News Focus
News Focus
icon url

littlefish

03/26/08 12:01 AM

#75 RE: J-RO #74

Now if earnings will do the same LOL. Apparently the producing well was down for a little bit in December but has been up and running lately. The other 2 wells were/are apparently waiting to be Fracd and Tammy (CFO) said call back in a couple weeks to get updated. Hopefully that means she's hoping on hearing something in next couple weeks on the status of the 2 wells that are hooked up but not yet ready for production (awaiting to be fracd). She had mentioned it was a bit tricky apparently tracking down the right people at CHK to get the info wanted about the 3 wells but they were working on it. With nat gas prices up, hopefully CHK will be acting expeditiously to get the other 2 wells producing!

Sure would be nice to get some ballpark idea on flow info too on the one producing well. I was reading Barnett Shale gas wells in Tarrant Cty, depending on location and direction of horizontal placement (NE-SW or was it NW-SE direction is most favorable) tend to avg anywhere from approx 500 Mcf per day to 1500 Mcf per day in general. But there are some on the lower end at say 300 Mcf per day and a few big ones in SE Tarrant Cty I think that push 5000 Mcf per day.

With the 3 wells within an approx 118 acre swath, it might behoove CHK to Frac both nonproducer wells at the same time if they're drilled to the same general depth and area. As long as they're not too close to the Viola area underneath (water infiltration threat), doing simultaneous Fracs can often boost production for both (I doubt CHK would drill horizontals and put them that close to trouble near the Viola layer with water and CHK has tons of wells in the area so should be very efficient operators of the wells I would guess but we'll see).
I have no idea how thick the payzone is in their area cuz I don't know the exact location of the well. If I could get some general idea of flow rates, it would get me closer to deciding whether to 'tablepound' this or not. For now I'm still waffling on officially tablepounding it because of the lack of flow info (plus I don't know the ins and outs of these wells and where nat gas in general is headed but am trying to learn). Politically, all 3 Presidential candidates support some kind of cap and trade or carbon tax, so nat gas IMO will be looked at more favorably than coal and oil going forward for energy usage and power generation.

I think the June report will easily surpass $1 mill revs. I'm looking for about 15 cents EPS currently but may change that depending on flow rate info of the one producer.
Considering this is trading at/below book when very few profitable microcap nat gas producer peers are doing similarly (at least ones that have increasing reserves and production recently), it seems low risk to me.

Something like BSIC, with less nat gas production vs oil on a % basis trades at about a 50% premium to book. Thye od have some prospective area for Bakken oil plays but it seems more epxensive than MXC IMO. Especially with the steep move up for nat ags since the beginning of the year.


icon url

littlefish

03/26/08 12:49 AM

#76 RE: J-RO #74

One bit of negative is lack of a real leader at the helm with the CEO pretty much retired and the CFO I'm thinking doing more bookkeeping, SEC filing and investor relations stuff than searching for more acquisitional targets. Hopefully the BOD can stay active with potential acquisitions (and have them work out better than the Lea County one in the past). I'm hopeful with the Tarrant Cty one but as mentioned want to see flow data.
icon url

littlefish

04/02/08 11:13 AM

#77 RE: J-RO #74

Wish we could get more discussion in here, I don't want to have to wait for June LOL. Anyhow, I am picking up more today at these levels ($4.30 and under). Nice to have some shares available last couple days. Probably from nat gas price drop, but I'm valuing the company based on nat gas prices closer to $8-$9 than $9-$10. $10 is great with MXC completely unhedged, but not thinking very sustainable. Wonder if we'll get a drawdown in this week's nat gas report #s.

Also, talked to CFO and they just had the one well producing apparently for the Q in the recent Tarrant County interest purchase. That leaves some production upside going forward when they get the other 2 wells fracd and running (hopefully soon, I'll let you know when I hear they're also producing).

Personally, I think the company has a great chance at reporting record revs in June. And their market cap is the lowest it has been in years:) Smells like value.
Good luck.
icon url

littlefish

04/04/08 12:05 AM

#78 RE: J-RO #74

Figured I should put this post here too (put it on VMC already) since I talked with Tammy (CFO) briefly a couple days back, she still didn't have any solid info from Chesapeake on flow rates or when the 2nd and 3rd wells might get fracd and brought online. But I'l llet you know when and what I hear when I do:

has anyone done any DD on this one or am I alone so far? Was hoping to get both good and bad feedback to check my thoughts on the company with it being my trick pony #2. It helps to get input from the highly knowledgeable crowd here:)

PS- talked to Tammy and she mentioned something to the effect that the check ($) from the one Tarrant Cty well was good. She obviously can't give specifics and unfortunately I don't have any independent checks to figure out how reliable her statements might be. But judging by the integrity of the people involved on the board, I would hopefully rightly assume she'd be pretty forthright. They apprently still only have one well flowing though. Not sure why, maybe it ahs to do with CHK having limits on how much gas they can store in ground and so maybe they would hold back production? But gas storage #s have been light so I doubt that's it. Maybe they're thinking of doing a twin-frac to stimulate the contiguous wells simulataneously (I guess it has been shown to be more effective in boosting production)? Just a couple guesses. Looking at the Barnett East field, I didn't see the Viola lower layer to be too close so I would think water entry risk would be mitigated.
Good luck.