Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nizhoni on June 21, 2012 at 8:38am

I find the content under "written approval" so interesting. We have been discussing on other boards about Chesapeake's tactics of using "threats" to get others to switch to 1280! It seems to be a popular thing for them to say to landwoners. Hope to stay updated on this case's outcome!!!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kathleen on June 21, 2012 at 9:32am

I would love to read their lease. If it says 640 or similar what fines could CHK possible impose? I applaude these people for doing this. I am not sue happy but it seems for once those landman scare tactics might come back to haunt them. I also saw today the Ohio attorney general is looking into chks leasing practices. Honestly though from the stories I read on this board CHK is not the only company behaving this way. I will say again the attorney general should put out a starter lease than from there it is up to the minreal rights owner to negotiate terms that are more agreeable for them. My only fear is the landman would say "this is the Ohio lease, see, no changes".
Wow and 25 acres used for a pad! That is a big one from what I can tell unless they have a pond and are including the road leading to the pad. That still seems really big to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on June 21, 2012 at 3:33pm

Here's the problem with the suit: the entire thing rests on a false premise.  "The lawsuit contends the lease was invalid because the leases were notarized by Andrew Blocksom, Thomas Blocksom and Robert Dickey despite each of them having an economic interest in the lease."  This has never invalidated a lease in Ohio.  

As far as the lease requiring written approval for location that should be much easier to prove.  It's either in the lease or it's not.  I'm surprised (not really, though) that CHK decided to threaten these people with fines if they didn't amend the unit size.  They don't come off looking so great.  That said, refusing to sign an amendment when a lease clearly states that the Lessor will sign any additional paperwork needed to continue the lease is tortious interference by the Lessor.  CHK has a claim, they're just kind of dicks about it.  How hard would it have been to locate the pad where these people wanted it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Shoos on June 21, 2012 at 3:46pm

In what universe could an oil and gas company "fine a lessor"???  Even as creative as CHK can be it is inconceivable that they would threaten anybody with a fine.  That is the most ludicrous claim I have ever heard made.

I've seen swiss cheese that has fewer holes in it than this lessor's lawsuit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0i7okn54zwbdo on June 21, 2012 at 5:15pm

If the Lessor is interfering with a contractual obligation they could sue them.  Fine them?  God only knows where they came up with that one.  And this is not their first rodeo.  They "fined" the sportsmen's club in Harrison (don't remember the exact name of the group) because they would not allow them access to the surface.  

And I agree that the suit sounds pretty empty, save the part about well location.  If that's in the lease then CHK needed to abide by it.  The rest of the claims are totally bogus.

• ▶ Reply