Jump to content

CHK - Chesapeake Energy


bmichaud

Recommended Posts

CHK, DVN and SD were all taken to the woodshed.  Figured maybe the crappy woodford wells at SD hit DVN and SD, but not sure if CHK even has any exposure there.  I'm not optimistic for the price of crude or I would get long, especially SD and CHK with former great wildcatters putting together the assets and now rational financial minds at the helm for development of those assets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 564
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Chesapeake's reserve estimation and accounting are very aggressive.

 

1- They book PDNPs when they probably shouldn't.  I think it's too early to tell if secondary recovery techniques will be economic on shale deposits.

 

2- They capitalize a lot of internal costs and interest into their properties.

 

My blog post on the company: http://wp.me/p1mOGr-vM

*I own CHK puts.  I don't know why I'm often on the other side of CoBaF (e.g. JCP, BBRY, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you talking about this one ?

 

Nov 8, 2013 DUNHAM ARCHIE W

Director

200,000 Direct Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $25.86 per share. 5,172,000

 

It's a huge order - but I just wonder what does "Acquisition on non-open market" mean ?

I don't think it's an option grant or sth similar b/c it's so huge - it seems a trade out of this guy's own pocket

 

 

Insider just bought 200k shares @ 25-26 range

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you talking about this one ?

 

Nov 8, 2013 DUNHAM ARCHIE W

Director

200,000 Direct Acquisition (Non Open Market) at $25.86 per share. 5,172,000

 

It's a huge order - but I just wonder what does "Acquisition on non-open market" mean ?

I don't think it's an option grant or sth similar b/c it's so huge - it seems a trade out of this guy's own pocket

 

 

Insider just bought 200k shares @ 25-26 range

 

Yeah, here is the filing. I take non-public mean privately negotiated transaction with a seller.

 

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/895126/000089512613000344/xslF345X03/edgardoc.xml

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Does anybody know how the accounting for unproved properties work?

 

As I understand it, this is an area where Chesapeake may be inappropriately capitalizing expenses.  Its unproved properties may be carried on the books for far more than what they're worth.

 

How do you know if unproved acreage is any good?  You drill a well on it.  If you don't want to commit too much money then a vertical well is cheaper.  Sometimes you will get mixed results on an exploration well.  Perhaps re-fracturing the well will improve well economics.  You might hold off on re-fracking the well until there is infrastructure in the area to transport the hydrocarbons away.

Perhaps the acreage is uneconomic until the right infrastructure in the region is built.  (This legitimately exists in some areas.  See my blog post on it: http://wp.me/1mOGr )

 

According to accounting rules, you are allowed to capitalize exploration costs into unproved properties.  If you perform 2d/3d seismic on a property, you can capitalize that expense.  I think most people would agree with capitalizing seismic costs is legitimate.

 

But what happens if the company finishes drilling an exploration well?  In my opinion, the company should be forced to convert those properties into proved properties or to write them off.  Chesapeake seems to have billions of dollars in unproved properties with capitalized well costs.  The company may have already proven that the acreage is uneconomic.  However, accounting rules technically allow them to keep all of their expenses capitalized without having to perform a ceiling test on the unproven properties or to write them down.

 

On page 93 of the 10-K (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/895126/000089512613000076/chk-2012123110k.htm):

2012

Leasehold acquisition cost - $1,826

Exploration cost - $1,213

Capitalized interest - $810

Total - $3,849

 

This seems to be a huge change from the past as Chesapeake did not capitalize exploration costs into unproved properties in 2009 and the years before that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://petroleumtruthreport.blogspot.ca/2009_09_01_archive.html

 

This blog post explains how EURs can be inflated.  While the EUR doesn't have much of an impact on the SEC PV-10 value or the standardized measure, it does affect Chesapeake's depreciation (and amortization) costs.  Chesapeake uses the units of production method for its wells.

 

I believe that doubling the EUR will halve the depreciation costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

My main concern was that as good as 2014 looks, the operating cash flow doesn't show significant improvement.

 

This seems like the type of business where all the capital the business generates needs to be pumped back into the business to maintain a low level of growth. And even then it looks like they are going to have a cash shortfall as compared to capex.

 

Management is doing a lot of good things and I don't think the stock is overpriced, but I'm having a hard time figuring out the upside.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If their cash flow looks weak, it is likely due to a combination of the following factors:

A- Their accounting is aggressive and they capitalized more expenses than they should have (relative to the economic reality of the assets/wells).

B- They are rapidly expanding.

 

If you go through the 10-K, you can see that their accounting is very aggressive.  Their accounting to related to their reserve estimation, which is also aggressive (e.g. 65 year well life).

 

We know they aren't rapidly expanding based on their production forecasts.  (Though in the past Chesapeake was rapidly expanding.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

Chesapeake May Shed Oilfield-Services Unit

 

 

Division With $2.2 Billion in Revenue Is Put Under Strategic Review

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304610404579402232680589654?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

 

 

Chesapeake Energy Corp. CHK -0.30%  , the second-largest producer of natural gas in the U.S., said Monday it is pursuing strategic alternatives for its oilfield services division, Chesapeake Oilfield Services, including a potential spin-off to Chesapeake shareholders or an outright sale.

 

 

The oil-services division had revenue of about $2.2 billion in 2013, with service offerings include drilling, hydraulic fracturing, oilfield rentals, rig relocation, and fluid handling and disposal, according to Chesapeake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...