Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on November 15, 2011 at 8:28am

Randy,

Probably because the lease they hold says they can...

Without seeing the actual lease for the oil and gas under that property, no one can know for sure but I suspect CHK has a signed lease contract that allows them to drill there. Still, it is a dumb business decision because it is just going to piss off a bunch of Sportsman Club people and build lots of ill will toward CHK.

Permalink Reply by Shower Bath on November 15, 2011 at 9:00am

If my memory serves me, and it might not, the original mineral owners are the North American Coal Royalty. Same as the famous Buell well, which isn't all that far away, but in a different township. Maybe they set up a two well deal with the coal company, and just feel they are committed. If I worked for Chesapeake I'd be looking to make this a win-win situation, not a nasty confrontation. Maybe CHK is legally right, but I sympathize the the Sportsmen.

Randy

Permalink Reply by Paul Martinelli on November 15, 2011 at 9:07am

There is gonna be a whole lot of law suits coming down the road.

Mineral right -vs- surface owners.

Disputes of mineral right ownership

 

A lawyer's paradise.

Permalink Reply by Philip Brutz on November 15, 2011 at 9:23am

The West Virginia Surface Owners’ Guide To Oil and Gas is a very good legal guide for landowners that don't own their mineral rights.

http://www.wvsoro.org/oil_and_gas_guide/index.html

 

Permalink Reply by craig on November 15, 2011 at 8:01am

Geology may well be a part of, or the reason.  Being only the second well......It could be possible that since they don't have a good 'handle' on how the geology runs in the area that they really do need to drill there to firm up future plans. 

Permalink Reply by Shower Bath on November 15, 2011 at 8:50am

Actually this is permitted as a Marcellus well, not a Utica, and I'm sure that they want to see what they have in that formation. Harrison county is prospective for both formations.

Randy

Permalink Reply by Dan on November 19, 2011 at 7:16pm

This permit was reissued in November and now appears to be a Utica well.  In fact, they are stating a depth of over 14,000 feet and listing the target formations as Utica-Trenton.

Permalink Reply by scott jackovitch on November 20, 2011 at 2:25am

Dan this would have to be one of the deepest wells permitted so far in Ohio. At what depth  does the Utica stop and the Trenton start.

Permalink Reply by Philip Brutz on November 21, 2011 at 3:01am

Here is the Completion Report for the Buell well.  It shows the top of Utica at 8235feet and the top of the Trenton at 8510 feet. 

Attachments:

• Completions-2.pdf, 7 KB

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on November 20, 2011 at 8:28pm

I don't think the Utica is that deep. I believe that 14015' figure is to the bottom of the well bore which includes the vertical depth and the horizontal lateral. When I have some spare time I'll pull the permit info and look at it closer.

Permalink Reply by AT on November 15, 2011 at 10:50am

The oil & gas leasing process is flawed when a mineral rights owner, who doesn't own the surface rights, negotiates and signs a lease with an O&G Co. without any involvement or consent of the surface rights owner. What rights does that mineral rights owner or the O&G Co. have in signing to any clause in the lease that has to do with the surface rights when neither party owns the surface rights? In this situation, it seems to me that the surface rights owner should also be involved in the lease negotiations and should also be required  to sign. Imagine a mineral rights owner, who doesn't own the surface rights, negotiating a completely unfriendly landowner lease allowing the O&G Co. to completely trash the surface to maximize the signing bonus and/or royalty percentage he/she is to receive. A mineral rights only owner doesn't need to care about spud fee, surface damage, crops, roads, gates, fences, waters, timber, reclamation, injection wells, pipelines, pits, compressors, etc.. It is imparative that the surface owner be involved in the process and have a say in the matters involving their surface rights.

 

Having signed a lease with CHK for all formations below the top of the Queenston formation, which doesn't include the Marcellus, on land one mile west of this site, I'm looking forward to the drilling of this Marcellus well. I'm hoping they hit it big time so I can solicit a lessor for my Marcellus.

 

On the other hand, having an uncle who was one of the founding members that helped finance the purchase of the land the Jewett Sportman Club sits on as well as being raised in a family where all were members and spending much time as a child at various events/activities held there, I am sympathetic to the club and how CHK is running over them.

 

In my mind, this is a loophole in the system that will require legislation to be introduced by our elected officials in order to provide protections for those who only own their surface rights, such as the Sportsman Club.

Permalink Reply by Finnbear on November 15, 2011 at 11:20am

At the very least a non-surface owning mineral rights holder should be limited to a no surface activity lease if the surface owner is left out of the negotiations.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page