data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/918f0/918f018308d8a594d4ce7466bd88e5d7ceb741e3" alt=""
Read More at 24/7 Wall Street: Can Utica Shale Discovery Transform Chesapeake Energy?
David J Phillips does not hold a financial interest in any stocks mentioned in this article. The 10Q Detective has a Full Disclosure Policy.
Investors often overlook SEC filings, and it is the job of the 10Q Detective to dig through businesses’ 8-K and 10-Q SEC filings, looking for financial statement ‘soft spots,'(depreciation policies, warranty reserves, and restructuring charges, etc.)that may materially impact Quality of Earnings.
1 comment:
Your article is just as misleading as you claim CHK to be.
"McClendon (and by definition, Chesapeake) brags that proved reserves grew by 2.74 tcfe in first-half 2011 to 16.5 tcfe, at an average drilling and completion cost of only $1.29 mcfe. These numbers are misleading..."
How is reserves growth misleading? CHK just reports what the 3rd party engineers provide them.
"To date, however, Eagle Ford remains more hype than hope. Volume from the region totaled a mere 1% of quarterly output of 277.5 bcfe..."
This has nothing at all to do with CHK. The 1% is merely a result of XOM's geographic mix of global reserves.
"Overstating Peak Production Rates?"
This sub-header is extremely misleading, since in the paragraphs following, you do nothing demonstrate that CHK in fact did not "achieved a peak rate of 9.5 million cubic feet per day of natural gas and 3,010 barrels of oil equivalent per day (three times initial assays)". If you are going to assert that they did not, in fact, achieve this, then the burden is on you to provide supporting evidence.
Post a Comment