Expand Energy (Formerly Chesapeake)

[bombermwc]

CHK is also moving more into the fracing world outside of their own in-house operations. They recently bought into a company based in Houston but that has one of their larger operations centers in Chickasha. I have a friend that has been working for Frac Tech for a few years now. Word is an IPO is on their radar soon, but if CHK is getting their paws in the mix, who knows.

From what I understand, FracTech is a great one to side with though for CHK. They use a mixture that is NOT harmful and all the stories you hear about groundwater contimination are apparently done by pretty crappy companies that do little to look at the environmental side. So in terms of being clean and green (as far as you can be when you're sucking crap out of the ground), they at least chose a good company to side with.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/0...21850820110509

[soonerguru]

CHK is also moving more into the fracing world outside of their own in-house operations. They recently bought into a company based in Houston but that has one of their larger operations centers in Chickasha. I have a friend that has been working for Frac Tech for a few years now. Word is an IPO is on their radar soon, but if CHK is getting their paws in the mix, who knows.

From what I understand, FracTech is a great one to side with though for CHK. They use a mixture that is NOT harmful and all the stories you hear about groundwater contimination are apparently done by pretty crappy companies that do little to look at the environmental side. So in terms of being clean and green (as far as you can be when you're sucking crap out of the ground), they at least chose a good company to side with.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/0...21850820110509

This is what I've suspected. Let's be honest, here. Fracking is a potential environmental disaster and water is a precious resource. This is why I don't understand why responsible owners like Chesapeake and Devon are so hostile to regulation. To me, regulation protects responsible operators and provides punishment to those who do it wrong. Virtually every industry that "self regulates" fails at doing so, and energy companies are notoriously bad at it.

[ou48A]

This is what I've suspected. Let's be honest, here. Fracking is a potential environmental disaster and water is a precious resource. This is why I don't understand why responsible owners like Chesapeake and Devon are so hostile to regulation. To me, regulation protects responsible operators and provides punishment to those who do it wrong. Virtually every industry that "self regulates" fails at doing so, and energy companies are notoriously bad at it.

Many problems that are attributed to a bad frac job are really a bad Cement job.
There are very few problems with fracing and what few there are often highly exaggerated.


There is a micro cap Canadian Co called GASFRAC (GSFVF) who issued its IPO several months ago who uses no water in its frac jobs.
They claim a lower overall cost for several reasons. There is no water disposal..... Because there is no de watering the well can be put on line quicker and there is no wasteful flaring.
GASFRAC says that its frac jobs can achieve up to 20% better well production. They use far fewer vehicles and associated equipment.
However unfounded they are…… there is no reason to fear ground water contamination. For reasons that have nothing to with graound water contamination GASFRAC is a greener way to frac.
GASFRAC uses propane that is liquefied instead of water. Most of the propane is recovered, what is not is sent down a pipeline.

GASFRAC is a company that is so small that it’s not very well known company nor is its method of fracing.

[blangtang]

A. McClendon is scheduled to be interviewed on CNBC this afternoon during Jim Cramer's Mad Money.

[dankrutka]

A. McClendon is scheduled to be interviewed on CNBC this afternoon during Jim Cramer's Mad Money.

How'd it go?

[blangtang]

hmm, i think it was good.

A.M said they are gonna hire 2000 people this year and average compensation of those jobs is ~75K/year

they discussed energy policy in the US, how CHK is increasing their dividend, and how they are one of the biggest drillers in the world...

I can't remember, maybe Cramer said to buy the stock!

[urbanity]

'Peake performance

Aubrey McClendon retains his Chesapeake CEO position, despite an advisory firm's recommendation.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...html#dComments

[Snowman]

'Peake performance

Aubrey McClendon retains his Chesapeake CEO position, despite an advisory firm's recommendation.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...html#dComments

Rarely do outside shareholders vote, unless their is several of the key investors already against them (which will come over time not some story published shortly before a vote) or major internal conflict does any CEO get fired/not elected.

[MikeOKC]

'Peake performance

Aubrey McClendon retains his Chesapeake CEO position, despite an advisory firm's recommendation.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...html#dComments

One of the most eye-opening things in this entire drama is told beautifully in the Gazette article you linked to. The no-coverage decision by The Oklahoman was a big step back to the days of E.K. and Edward Gaylord - playing like the old Pravda (Problems? What problems?). I have grown to respect and appreciate a lot about the newer Oklahoman, so to see this blatant pandering to Aubrey McClendon with his hometown newspaper not covering (censoring) what was a major corporate business story nationally was very disappointing.

