annual price tendencies) for HO & NG is lows in late winter, intuitive, you don't have to look it up  > when it is needed least.  Or why simpleton "shoulder month will see lower NG prices" is some dreamed up  logic, with no substance.   

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page