I think it would have to be sold to a developer at a very low price to have any chance of success. It likely would be cheaper and with fewer roadblocks to build from ground up. This isn't a slam dunk.

100%. I worked in some CHK offices back in 2011-2013. They are small. Probably 12 x 10 or so. Of course, the manager offices are larger, but I would think it would take a full gut of the offices, then run new plumbing and electrical to get it to where you can build out for apartments.

I don't think anyone is making any assumptions about return on investment. If the demand is there the developer will make money. Developers are still turning historical buildings into residential. If there is no demand for commercial than eventually a developer can get the property for the right price.

I think it would have to be sold to a developer at a very low price to have any chance of success. It likely would be cheaper and with fewer roadblocks to build from ground up. This isn't a slam dunk.

It would seem that developers converting century old highrise buildings downtown would face a much steeper road to success, yet many are successful doing it, especially in Tulsa. CHK's buildings weren't stickbuilt, they were well constructed with modern roof heights and current building codes. I don't see why this would be any more difficult than some of those renovations that seemingly would require much more physical and financial creativity to complete.

I don't think anything is making any assumptions about return on investment. If the demand is there the developer will make money. Developers are still turning historical buildings into residential. If there is no demand for commercial than eventually a developer can get the property for the right price.

Not in OKC. The market, especially downtown, doesnt necessarily correct itself, you just go ask for TIF money.

Someone mentioned load bearing walls earlier. Being a commercial building, there shouldnt be any of those, just some columns that you can easily work around. Everything is costly these days but no reason you couldnt change these to housing. I do wonder about NIMBY pushback though if someone proposed several hundred apartment units.

Not in OKC. The market, especially downtown, doesnt necessarily correct itself, you just go ask for TIF money.

Someone mentioned load bearing walls earlier. Being a commercial building, there shouldnt be any of those, just some columns that you can easily work around. Everything is costly these days but no reason you couldnt change these to housing. I do wonder about NIMBY pushback though if someone proposed several hundred apartment units.
True. These buildings would be column and beam construction. Gutting the office spaces would be ripping out sheetrock and metal studs. Leaving 4 outside walls and some number of interior columns. In the grand scheme of remodeling really pretty simple.

Seems like a good fit for OSU-OKC since it would tie into the architecture of the Stillwater campus.

THAT is what I was thinking. Why not convert all of the brick to become a new University campus. Think about it if an Oil/Energy related new university OR an existing university relocated. Interesting to think about.

Any university out there that would be interested in doing this?

Is there a reason why people don't want to use this campus for a corporate HQ? Seems like conversion to housing is all people are discussing.

Any university out there that would be interested in doing this?

No, because of the cost. Changing uses from the office designs isn't cheap or easy. A 10x12 office isn't suitable for a classroom or a dorm. People must think you just wave a wand. It isn't what the outside looks like, it's the whole building. People drive by and see the type of architecture and all they see is that it might be cool as apartments based on what the style of architecture and the color of the bricks are, or they notice it looks a little like OSU in Stillwater so assume it can be a university.

In retrofit it is usually easier going from big rooms to smaller rooms than the other way around.

No, because of the cost. Changing uses from the office designs isn't cheap or easy. A 10x12 office isn't suitable for a classroom or a dorm. People must think you just wave a wand. It isn't what the outside looks like, it's the whole building. People drive by and see the type of architecture and all they see is that it might be cool as apartments based on what the style of architecture and the color of the bricks are, or they notice it looks a little like OSU in Stillwater so assume it can be a university.

In retrofit it is usually easier going from big rooms to smaller rooms than the other way around.

I mean, that's the reason why old historic buildings are converted. No magic wands involved there. The Chesapeake campus on the other hand probably runs into the problem of not being old or unique enough. Way back when we first started talking about the "Chesapeake Empire" there was talk about how impractical this sprawling campus was. I guess we're seeing that play out now.

I mean, that's the reason why old historic buildings are converted. No magic wands involved there. The Chesapeake campus on the other hand probably runs into the problem of not being old or unique enough. Way back when we first started talking about the "Chesapeake Empire" there was talk about how impractical this sprawling campus was. I guess we're seeing that play out now.

Not many old office building are retrofitted as housing unless they were open plan with few or no internal support walls. The non-load-bearing walls generally would have to be gutted, the entire building rewired and replumbed. New electrical brought to the building, possible upgraded sewer connections. Different HVAC. That's why so many incentives have to be given to do it... historical building credits, etc. I saw a professional report just last week that estimated about 3-5% of existing office buildings are suitable for conversion. The fact that Chesapeake was sprawling has nothing to do with it. They were designed as office buildings, not residential, and they aren't just easily transformable. To even consider it a developer would have to be ultra committed and with deep pockets.