[MikeOKC]

CHK is center stage in page one NYT piece, Sunday, 6-26-01.
Posted story as it concerns a lot more than CHK in Current Events/Open Thread:
http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=26245

[mugofbeer]

So, exactly why is it so important that you publish any negative information or article about CHK? There's a clear trend here. Head in the sand? Over what? Unless you work there you've got no horse in the race so what does it matter? What is it that you are trying to achieve? CHK does an enormous amount of good in this city and employs thousands of people. CHK will have a hard enough time trying to remain independent as time goes on. As big as it is, if Exxon-Mobil or BP or someone decided they wanted to absorb CHK, they could do it easily. Then OK would ahve about a zillion square feet of really nice EMPTY office space up on western.

[Pete]

CHK fires back at the NYT:

Chesapeake Energy Corp. CEO Aubrey McClendon has responded to what he considers to be a misleading article published Sunday in the New York Times.

Read more: http://newsok.com/chesapeake-strikes...#ixzz1QWQOLbjG

[MikeOKC]

CHK fires back at the NYT:

Isn't it interesting how The Oklahoman goes to bat for Aubrey, but - literally - not a peep concerning the the national news story after the ISS recommended his ouster from the board of directors? I said then, and I still believe, The no-coverage decision by The Oklahoman was a big step back to the days of E.K. and Edward Gaylord - playing like the old Pravda (Problems? What problems?). I have grown to respect and appreciate a lot about the newer Oklahoman, so to see this blatant pandering to Aubrey McClendon with his hometown newspaper not covering (censoring) what was a major corporate business story nationally was very disappointing. But now? After the NYT story? The Oklahoman goes to work as an offshoot of the CHK PR department. There's so much 'Enron' written all over Chesapeake Energy. People want to deny and act like nothing is wrong. Look where that got Enron - and their investors.

So, exactly why is it so important that you publish any negative information or article about CHK? There's a clear trend here. Head in the sand? Over what? Unless you work there you've got no horse in the race so what does it matter? What is it that you are trying to achieve? CHK does an enormous amount of good in this city and employs thousands of people. CHK will have a hard enough time trying to remain independent as time goes on. As big as it is, if Exxon-Mobil or BP or someone decided they wanted to absorb CHK, they could do it easily. Then OK would ahve about a zillion square feet of really nice EMPTY office space up on western.

Why does it matter to me? The last part of your post says it all. It's not time to turn a blind eye to all the problems of corporate (mis)governance at CHK.
It is very important that CHK succeed for the future of Oklahoma City. Right now, the padding of wealth of Mr. Aubrey McClendon is job #1 at CHK.
I agree with many, many analysts who believe AM should be gone - before he's forced to go and ruins CHK (and a good chunk of OKC) in the process.
Greed is an old story. On what planet are BILLIONS not enough, Aubrey?

[Snowman]

Why you are expecting some groundswell of investors action for this. Even giving you every points you make the company has higher percent returns on investment over the last twenty years than most stocks. Plus outside of start-ups, forced changes in CEOs most of the time do not increase shareholder value until many years out (assuming the new CEO can show a dramatic improvement) and most of the time leads to something between no improvement but more often years of lost value, with the exception of when their are far more people than currently would want him out than words in the annual report. Do you have someone in mind that will assure investors that they will do a better job?

[MikeOKC]

Why you are expecting some groundswell of investors action for this. Even giving you every points you make the company has higher percent returns on investment over the last twenty years than most stocks. Plus outside of start-ups, forced changes in CEOs most of the time do not increase shareholder value until many years out (assuming the new CEO can show a dramatic improvement) and most of the time leads to something between no improvement but more often years of lost value, with the exception of when their are far more people than currently would want him out than words in the annual report. Do you have someone in mind that will assure investors that they will do a better job?

No, I just know the current CEO is good with start-ups and running a private business, but is running the public CHK like it's still his private business and is endangering Chesapeake Energy Corp. He simply is too much of a corporate cowboy to run a public company. This truly is not personal - I'm simply outraged at what AM gets away with and I know the time will come when I will say, "I told you so." We'll see, huh?

[Dustin]

His personal letter to employees..

