88173423
- Category: Essay examples
- Words: 2644
- Published: 04.10.20
- Views: 530
string(31) ‘ gas coopération and reduce risk\. ‘
Chesapeake Energy Corporation (NYSE: CHK), based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, “owns 1 . 1 trillion cubic feet equivalent (tcfe) of proven oil and gas supplies, one of the largest inventories of onshore U. S.
all-natural gas” Chesapeake Annual Report, 1998, s. 1. Recently, Chesapeake finished the transformation via an extreme exploration company focused on growing short-reserve lifestyle, to a lower-risk, longer book life gas producer.
Chesapeake”s operations are focused on “developmental drilling and generating property acquisitions. ” These kinds of operations are “concentrated in three key areas: the Mid-continent, the onshore Gulf and far northeastern British Columbia, Canada” [Chesapeake Annual Report, 1998, p. 1].
Aubrey K. McClendon is Chesapeake”s Chairman from the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Movie director. Tom D. Ward is definitely the President, Main Operating Official and Representative. “McClendon met cofounder Mary Ward in the 1980, s i9000. Both were independent essential oil producers, they teamed up in 1983” [Morgenson, p. 2]. They each have more than 16 numerous years of experience in the oil and natural gas sector. All other people of the supervision team possess multiple a lot of experience in the industry.
Chesapeake has concentrated on expanding its holdings in natural gas since the company”s incorporation in 1989. Chesapeake thinks that gas will be the gasoline choice of the 21st century. The business has been very competitive in both their exploration activities and work to increase its inventory of undeveloped leasehold land. This combination should enable Chesapeake to stay a competitive force inside the energy making industry.
New technology in the gas and oil industry made exploration and production even more profitable. This is key pertaining to the endurance of American businesses that contend with OPEC and also other foreign holding that have really low production costs. New technology, which includes three-dimensional imaging, which has increased resolution compared to the previously existing technology, is going to enable Chesapeake to find reserves better. Also, side to side drilling has enabled businesses to drain more than one book at a time. With profits continuous to be compressed within this market, new technology is important to help American businesses remain competitive on a global scale.
The oil and gas market is truly a global market. The industry enhanced gains in 1999 from increased production efficiency and a decrease in the latest supply. U. S. businesses, along with OPEC, include voluntarily decreased their total production, containing increased the retail price. OPEC presently supplies roughly 40% of the world oil production. If OPEC chooses to generate at a lesser output, Chesapeake could conveniently increase production with its low production costs and huge supplies. Many other countries are emerging as competitors, such as the past Soviet Union and Latin American countries. The continuous increase in supply from other countries would probably saturate the market, causing lower prices and reduced profits. Demand is likely to rise simply slightly more than two percent through the year 2005.
The outlook with this industry is good for increased competition domestically (from smaller companies) and internationally from rising nations. The U. T. has remarkable technology, which supports keep profits up as supply increases and demand remains to be relatively frequent.
Natural gas accocunts for 72% of Chesapeake”s earnings. They usually offer the product to third parties and they are not dependent upon any one purchaser. Less than 10% of their profits are generated from two buyers.
Governmental Regulations ” Operational and Labor Contact
The coal and oil industries are subject to considerable government legislation. These regulations are generally directed toward “the handling and disposal of drilling and production waste materials and waste materials created simply by water and air pollution control devices” [Chesapeake 10-K, 1998, p. 10]. The oil and gas sector is liable to numerous government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Section of the Home, the Department of Energy, the State Department plus the Department of Commerce. Virtually every aspect of businesses is be subject to complex and ever changing rules.
The gas and oil industry can be tightly controlled in regard to labor relations simply by government division and firms, including the Occupational Safety and Health Relationship (OSHA) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). A lot of states get their own express sponsored occupational safety plans, while the rest must conform to federal OSHA regulations. Some of the topics covered under OSHA include personal protective products, hazardous conversation (HAZCOM) and safety process training.
Chesapeake had 453 employees since March 15, 1999. non-e of these staff were symbolized by structured labor unions. The company considers its staff relations being good [Chesapeake 10-K, 1998, g. 13]. Unocal (NYSE: UCL) employed 7, 880 people as of 12 , 31, 1998, of which 575 were showed by various U. S. labor assemblage [Unocal 10-K, 98, p. 12].
Both companies are subject to new laws and regulations regarding the environment and labor. Chesapeake and Unocal cannot anticipate what unfavorable financial conditions the new regulations will bring. Nevertheless , short-term and long-term costs will increase while companies improve existing businesses to become and remain up to date with federal government regulations. Because of this, all businesses in petro-chemical industries are experiencing incredible difficulty functioning profitable businesses. Several businesses have halted operations resulting from increased rules coupled with poor profit margins.
