Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by PK on March 10, 2012 at 3:32pm

I just passed the Halter before dark.  Moving dirt on site, drive is in, white board is up.

Permalink Reply by Swift on March 30, 2012 at 2:40pm

Babs,
We received a letter from CHK as well. We were able to speak to the land man over the phone once and when we went to set up a face to face meeting he would not return our call. He was requesting a lease modification.

Further more, friends of ours a few miles away received the same letter. They actually ment with the same land man a month earlier where they were presented with the same royalty sheet over a 20 year period. This sheet stated re-fracking at year 13. Long story short the land man never returned so they could finalize the modification. They were not offered any increased royalty or up front money either.

Permalink Reply by BuckeyeMom on March 11, 2012 at 5:58am

Babs...  I have some information for you regarding the Eric Petroleum/ Chesapeake leases. I can't email you unless you accept my friend request though.  :-) 

Permalink Reply by melissa kiko on March 11, 2012 at 1:48pm

of course the oil co. Wants to makethere units as large as possible for one reason it benefits them. They only plan on putting one horizontal line off of each well. This will tie up the ground. If you haven't signed a contract to be part of a larger unit donlt. Stick together with your neighbors and maybe they will compensate you for doing them a favor. They tried to get my grandma to sign on for a 1280 acre unit. She is currently unitized at 165 acres. We told the guy from chesepeake we are doing you a favor if we contract fora larger unit so when you can do us a favor then come back and wewill talk. You have to stick together with your neighbors. Good luck.

Permalink Reply by Babs on March 13, 2012 at 8:33am

Hi Mark,

At this point and time the Chesapeake agent indicated Chesapeake would not negotiate for more money.  So we will not sign.   The gentleman stated he would send the amendment anyway for us to review, but I've seen nothing yet, and that was on 3/5. 

Permalink Reply by Babs on March 26, 2012 at 3:31am

Hi Fang,

Sign on was not as significant as what people are getting $5k an acre, however royalty percent is decent enough to where I'm not going to complain.  Chesapeake never did send the amendment back to me since I told them I would not sign unless the royalty percent was increased (I mean they are asking me to dilute my royalties by adding more acreage to the unit after all).  Friday a gentleman from TSG (Cougar) stopped asking us to sign them permission for seismic testing and he showed us his assigned grid of Carroll County for testing, I did see my unit which consisted of 640 acres.  The gentleman explained to me that Chesapeake is attempting to tie up the land much faster by increasing the lot sizes to 1280 in order to avoid re-signing leases after the five years is up.  Like Buckeye Mom said, the amendment was for Chesapeakes best interest, not mine.  

Permalink Reply by Denver Gallentine on March 26, 2012 at 6:34am

Babs,

     Interesting.  It never occured to me that one reason for the oil companies to increase pooling size was to lock-up the lease thus not have to resign (and pay signing bonus in five (5) years).   Good info to have.   Thanks - Denver

Permalink Reply by Utica Shale on March 26, 2012 at 7:23am

Babs,

 If they ask you to increase your Production Unit (PU) size then you ask them to guarantee that all 6 wells are drilled and producing within 1 year. Won't 3 wells on a 640 acre PU going NW and a 3 wells on a 640 acre PU going South-East yield the same royalties for all landowners as 6 wells all on one giant 1,280 acre PU for the entire well site? You give them what they want and they give you what you want. If they will not guarantee all 6 wells then they have sneaky plans to drill just one well on all 1,280 acres and hold all that land for 10 years without drilling another well. Wording in lease is very important and may require a lawyer to see through their sneaky verbiage.

Permalink Reply by Babs on March 26, 2012 at 7:59am

Utica Shale,

I agree.  They were not willing to negotiate anything other than me signing their ammendment with promise to have 6 wells ONLY if the initial line produces.   Not promising.  Interesting they never sent copy of the amendment to me like they said they would.  Thanks for your response. 

Permalink Reply by SAH on May 2, 2012 at 9:22am

Hi all.  Any suggestions?  chesapeake came acalling today; wants to amend our lease, which expires in a year, to 1280 ac.  We are in a proposed well unit.  I thought if we were to consider it, I'd expect no held by production clause and a better royalty.  Current lease is a lousy Patriot lease which came w/ the land. 

Permalink Reply by Babs on May 2, 2012 at 3:52pm

 SAH, Hello.   I've been contacted twice by Chesapeake in the past two weeks (I'm in Monroe Township)  as they want to consolidate my unit from 640 to 1280.  They are attempting to tie up more properties faster before leases expire.   As I stated earlier, and I'm not speaking for everyone, it is not in my best interest to sign an amendment to increase my pool unit to 1000 + acres when there is no promise from Chesapeake that they will even drill 6 wells within that pool unit, nor will they negotiate anything else relative to the contract (royalty %).   Currently their answer is NO to any further negotiations, and my answer is NO to signing into a larger unit.  I am in agreement with FANG, they will tap into all of Carroll county. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page