Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by craig on March 29, 2013 at 5:28am

I believe it has to do with the price they receive for higher btu gas. However you can only put  so high of a btu gas into the system before they shut you off... i think that happened to CHK at the thompson well last summer/fall. They do'nt have the processing ability to separate them yet...i don't think.

Time will tell.

Yes Glenn, they will do what they can when they can.

Permalink Reply by Larry Livengood on March 29, 2013 at 7:30am

No check... tomorrow must be the big day... last day of the month for the USPS...... I know the "check is in the mail"

Permalink Reply by Larry Livengood on March 30, 2013 at 3:33pm

Saturday came and went without a check... Maybe April.

Permalink Reply by Larry Livengood on April 2, 2013 at 7:10am

As if fitting, the check arrived on Monday, April 1st.  Here are some numbers:  

September Price $2.32  Volume 17,060.51    BTU  1019

October     Price $2.55  Volume 188,906.12   BTU 1020  

November  Price $2.98  Volume 432,759.86   BTU 1014  

December  Price $3.48  Volume  453,159.81  BTU 1014

January     Price $2.61  Volume  250,136.36   BTU 1014

The prices listed for wellhead gas was listed as:  Sept.  $2.71, Oct. $3.03  Non. $3.35  Dec. $3.35 in government report.  

Looking forward to next month, looks like a drop off, or a twist of the valve already.

Permalink Reply by Trapper on April 2, 2013 at 9:00am

Looks like production corresponds to the price at the time. Curious to see the volume @ 4.00mcf.

I have to believe all the talk about decline curve has more to do with the relationship between $mcf and it's affect on the valve rather than depletion of the well! Keep us filled in Larry! Many thanks!

What's this work out to $ per acre/month?

Glenn

Permalink Reply by Larry Livengood on April 2, 2013 at 1:19pm

Ballpark of $60/acre until January.

Permalink Reply by Nancy LeNau on April 2, 2013 at 2:04pm

Thank you Larry for your honesty and information. Where are you located ?  God Bless, Nancy

Permalink Reply by Larry Livengood on April 2, 2013 at 2:37pm

next to the Burdick pad

Permalink Reply by joe on April 5, 2013 at 6:11am

Looks like you transposed some numbers on your stub Larry. The Nov, Dec, Jan numbers you posted are the net value of production for the well, not the volume. The volumes were;

Nov 145,279.95 

Dec 130,241.44

Jan  95,854.31

 

For the Tharp well, the volumes were;

Sept 24,054.69

Oct 149,041.81

Nov 122,106.22

Dec 97,670.70

Jan 72,951.69

 

Keep in mind that Tharp only produced for 5 days in Sept and Burdick for 3 days, so that is why those months seem so low. Also, If you look at it from mcf/day, here is what you get, listing Tharp first then Burdick;

 

Sept   4810.94    5686.84

Oct    4807.80    6093.75

Nov   4070.21    4842.67

Dec   3150.67    4200.47

Jan   2353.28    3092.07

 

Looks like the decline rates that we have been hearing about, but with this little data you can't identify real trends. The Tharp well has a shorter lateral than Burdick, so that could be part of the reason that Burdick is producing more than Tharp, though it could just be a better well too. We'll see what the next few months have in store.

Permalink Reply by Larry Livengood on April 6, 2013 at 12:37am

Yes I did, good catch Joe.   Will be interesting to watch production figures as time goes by.

Permalink Reply by Larry Livengood on April 3, 2013 at 8:44am

DOI Slaps Chesapeake with $765K Fine for Underpaying Royalties

x
Bookmark

The U.S. Dept. of Interior (DOI) has accused Chesapeake Energy of underpaying oil and gas royalties due to DOI for drilling on federal lands and has slapped Chessy with a $765,000 fine. Chessy says there has been no intentional shorting of royalty payments and if you add up the total amount in question, it’s less than $500–little more than a rounding error on the purchase of paperclips for DOI.

DOI says Chessy has a history of “inaccurate reporting” when it comes to royalty reporting:

The U.S. Department of the Interior said Tuesday it has fined Chesapeake Energy Corp. $765,000 for underpaying oil and natural gas royalties on federal lands.

Chesapeake denied the claims and said it will request a hearing on the matter.

Chesapeake spokesman Jim Gipson said the issue relates to payments totaling less than $500.

“Chesapeake does not believe that it knowingly or willfully submitted inaccurate royalty reports,” Gipson said.

The Interior Department’s Office of Natural Resource Revenue said it found the error during an audit that began in 2009. The government said it notified Chesapeake of the error, but that the company “failed to comply at that time.”

The government said Chesapeake made the corrections through April 2011, but that in May 2011 it “resumed its practice of submitting inaccurate royalty reports.”

The Interior Department said its auditors warned Chesapeake of continued violations in orders dated Oct. 6, 2011, and Sept. 4, 2012.

“Despite these repeated warnings, Chesapeake failed to take actions to prevent such incorrect reporting and continued to submit reports with the same inaccuracies,” Greg Gould, director of the Office of Natural Resource Revenue, said in a statement Tuesday.

“We are fully committed to collecting every dollar due to the American taxpayer, and it is simply unacceptable for Chesapeake Energy to misreport sales volume information. Chesapeake Energy has been repeatedly warned about its inaccurate reporting on this oil and gas lease from May 2011 throughout July 2012,” Gould said.*

The obvious problem for Chesapeake is that private landowners everywhere–including in the Marcellus and Utica–will now begin to question whether or not Chessy is playing funny with their royalty payments.

Permalink Reply by mkf on April 3, 2013 at 9:24am

Good luck to us little guys in figuring that out!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page