Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by cj wyalusing on July 28, 2014 at 11:37am

Joe you speek of the bass brothers  deal ? Contract? Please exsplain or send me in wright  direction please thank you cj

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Fabeetz on July 28, 2014 at 12:46pm

There are a number of legal cases coming up vs CHK that have to do with limiting post production deductions. Most royalty owners don't have the means to sue an operator when they mispay. The Bass brothers have sued for selling product to a less than arms length related company and paying royalty on a lesser amount, then the related company sells to the true purchaser. There are other cases coming up where marketing charges rose arbitrarily. Keep searching the web for these cases. New twists seem to come up every week.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on July 28, 2014 at 4:22pm

And here I've been thinking all along that lease agreement contracts are entered into to preclude all arguments.

Then so it happens anyway disputes develop.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Fabeetz on July 30, 2014 at 1:07pm

Joseph-Ohio. Any contract is drawn up to the benefit of the party drawing it up. That's what the car dealer or the home remodeler or anyone else does. Leases are drawn up to the benefit of the energy company and that's ok. It is up to the mineral owner, or his hopefully competent attorney and/or negotiator, to alter in in such a way that it achieves max benefit for him. Mineral owners need to educate themselves as to what they can ask for (and get), what energy companies' goals are and how they can get those results, and how those mineral owners can both counter what the energy companies do that they don't like and how to work with them for mutual benefit. I am not doing kumbaya here. It just occurs to me that energy companies and mineral owners who don't take a "win-win" approach to negotiations are both foolish for fighting with each other. The enemy is not the energy company or the mineral owner. The enemy is the fractivist community and if they win, mineral owners, energy companies and our country will lose.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on July 30, 2014 at 1:30pm

Joe,

Thanks for your reply.

To me, from what I've read on these pages and elsewhere, it seems more than a little idealistic and noble. To me representative of more of a goal than historical reality.

Let's keep putting the bug in their ears.

Truest of all is that things would be so much better if landowners and gas and oil E & P outfits (and both of their representatives) would each treat the other as partners and not adversaries.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pg guy on July 28, 2014 at 8:17am

This whole discussion about trying to keep the operators honest, and hoping to recover the royalties that are contractually due to the landowners is somewhat ironic, in the context of the frequent disparagement of the traditional Appalachian producers, expressed on this site.

In the conventional O&G patch, even though the royalty rate is almost uniformly a lowly one-eight (12.5%), there were generally no games played, with gas or oil. An oil royalty owner could often get paid directly from the refiner, with the royalty never passing through the operator's books (or bank account).

To be sure the system was not perfect, and no doubt not all was always on the up and up, however, how many current RI owners would gladly give up a percent or two for relatively transparent payment processing on a timely basis, often within thirty days of first production on a new well?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on July 28, 2014 at 9:05am

Strange how things / perspectives / ethics seemed to have changed over time - for the worse IMHO.

Seems to me more time is spent / wasted trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes instead of getting on with the tasks at hand.

Where does that tact originate ?

I think that most of the time it's because one party thinks the other to be (let's call it) less informed / in the dark about things.

Unfortunately it seems the game is rigged to keep targeted folks that way (less informed / in the dark).

I call that a lack of ethics / a moral break down among human beings myself.

What does everyone else call it ?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on July 28, 2014 at 10:00am

Perhaps one factor might be that a part of it could be a by-product of what has become to be called 'higher education' ?

Are our Schools / Colleges / Universities / actually teaching our youngsters how to be less human / less moral / less ethical in their dealings with others.

Are they actually teaching that it is 'smart' to be inhuman /immoral / unethical if they can get away with it ?

I see a pattern / connection myself - do others - do others even give a hoot these days ?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MJ on July 28, 2014 at 10:28am

I am afraid what is being taught, in part, is what is right or wrong is only so if a panel of their peers says it is.....2+2= 4 if, and only if, the hive says it is.  One cannot know a thing for one's self anymore - only the collective can determine things.  Way more too it than that i am sure and all IMHO.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on July 29, 2014 at 2:25am

If in fact it is 'the hive' philosophy / mentality, driving humanity to the results that seem so apparent / obvious to me (especially here in our State / Country - not to mention the rest of the World); I have to say I'm totally disappointed to learn it (as I witness individual rights and freedoms being thrown under 'hive's' bus one after another).

Also, if in fact 'the hive' philosophy / mentality is driving, I believe it is something / a condition that needs to be corrected.

What ultimately happens to most 'hives' ?

Seems to me they can become successful within their own rather / somewhat isolated environment (mostly determined by geography); but, it seems to me unsuccessful in others (since you don't find Giant Termite Mounds, or certain other species of Insects such as Hornets, Bees, or Wasps, or even certain Mammals like Lemmings and Prairie Dogs everywhere).

Then when 'the hives' become a nuisance to other inhabitants of a given area / geography they're normally destroyed by the dominant.

Even if we one day humanity ends up with one 'hive'  there will always be differing factions struggling / warring for control of their corner.

Personally, I don't think 'the hive' philosophy / mentality solves anything but instead continues to foster turmoil while trampling on individual rights and freedoms.

Do you think 'the hive' is the same thing as 'the so-called 'New World Order' ?

I do.

Disgusting for me to even think it exists and / or witness it gaining any momentum here in our State / Country especially.

All as always only IMHO.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph-Ohio on July 28, 2014 at 11:12am

MJ,

It sounds like then (if I'm interpreting your meaning correctly) that our youngsters are being taught by the 'hive'.

Does the 'hive's' curriculum include humanity / morality / ethics ?

If I have to ask then I think I can correctly conclude that it doesn't.

What do others think ?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by cj wyalusing on July 28, 2014 at 11:16am

This has to be the best conversation I have read in months  keep @ it ! Cj wylusing

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page