Not many old office building are retrofitted as housing unless they were open plan with few or no internal support walls. The non-load-bearing walls generally would have to be gutted, the entire building rewired and replumbed. New electrical brought to the building, possible upgraded sewer connections. Different HVAC. That's why so many incentives have to be given to do it... historical building credits, etc. I saw a professional report just last week that estimated about 3-5% of existing office buildings are suitable for conversion. The fact that Chesapeake was sprawling has nothing to do with it. They were designed as office buildings, not residential, and they aren't just easily transformable. To even consider it a developer would have to be ultra committed and with deep pockets.

I had several family members working there early on. They all have said that Aubrey designed them in a way that would allow for a fairly painless (relatively speaking) conversion to residential or other uses. I can't confirm that beyond a doubt but he was pretty forward thinking in many ways and cared a lot about the future of that part of town so it wouldn't surprise me if that level of thought went into it. They are all fairly large buildings so space generally shouldn't be an issue unless, as you suggest, floor plate issues come into play. Hopefully that was actually the case and not just a rumor.

I had several family members working there early on. They all have said that Aubrey designed them in a way that would allow for a fairly painless (relatively speaking) conversion to residential or other uses. I can't confirm that beyond a doubt but he was pretty forward thinking in many ways and cared a lot about the future of that part of town so it wouldn't surprise me if that level of thought went into it. They are all fairly large buildings so space generally shouldn't be an issue unless, as you suggest, floor plate issues come into play. Hopefully that was actually the case and not just a rumor.It would be great if that was done. And it's possible that it was designed that way in the initial design.

Not many old office building are retrofitted as housing unless they were open plan with few or no internal support walls. The non-load-bearing walls generally would have to be gutted, the entire building rewired and replumbed. New electrical brought to the building, possible upgraded sewer connections. Different HVAC. That's why so many incentives have to be given to do it... historical building credits, etc. I saw a professional report just last week that estimated about 3-5% of existing office buildings are suitable for conversion. The fact that Chesapeake was sprawling has nothing to do with it. They were designed as office buildings, not residential, and they aren't just easily transformable. To even consider it a developer would have to be ultra committed and with deep pockets.

It is not cheap for sure to do all that plumbing especially. That's why I'm suggesting, don't just turn this into a bunch of small apartments. I'm suggesting look at it from the possibility of them being much larger than the average apartment. 2500-3k sq footers. Maybe even multi level. It does reduce the amount of plumbing work and you can get some more bang for you buck there by sharing walls for plumbing needs like bathrooms and laundry/etc.

The size of these floorplates is not just SOOO huge. Maybe make each building its own identity. You could turn one building into full floor lofts. Minimal build-out. One, the customer does the build-out as part of a condo-type ownership. One could be the typical normal apartments. The possibilities are pretty open and endless there in terms of how much you want to put into it and how much space you create for each unit. Hell, you could have one building that's only a couple of HUGE units. There are people out there that would love that. We don't have those anywhere really in town like that, in an area like this. They dont want ANY lawn. They dont want to have to mess with repairs/etc. But they want SIZE.

I had several family members working there early on. They all have said that Aubrey designed them in a way that would allow for a fairly painless (relatively speaking) conversion to residential or other uses. I can't confirm that beyond a doubt but he was pretty forward thinking in many ways and cared a lot about the future of that part of town so it wouldn't surprise me if that level of thought went into it. They are all fairly large buildings so space generally shouldn't be an issue unless, as you suggest, floor plate issues come into play. Hopefully that was actually the case and not just a rumor.

As I've said before, I believe very strongly this is an urban myth.

I've seen the plans for all their buildings and they are all typical office buildings.

I worked there from 2011-2013 and had several meetings where people could ask questions and he had the plans to build housing on the west side of Grand and where the apartments are/were going up on 63rd and Grand. To the east, it would be office all the way to the train tracks. If I remember correctly, he was wanting to build out the office space to have 10,000 employees.

It is not cheap for sure to do all that plumbing especially. That's why I'm suggesting, don't just turn this into a bunch of small apartments. I'm suggesting look at it from the possibility of them being much larger than the average apartment. 2500-3k sq footers. Maybe even multi level. It does reduce the amount of plumbing work and you can get some more bang for you buck there by sharing walls for plumbing needs like bathrooms and laundry/etc.