Chesapeake is at a higher risk regarding this since most of its businesses are home-based. Unocal, though a U. S. centered company, functions are centered primarily offshore, and therefore experience increased leniency regarding environmental and labor regulations.
Over the last two years, Chesapeake Corporation had taken a significant struck in terms of profits, stock selling price and credit scores. Positive mil novecentos e noventa e seis earnings turned to a damage in 97 and tumbled to a greater loss of $10,50 per discuss in 1998. This earnings decline caused the stock cost and credit ranking to plummet. The company also faces a category action lawsuit stemming by alleged infractions of federal securities laws. Top managing and owners are falsely accused of using insider information to sell personal holdings inside the company for artificially overpriced prices.
Chesapeake had extremely disappointing years in 1997 and 98 as evidenced by the along with the stock price. The company underwent an amazing repositioning to improve natural gas loge and reduce risk.
As part of the repositioning, Chesapeake improved long term financial debt over $400 million to a total of $920 mil, coupled with a short-term indebtedness of $25 million. This increased funding drastically reduced the company”s ability to obtain additional funding. Standard & Poor”s and Moody”s put Chesapeake on review which has a negative view. The ability to fulfill obligations with this additional debt will depend on the production and economical performance in the company, market prices of oil and natural gas, and general financial conditions.
Prevalent Size Income Statement Analysis
Chesapeake recently had an extremely significant write-down of assets (impairment) as a result of decreased oil and gas prices during the past number of years. This demand increased working costs by over $1. 2 billion dollars during 1997-98 with 72% of that expense coming in 1998. The advantage write-down, coupled with expense raises in development, marketing and fascination, were the main contributors of total functioning costs to become over 3 times total income. The result was 1998 EBIT of ($920) million, and a no ROE, since the company had a net reduction approaching $1 billion. Unocal”s ROE was your five. 9% in 1998 and twenty-five. 1% in 1997.
The impairment price reported by Chesapeake is questionable because of the huge amount that was recharged. In perspective, Unocal with over $5 billion in property assets recorded a great impairment impose of $97 million during 1998. If oil and gas prices rise in the near future, the impairment costs could possibly be reversed giving the impression that the firm is doing perfectly. Future investors of Chesapeake equities should think about this truth prior to making any expense decisions.
Chesapeake had a $140 million decrease to both equally sides of the “balance sheet”. The repositioning of the organization focused on elevating inventory of natural gas reserves, “the fuel of choice to get the 21st century” [1998 Annual Report, pg. 18]. Oil and gas properties nearly doubled by 1997 to 1998, amassing $2. two billion. However , nearly $1. 6 billion was declined, depleted and amortized. Additionally , cash reduced nearly $100 million, short-term investments had been liquidated, and paid-in capital exceeded $1. 1 billion over the past 2 yrs to provide extra cash for purchases of gas supplies. As a result, total property, flower and equipment was 85% of total assets more than a decade ago compared to 77% in 97. In comparison, Unocal”s PP&E was 66% and 64% of total assets respectively.
Long lasting debt increased over $400 million in 1998, totaling $920 million compared to $510 million in 97. The $920 million was 113% with regards to total debts and owners equity of $813 , 000, 000. In 1998, current liabilities were $131 million compared to current assets of $118 mil. This resulted in a reduced current ratio of. 90 by a 97 ratio of just one. 42. The Unocal current ratios during 1998 and 1997 had been 1 . 01 and 1 ) 29 respectively.
Chesapeake offers relied generally on earnings through auto financing activities during the past few years. Income from businesses was approximately $95 million in 1998 and $180 , 000, 000 in 1997, while earnings from financing was $365 million and $278 mil respectively. Sales accounted for $378 million over 10 years ago and appear to become rising roughly 35% each year from 1996 and 97. However , a precise comparison is definitely unavailable as a result of change in the company”s fiscal year end.
Low gas and oil prices compelled Chesapeake to borrow, offer equity, and liquidate short-term investments in in an attempt to continue operations and purchase oil and gas properties. The company depends on the rise of costs during 1999 to continue procedures and provide aktionär wealth. The corporation has many restrictions coming from being able to borrow additional funds. Additionally , the price tag on stock features dropped coming from a high of $34 in 1996 into a low of $. 63 in 1998. This has further decreased the company”s ability to generate cash.
The current ratios to get Chesapeake Energy are as follows: 1 . 00 (June 96), 2 . 03 (June 97), 1 . 42 (December 97), and. 85 (December 98). Current liabilities remained constant over this period, ranging from a higher of 19% (June 96) to a low of 15% (June 97), with the current level in 16% of total possessions. Extreme degrees of change in current assets induced the current percentage to change drastically. Current assets declined from a higher of $297 million (31% of total assets) to a current low of $117 million (15% of total assets). This kind of decline in current resources caused the deterioration of the current percentage.
