Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by adubu on October 11, 2010 at 0:34

It's good for those with minerals in the Eagle Ford Shale because it will increase drilling and get more mineraL owners in production. It will also be good for the local and state due to increase taxes income on production,etc It should also be good for CHK shareholder.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by intrepid on October 20, 2010 at 4:40

Do you really want to be in production at $3-4?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on October 11, 2010 at 9:37

looks like CHk is still sellin g itself off piece by piece to pay for its drilling.... Its obvious that CHk does not have the cash flow to continue to operate without these sales, why else bring in the chinese.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CypressKnees on October 20, 2010 at 2:18

Dear Baron,
How does the "floating currency" (is that right?) of China affect the amount paid Chesapeake?

Will this possible concession to the U.S. (I know, at least, that the U.S. has been after them to stabilize (?) their currency) of the .25 % interest rate increase on China's part make a difference in the value of the yuan (sp) and therefore affect the dollar?

Will China's presence in the gas market affect us here in the U.S.?

Many thanks. I know these are stupid questions. But thank you!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on October 20, 2010 at 3:12

I honestly don't have a clue.

I am just amused at how CHk continues to sell off whatever it can to finance its ponzi scheme of shale plays. The more I learn, the more I start to believe that Arthur Berman may be onto something.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CypressKnees on October 20, 2010 at 3:47

Dear Baron,

You are funny! (Funny-charming.)

Now, in the interest of the Greater Good-who may have a vested interest in the financial health of CHK-would you hazard a guess about the future of that company?

I go to learn about Mr. Berman.

And many thanks for your time.

C.K.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on October 20, 2010 at 4:01

In my opinion,

unless gas prices rise, CHK and the other big shale players are in deep trouble. They are forced to continue drilling to hold leases they paid far too much for, adding to a glut in supply. I question the economics of continuing to produce from a shale well after five-ten years, at some point operating costs will far outstrip the wells montly income.

I personally do not believe that these expensive wells are going to be profitable @$3-4/mcf.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CypressKnees on October 20, 2010 at 4:29

Dear Baron,

Deep sigh. Mr. Berman seems to back up his opines with the Baker Institute research by Wendell Medlock. (Getting ready to google him.)

Mr. Berman is a Scorpio from Sugarland. I wouldn't have put that on my website.

Thanks. What a learning experience.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on October 20, 2010 at 4:31

I am sure the truth lies in the middle.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CypressKnees on October 20, 2010 at 5:01

I'm sure you are right. I looked up Scorpios and they are big on secretiveness.

However, that part about the really good part of the shale only being 10%. And the review of a bunch of Barnette wells and how their production went south kind of fastish. And his clients are bankers and banker-like people.

No luck so far finding Wendell Medlock. Maybe I'll try Rice.

Thanks, again.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on October 20, 2010 at 5:17

There is no doubt that these wells will make a lot of gas. It also is not disputed that they decline awfully fast.

The question is if the wells will, on average, be profitable.

I will not dispute that there are some amzing wells out there, but there are also some mediocre wells. Also the "core" has been steadly shrinking.

Permalink Reply by desotoguy on October 11, 2010 at 14:50

They are already here in the HS with a 50% venture with Bridas

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page