The size of these floorplates is not just SOOO huge. Maybe make each building its own identity. You could turn one building into full floor lofts. Minimal build-out. One, the customer does the build-out as part of a condo-type ownership. One could be the typical normal apartments. The possibilities are pretty open and endless there in terms of how much you want to put into it and how much space you create for each unit. Hell, you could have one building that's only a couple of HUGE units. There are people out there that would love that. We don't have those anywhere really in town like that, in an area like this. They dont want ANY lawn. They dont want to have to mess with repairs/etc. But they want SIZE.
It is way more complicated than you express here. There are demising walls to consider. Support walls that can’t just be eliminated or moved. HVAC system changes. Sewer changes. Total rewiring. Total plumbing. Common area access (elevators, lobbies, halls, fire exits, etc) would likely have to be reconfigured.

The idea that this can be easily or affordably done is a myth.

^

AKM had these very grandiose plans to build out that eastern half of the campus as housing then have NHP and Classen Curve be a part of a lifestyle village for all of Chesapeake.

He talked about it openly before everything came crashing down spectacularly.

So what are some realistic commercial prospects/ideas? Building 13,14,and 15 seem like they would be easier to sale.

As I've said before, I believe very strongly this is an urban myth.

I've seen the plans for all their buildings and they are all typical office buildings.

if that is the case, it will be interesting to see what happens there.

So what are some realistic commercial prospects/ideas? Building 13,14,and 15 seem like they would be easier to sale.

Yeah, but they are still 400-800 people office buildings. I guess they could be broken up by floor, but I don't know what the need for office in the area is like. Midfirst has a bunch of open offices in 1,2 and 3 grand, so they aren't busting at the seams. Maybe another company looking to relocate?

if that is the case, it will be interesting to see what happens there.

They will likely either commit to being a landlord and move in more state agencies and non-profits or they’ll sell it. But it’s going to take a mindset shift on their behalf.

It is way more complicated than you express here. There are demising walls to consider. Support walls that can’t just be eliminated or moved. HVAC system changes. Sewer changes. Total rewiring. Total plumbing. Common area access (elevators, lobbies, halls, fire exits, etc) would likely have to be reconfigured.

The idea that this can be easily or affordably done is a myth.

I think we're all well aware of what goes into the conversion. The number of these projects downtown and their expense, shows exactally what all is involved. You get the benefit here of not being downtown so the buildings dont cost as much and there isn't any sort of historic element to contend with.

I'm not pretending it wont be expensive by any means. I'm just proposing that thinking differently than cookie cutter 500 sqft apartments would be something new and would work here in a way it probably wouldn't work in some other areas of town.

Also, btw, the majority of the walls on these are not load bearing. There are certainly some core type walls to consider, but they are pretty dang small floorplates that don't require a column every 6 ft or anything. I'm not trying to oversimplify, but let's also not over complicate.

The number of these projects downtown and their expense, shows exactally what all is involved. You get the benefit here of not being downtown so the buildings dont cost as much and there isn't any sort of historic element to contend with.

Chesapeake has been asking more for their property (both rent and sale) than those converted downtown properties.

I think we're all well aware of what goes into the conversion. The number of these projects downtown and their expense, shows exactally what all is involved. You get the benefit here of not being downtown so the buildings dont cost as much and there isn't any sort of historic element to contend with.

I'm not pretending it wont be expensive by any means. I'm just proposing that thinking differently than cookie cutter 500 sqft apartments would be something new and would work here in a way it probably wouldn't work in some other areas of town.

Also, btw, the majority of the walls on these are not load bearing. There are certainly some core type walls to consider, but they are pretty dang small floorplates that don't require a column every 6 ft or anything. I'm not trying to oversimplify, but let's also not over complicate.

So you’ve seen the structural plans of the buildings? You make a bunch of assumptions.

Every structure has different issues and opportunities, so you can’t just directly compare a building because of location and age. We do forensic engineering on commercial properties and I can tell you from years of experience that they are all very different.

Chesapeake has been asking more for their property (both rent and sale) than those converted downtown properties.

I think most of us will agree that most of these buildings will most likely sit for awhile until that changes. The commercial demand just isn't there, unless a company buys or rents them for dirt cheap.

I think most of us will agree that most of these buildings will most likely sit for awhile until that changes. The commercial demand just isn't there, unless a company buys or rents them for dirt cheap.

They've already been on the market for years and years.

I think most of us will agree that most of these buildings will most likely sit for awhile until that changes. The commercial demand just isn't there, unless a company buys or rents them for dirt cheap.