The acid test ratios happen to be as follows:. 94 (June 96), 2 . 00 (June 97), 1 . thirty seven (December 97), and. seventy eight (December 98). As mentioned before, current liabilities remained frequent. Net accounts receivable continued to be flat being a percentage of total property: 9% in 1996, seven percent in 1997 (Both 06 & December), and 9% in 1998. Valuable securities had been sold away during the past 36 months, decreasing from 11% ($104 million) of total resources to actually zero. Cash decreased from 13% ($124 million) of total assets in 1997 (both June & December) to 4% in 1998. The mix of severe diminishes in both cash and marketable investments are the causes that the blank determination ratio decreased so drastically.
The speedy ratios are as follows:. 96 (June 96), 2 . 00 (June 97), 1 . 35 (December 97), and. eighty six (December 98). As mentioned recently, current liabilities remained constant and current assets declined. As with the current ratio, the primary reason for the deterioration of the quick ratio is the extended loss of current assets.
The above mentioned ratios and the reasons for all their poor developments indicate Chesapeake is currently in a liquidity catastrophe. This, in conjunction with the improved debt debts, is an extreme warning to both investors and supervision. This condition also adds to the suspicion that resources are being sold away to fund current debt commitments.
The firm”s ability to satisfy its responsibilities with cash, as they arrive due, can be approximated by the cash flow fluidity ratio. While previously mentioned, solvency improved and after that deteriorated because indicated by the current and quick percentages. The styles are proved when looking at cash flow. From 95 to 97, Chesapeake”s income liquidity better from 1 ) 47 to 1. 8. 1997 to 1998 showed a sizable drop in liquidity by 1 . 8 to 0. 95. The company”s monetary statement info gives a sign as to why.
By 1995 to 1997, initial solvency superior from 1 . 47 to at least one. 8. When looking at the data, funds from businesses rose by $55 mil in 95, to $139 million in 1997. The 1997 rise was due to a change inside the accounting period. During this same period, money on hand rose from $56 million to $123 mil and marketable securities went up from no to $13 million. Although cash was increasing, current liabilities went up from $75 million to $153 mil. Current financial obligations doubled during this time period, while cash flow increased 150%. The larger increase in cash flow, relative to short-term commitments, accounts for the advance in solvency during the 1995 to 97 period.
Throughout the 1997 and 1998 times, liquidity deteriorated as demonstrated by the reduction in the cash flow liquidity rate from 1 ) 8 to 0. 95. The data indicates that funds from procedures dropped about 32% to $95 mil. When looking at the Cash Flow Statement, the large reduction in operating funds is mainly due to the large net loss received during the period. At the same time, cash dropped 76% to $30 million whilst marketable investments fell to zero. Most of the cash seems to have gone to finance the company”s payables and accrued liabilities. Current debts were reduced 15% to $131 , 000, 000. The larger decrease in cash flow in accordance with current obligations accounts for the deterioration in short-term solvency.
The cash stream data concurs with that Chesapeake”s liquidity experienced severe degeneration. A reduction in current liabilities is a good sign, however the little amount of money generated and being used to finance current obligations is too few. Cash resources are being used to finance these responsibilities as well.
Compared to the industry personal debt ratio of. 31, Chesapeake ended which has a debt ratio of 1. thirty-one in 1998 compared to. 71 in 1997. The long-term debt to total capitalization ratio increased from. 64 in 1997 to 1. 37 in 1998, even though the industry typical was. forty-four. The huge increase in debts was due to significantly lower oil and gas rates during the past 36 months, and a failed drilling enterprise known as the Louisiana Trend. The company was required to liquidate possessions and accept a substantial amount of personal debt to meet operational expenses and increase coal and oil field reserves. Chesapeake was added to the normal & Poor”s “CreditWatch with negative implications” [Yahoo Finance, November. 14, 1999] in December of 1998.
The low price of fuel during fiscal years 1996 through 1998 was your primary reason for Chesapeake”s troubles. The debt incurred has covenants restricting the company from seeking additional financial debt and by paying dividends to recommended stock holders. Principal over a large portion of the excellent debt can be not because of until 2004 allowing the business time to boost operations. This will also offer fuel prices a chance to rise, which is determinant to the company”s survival.
The industry average for moments interest attained is 5. 2, although Chesapeake”s functioning profit was ($856) , 000, 000. The percentage equated to well listed below zero in 1997 and 1998. In 1998, interest payments had been more than $68 million.
The financial leveraging index cannot be calculated since there is not a go back on collateral. Chesapeake overextended their credit by greatly financing with debt and has jeopardized their capacity to make obligated payments because of their debt and stuck costs.
Need writing help?
We can write an essay on your own custom topics!