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?not...50305143547565

[onthestrip]

So, exactly why is it so important that you publish any negative information or article about CHK? There's a clear trend here. Head in the sand? Over what? Unless you work there you've got no horse in the race so what does it matter? What is it that you are trying to achieve? CHK does an enormous amount of good in this city and employs thousands of people. CHK will have a hard enough time trying to remain independent as time goes on. As big as it is, if Exxon-Mobil or BP or someone decided they wanted to absorb CHK, they could do it easily. Then OK would ahve about a zillion square feet of really nice EMPTY office space up on western.

This response is foolish. We should ask no questions or be critical of anybody as great as OKCs savior, Mr McClendon? Please. The guy obviously does some shady stuff. We should definitely ask questions. I also don't have to work there to be concerned. If Chpk failed it would have a huge impact on the entire city, not just employees. But wait, what am i doing? I shouldn't question Aubreys actions, he's bringing us Whole Foods, developed Classen Curve that has only siphoned tenants from other OKC centers, built some boathouse stuff and has a nice looking campus. When he does that why should I ever question the risky business practices he uses.

[Dustin]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43564235

[MikeOKC]

This time....Aubrey is accused of blatantly buying the Governor of Pennsylvania to the tune of $450,000.00..Takes "grooming" to a new level

"In the-oil-and-gas business, it's called a wildcat well - when a prospector takes a big risk drilling deep in an unexplored area.

In 2004, a flamboyant Oklahoma City multimillionaire took out his hefty checkbook for what you could call the political equivalent of a wildcat well - and he struck a gusher, right here in Pennsylvania.

The $450,000 in campaign checks that energy mogul Aubrey McClendon wrote that fall helped elect a man he said he'd never even met - a relatively obscure GOP candidate for Pennsylvania attorney general, Tom Corbett."

http://articles.philly.com/2011-06-2...arcellus-shale

http://www.investorvillage.com/group...g&mid=10665001

And how does it all touch the people of Pennsylvania?
http://dearsusquehanna.blogspot.com/...d-time-at.html
(This person actually heard some of the reports of people on the ground in PA about AM and his control-freak personality. Take note.)

[MikeOKC]

And...fast on the heels of the above. Connect the dots and surprise! 2+2 really does = 4!

PA Governor Corbett threatened a veto of the budget bill if it included a natural gas tax after the PA State Senate passed a budget that included the tax. A little political maneuvering and Aubrey learns he picked this boy well. Aubrey, aren't you proud to be so blatant about buying off political leaders? Just like Uncle Bob, you think your wealth gives you entitlements. (Yes, many don't know his maternal bloodline is KERR. Aubrey is a nephew of Robert S. Kerr -- you don't think he had advantages with his "startup" way back when?)
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...udget-gas-tax/

I'm embarrassed by this man.

[Pete]

CHK to Invest $1 Billion In Clean Energy

OKLAHOMA CITY, Jul 11, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- In an effort to help break OPEC's 38-year stranglehold on the U.S. economy and to lower energy costs to American consumers, enhance national security, stimulate economic growth, create hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs and improve the environment, Chesapeake Energy Corporation (NYSE:CHK) today unveiled its plan for an achievable, scalable and affordable pathway toward a transportation future that runs on America's own abundant supplies of natural gas and oil from deep shale and other unconventional formations. Central to this private-sector initiative to stimulate world-class technological innovation and stronger economic growth is the creation of a $1.0 billion venture capital fund, Chesapeake NG Ventures Corporation (CNGV), dedicated to identifying and investing in companies and technologies that will replace the use of gasoline and diesel derived primarily from OPEC oil with domestic oil, natural gas and natural gas-to-liquids (GTL) fuels.

To fund this effort, Chesapeake will redirect approximately 1-2% of its forecasted annual drilling budget away from efforts to increase natural gas supply toward projects that will instead stimulate increased natural gas demand. Over the next 10 years, the company anticipates committing at least $1.0 billion to CNGV initiatives.



BTW, they are investing heavily in two companies; one based in Southern California and the other in Colorado.