They've already been on the market for years and years.

It would seem that their decision to move everyone into one building across the road from the original campus would signal an impending change in mindset/strategy here.

It would seem that their decision to move everyone into one building across the road from the original campus would signal an impending change in mindset/strategy here.

Except they already had a bunch of vacant buildings on the market before this announcement.

I think most of us will agree that most of these buildings will most likely sit for awhile until that changes. The commercial demand just isn't there, unless a company buys or rents them for dirt cheap.

The way the campus is currently set up, makes sense to convert the offices into apartments/condos. That is the current trend right now across the nation, converting glut of old office space that has been sitting vacant into housing.

I wouldn't be surprised if that is the outcome.

Especially because the the NewCo plans to completely vacate the "brick campus" (outlined in red below), it would probably make sense for that portion to be converted to housing and maybe a small hotel or two.

However, there is little parking within that boundary (just a bit of surface plus below the playfield), so at least one of the big parking garages would have to be part of that project.

The brick campus has a large fitness center, restaurants (though mostly shuttered), an adjacent childcare center, a playfield, and beautiful grounds.


Everything east of Classen could be leased out and the vacant land sold to a developer - CHK owns everything to the RR tracks.



HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/chk011924a.jpg


HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/chk011924b.jpg

It would seem that their decision to move everyone into one building across the road from the original campus would signal an impending change in mindset/strategy here.

Maybe the name change will help them overcome sunk cost fallacy?

i wonder how many parking spots are under the field ..

looks like there are a little over 200 surface parking spots (not county handicaped)

Maybe the name change will help them overcome sunk cost fallacy?

? Please explain.

? Please explain.

A name change is symbolically ending the chapter on the Audrey Mclendon era. Those expenses and former dreams are in the past. They are never going to recoup all of their loses. Don't know what will happen with those buildings, but they won't sell for what they want for them.

^

Most that CHK property was never on the open market and almost exclusively sold to Chesapeake chronies.

The whole thing -- even after Aubrey was shown the door -- has been incredibly strange.

^

Most that CHK property was never on the open market and almost exclusively sold to Chesapeake chronies.

The whole thing -- even after Aubrey was shown the door -- has been incredibly strange.

It seemed as if most of the old deals were all funneled through one broker and one lawyer. They seemed to be the drawbridge keepers.

The way the campus is currently set up, makes sense to convert the offices into apartments/condos. That is the current trend right now across the nation, converting glut of old office space that has been sitting vacant into housing.

I wouldn't be surprised if that is the outcome.If the property could be bought for a remotely decent price the layout would be very good. A gym, a daycare, restaurants already there. Part way to the type of mixed-use development that so many people always want.

The main campus is really beautiful and it's a fantastic location.

The real issue is finding a price two sides could agree upon. CHK will never come within 25% of recouping their costs.

The main campus is really beautiful and it's a fantastic location.

The real issue is finding a price two sides could agree upon. CHK will never come within 25% of recouping their costs.
No, they won't come close to recouping that. So if that's the bar that's set the campus will be empty for a long time. Which would be a huge shame. It's a beautiful campus.

No, they won't come close to recouping that. So if that's the bar that's set the campus will be empty for a long time. Which would be a huge shame. It's a beautiful campus.

They've taken pennies on the dollar for dozens of other properties they've spun off.

I suspect with the new ownership, name, and a clear plan forward, they will eventually sell off that central campus. And that would be a good thing for OKC.

Except they already had a bunch of vacant buildings on the market before this announcement.

Sure but have they ever previously consolidated to a single building or one part of the campus leaving a huge contiguous part of it completely empty? It sounds like they’ve been spread out across multiple buildings in the original campus as well as the Rand Elliot buildings across the street. Unless it’s been done before (I don’t think it has), the fact that they’re consolidating into a single building seems to indicate a shift in how aggressive they’re going to be about selling or leasing the rest of the campus….otherwise why else do it?

A name change is symbolically ending the chapter on the Audrey Mclendon era. Those expenses and former dreams are in the past. They are never going to recoup all of their loses. Don't know what will happen with those buildings, but they won't sell for what they want for them.
Those losses were wiped out in bankruptcy

Those losses were wiped out in bankruptcy

That's what I was going to ask. Since the bankruptcy, I'm not sure how much recouping that they're actually concerned about. My guess is that leasing or selling the main campus just hasn't been a big enough priority for them to get aggressive with it and to date, they haven't received any offers (other than from Diamondback and I think that building was completely empty at the time) that made it worth it to them to shuffle people around and give up control of the space.

Consolidating into one building in conjunction with a merger creating one of the largest natural gas producing companies in the world and a name change/rebrand seems to signal that they are going to start actively trying to do something with it.

Sure but have they ever previously consolidated to a single building or one part of the campus leaving a huge contiguous part of it completely empty?

Yes.

Everything east of Classen -- which is more space than the brick campus -- has been vacant for years and openly marketed.

You'd think they'd sell ASAP to minimize the tax bill. The brick campus buildings were early aughts, so they're about halfway through the depreciation cycle. Good time to sell for $0.40 on the dollar and be able to take a slight loss rather than depreciate further and start facing gains tax on a principal loss

Oh the stories I could tell about CHK in the early 10’s. Especially after gas prices tanked. Scores of employees that literally had no work to do but still showed up to campus, worked out at the on-site gym, ate at the on-site restaurants and were paid $200k+ annually. It was a house of cards.

Sounds like Penn Square bank.

It's the nature of oil and gas folks. It's a boom and bust industry. One day prices are soaring and you build a 50+ floor skyscraper out of your own pocket and even plan on building a second building. The next day COVID happens and prices tank to where they haven't been in 30 years and never quite fully recover. That's an extreme example, but the ups and downs of this industry are why so many companies (and service companies) come and go so often, as well as the staff for orgs like CHK. If you're looking to bank a sweet dollar, it can be a great place to work. But you have to go in knowing that you're going to be in a risky position that may not have staying power. And even if you do stay, it may only be until the next round.

Is that much different from other industries? One could argue that it is not. But i think it's more pronounced and more cyclical in energy.

Sounds like Penn Square bank.

Only because both were in OKC. But, very different stories.

The mechanics of it all definitely differs, but both stories involved oil and gas, boom/bust, irrational exuberance, and people who were living high on other people’s money.

The mechanics of it all definitely differs, but both stories involved oil and gas, boom/bust, irrational exuberance, and people who were living high on other people’s money.

And local press completely ignored open secrets, largely due to a conflict of interest in taking tons of advertising.

CHK used to take full-page ads in the Oklahoman and never was heard a discouring word even as that company spiraled out of control. It took Reuters, Fortune and Business Week to finally lay things out and once they did, AKM was run out and at least the company's shell was salvaged.

It's the nature of oil and gas folks. It's a boom and bust industry. One day prices are soaring and you build a 50+ floor skyscraper out of your own pocket and even plan on building a second building. The next day COVID happens and prices tank to where they haven't been in 30 years and never quite fully recover. That's an extreme example, but the ups and downs of this industry are why so many companies (and service companies) come and go so often, as well as the staff for orgs like CHK. If you're looking to bank a sweet dollar, it can be a great place to work. But you have to go in knowing that you're going to be in a risky position that may not have staying power. And even if you do stay, it may only be until the next round.

Is that much different from other industries? One could argue that it is not. But i think it's more pronounced and more cyclical in energy.

Oil and Gas seem to be able to use less human resources now so there's that. They can't get around the amount of time it takes and money to invest in rigs though and you never know what is going to happen overseas.

And local press completely ignored open secrets, largely due to a conflict of interest in taking tons of advertising.

CHK used to take full-page ads in the Oklahoman and never was heard a discouring word even as that company spiraled out of control. It took Reuters, Fortune and Business Week to finally lay things out and once they did, AKM was run out and at least the company's shell was salvaged.

Very true and very disappointing.

General question because I am too stupid to understand: Aubrey openly stated he wanted to build out the campus to employ 10,000 people. Back in 2014, GAR was $23 billion. Now, with the merger, they will employ 800 people. Was Aubrey over employing or has technology changed enough in ten years to where you don't need as many employees as much?

Again, not trolling, not knocking Aubrey, genuinely asking...

General question because I am too stupid to understand: Aubrey openly stated he wanted to build out the campus to employ 10,000 people. Back in 2014, GAR was $23 billion. Now, with the merger, they will employ 800 people. Was Aubrey over employing or has technology changed enough in ten years to where you don't need as many employees as much?

Again, not trolling, not knocking Aubrey, genuinely asking...