[ou48A]

CHK to Invest $1 Billion In Clean Energy

OKLAHOMA CITY, Jul 11, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- In an effort to help break OPEC's 38-year stranglehold on the U.S. economy and to lower energy costs to American consumers, enhance national security, stimulate economic growth, create hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs and improve the environment, Chesapeake Energy Corporation (NYSE:CHK) today unveiled its plan for an achievable, scalable and affordable pathway toward a transportation future that runs on America's own abundant supplies of natural gas and oil from deep shale and other unconventional formations. Central to this private-sector initiative to stimulate world-class technological innovation and stronger economic growth is the creation of a $1.0 billion venture capital fund, Chesapeake NG Ventures Corporation (CNGV), dedicated to identifying and investing in companies and technologies that will replace the use of gasoline and diesel derived primarily from OPEC oil with domestic oil, natural gas and natural gas-to-liquids (GTL) fuels.

To fund this effort, Chesapeake will redirect approximately 1-2% of its forecasted annual drilling budget away from efforts to increase natural gas supply toward projects that will instead stimulate increased natural gas demand. Over the next 10 years, the company anticipates committing at least $1.0 billion to CNGV initiatives.



BTW, they are investing heavily in two companies; one based in Southern California and the other in Colorado.

I hope this Chesapeake plan is successful because it would have profound implications for our nation, state and city.
Others would be sure to follow. Our various governmental agencies need to help facilitate this and put this on fast track.

I believe this is a plan that we could all support.

[MikeOKC]

CHK to Invest $1 Billion In Clean Energy

OKLAHOMA CITY, Jul 11, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE)....

CleanER does not mean it's clean. Another Audrey McClendon-led disinformation campaign. The CHK-written press release which ends up on Business Wire (PR outlet) and runs verbatim by mainstream media shows how effective those things can be. The fact is that the this latest round of CHK disinformation is nothing more than the beginning of another huge multimillion dollar marketing campaign to make people believe natural gas is "clean." It's too bad Aubrey & Co. can't make their billions with intellectual honesty.

[MikeOKC]

As I expected, the move by CHK does nothing for the stock price and is seen as little more than a PR move.

Some snippets from story from The Street.

Chesapeake's Largesse Does Little for Stock

"For Chesapeake, though, there's really only one major potential benefit from supporting the natural gas vehicle market: Impacting the supply/demand balance in the natural gas market to such a degree that natural gas prices finally break out of the doldrums. That's not going to happen as a result of Chesapeake's $1 billion investment, according to several analysts in the energy markets, and that leaves the Chesapeake move as a yawner for investors."

"It doesn't mean the natural gas vehicle investment isn't a great PR move though, and it came at a good time. The New York Times stopped just short of describing Chesapeake as a Ponzi scheme in a recent article, prompting CEO Aubrey McClendon to write an letter to employees defending the company."


"Energy analysts pointed to the first sentence of the Chesapeake announcement as the first sign that the $1 billion investment was more PR than IRR [internal rate of return] for Chesapeake shareholders, and from a CEO, Aubrey McClendon, who has never been shy about marketing: "In an effort to help break OPEC's 38-year stranglehold on the U.S. economy and to lower energy costs to American consumers, enhance national security, stimulate economic growth, create hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs and improve the environment..." Chesapeake began its press release."

"It's PR more than anything else," said Phil Weiss, analyst at Argus Research and a constant critic of Chesapeake management. "The T. Boone Pickens supported NatGas Act has lost steam and so the ball was tossed to Aubrey and he wrote a big check," Weiss said."

"Several other energy analysts didn't want to be quoted on Chesapeake's motivation but echoed Weiss's sentiment. "It's Aubrey's ego at work here," said one analyst. "It doesn't impact Chesapeake shares or the way any investor thinks about the company."

The stock was up 1.5% to $30.22 in recent trades.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11184...for-stock.html

[MikeOKC]

Here's a fascinating piece about the practice of PR/News morphing. Using, guess who (?), as an example --- yep - Chesapeake Energy. She's 100% right. This is an excellent article. It all goes back to what I wrote a post or two back about intellectual honesty. She looks at the recent back and forth between the NYT and CHK and those that support fracking. Also, she is spot-on about CHK's use of PR as "news" and how, repeated often enough, it becomes "news."
News Coverage Vs. PR: Is Fracking a Panacea or a Ponzi Scheme?

I have to include the end of the article, as it so clearly shows how incredibly clueless and cocky AM can be:

But in the end, it all boils down to values, as McClendon makes clear his own lack of interest in the free press, in journalism, and in environmental accountability. In his open letter, he asks "What value has the NYT or environmental activists created during these same past seven years? You either create value in this world or you consume/destroy it -- we are value creators, please never forget that."

Wow.