1) Technology has made it possible to operate large assets with much fewer people. Especially on the operations side. Things have changed a ton since 2004-2013 (when CHK experienced most of its growth). CHK was on the cutting edge of a lot of new tech so they actively helped spur the development of some of the tech that’s made life easier in the industry.
2) They were over employing to an extent but also…
3) They are no longer trying to lease up every square inch of the mineral rights in every play in the US. That has stopped for a multitude of reasons but primarily because there is a finite amount of drillable acreage, most of which is leased currently (tier 1 acreage at least), and commodities prices combined with some prospects not panning out has shrunk that the amount of desirable acreage (ending the massive land grabs of the 2005-2016 time frame) and to state the obvious, commodity pricing and the resulting financial disaster for CHK put an end to their leasing boom. Huge leasing plays take a huge support staff in addition to the personnel who primarily work on developing the assets so with the company’s shift to primarily focusing on development of its asset base over the last decade, they’ve needed fewer and fewer people. As an example, they had and maintained a massive title plant that housed the complete records for hundreds of courthouses across the country and hundreds of lawyers and Landman researching title there, that mostly went away after **** hit the fan and they slowed down their leasing efforts.
4) Aubrey vertically integrated CHK which was part of the reason for the 10,000 employee campus and after around 2010-2011, CHK started spinning off anything that wasn’t part of the upstream E&P company. Access Midstream, several of the drilling and completion service companies and other components were spun off, further reducing headcount.

1) Technology has made it possible to operate large assets with much fewer people. Especially on the operations side. Things have changed a ton since 2004-2013 (when CHK experienced most of its growth). CHK was on the cutting edge of a lot of new tech so they actively helped spur the development of some of the tech that’s made life easier in the industry.
2) They were over employing to an extent but also…
3) They are no longer trying to lease up every square inch of the mineral rights in every play in the US. That has stopped for a multitude of reasons but primarily because there is a finite amount of drillable acreage, most of which is leased currently (tier 1 acreage at least), and commodities prices combined with some prospects not panning out has shrunk that the amount of desirable acreage (ending the massive land grabs of the 2005-2016 time frame) and to state the obvious, commodity pricing and the resulting financial disaster for CHK put an end to their leasing boom. Huge leasing plays take a huge support staff in addition to the personnel who primarily work on developing the assets so with the company’s shift to primarily focusing on development of its asset base over the last decade, they’ve needed fewer and fewer people. As an example, they had and maintained a massive title plant that housed the complete records for hundreds of courthouses across the country and hundreds of lawyers and Landman researching title there, that mostly went away after **** hit the fan and they slowed down their leasing efforts.
4) Aubrey vertically integrated CHK which was part of the reason for the 10,000 employee campus and after around 2010-2011, CHK started spinning off anything that wasn’t part of the upstream E&P company. Access Midstream, several of the drilling and completion service companies and other components were spun off, further reducing headcount.

As an employee for ~4 years during that time, another thing that they were known for during that period was hiring more than they needed and paying less than they should. A lot of entry level position headcounts were probably twice what they should have been, because they were paying very low salaries (essentially coming out in the wash, G&A-wse). Don't get me wrong, I loved my time there, but sad/true.

As an employee for ~4 years during that time, another thing that they were known for during that period was hiring more than they needed and paying less than they should. A lot of entry level position headcounts were probably twice what they should have been, because they were paying very low salaries (essentially coming out in the wash, G&A-wse). Don't get me wrong, I loved my time there, but sad/true.

What disciplines are you talking about?

That's pretty wild because land personnel-wise during that timeframe they almost always exceeded the market in salary for fulltime positions. People I knew in the energy management program at OU who accepted offers from CHK had some of the best offers of anyone in the program and they were throwing out a ton of money to recruit landmen and other land related positions with 5-15+ years experience. That dropped off in 2013 but they are still close to the top of the market in compensation based on my conversation with my friends who are landmen there.

What disciplines are you talking about?

That's pretty wild because land personnel-wise during that timeframe they almost always exceeded the market in salary for fulltime positions. People I knew in the energy management program at OU who accepted offers from CHK had some of the best offers of anyone in the program and they were throwing out a ton of money to recruit landmen and other land related positions with 5-15+ years experience. That dropped off in 2013 but they are still close to the top of the market in compensation based on my conversation with my friends who are landmen there.

Yes, that was the case with everyone I knew there. They were well paid, but they worked hard for it.

I feel like the main campus will eventually get bought up by a relatively big employer. It's such a great location. I know American Fidelity has offices all over, Paycom has the offices off Reno, I believe Love's is in several buildings outside of their headquarters. I feel like it would be a great land for American Fidelity especially owing to the short distance between here and their HQ. They could use the soccer field and some of the other amenities for sure. This site would sure beat some of the ho hum offices they have some divisions in off of Portland.