Chesapeake Energy responds to recent Rolling Stone article

  I'm posting this link without comment for all to review. A recent Rolling Stone Magazine article ravaged the shale gas industry in general and Chesapeake Energy specifically. All will find this response from CHK interesting & sometimes provocative. I feel certain there will be widely diverse opinions. That is the beauty of GoMarcellus Shale.

Full Disclosure:

1. I'm a CHK lessor in the Utica Shale, and a proponent of the company. (There is some self-interest here!)

2. I've not read the Rolling Stone article. However, I've been an irregular reader of Rolling Stone over many years, which I occasionally find entertaining.

P.S.  If for some reason the link doesn't work, chalk it up to my computer incompetence! It is available on the CHK website.

BluFlame

Chesapeake%20Responds%20to%20the%20Rolling%20Stone%20Story%20%7C%20...

Views: 1244

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Moe on March 3, 2012 at 6:50am

Bluflame,

 

I, for one, cannot imagine that anyone of intellect, common sense, and serious contemplation would view any article in "Rolling Stone Magazine" as being worthy of the time to read it. I would be inclined to paraphrase the early 20th-Century composer, Max Reger, as he responded to a particularly scathing review by a music critic when he wrote, "I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have your review before me. In a moment, it will be behind me!" I would also request that the publisher print future issues on absorbent paper so that they could be put to proper use in my household, if I were inclined to waste my money on such trash. The only difference between this rag and "National Enquirer" is that it is not on the racks along the check-out aisle in the supermarket with the other rag tabloids.

It would truly be newsworthy if all of the opponents of and naysayers to any and all of the fossil-fuel uses would disavow the use of any product or service that is derived from any of the resources that they so vehemently protest against. Naturally, that will never happen as they are likely the most hypocritical group in the entire world. Further, since they often state that the businessmen who are in control of or who manage any of the entities which they are against on account of their belief that they are soaking the entire world populace to feed their 'greed', perhaps they should pursue their careers for no compensation since they are presumably working for income, just like everyone else is. Just because some earn more than others, is that a sound reason for their evident envy and disparagement of those who do earn more, along with the sources of their income?

Permalink Reply by Bluflame on March 3, 2012 at 8:14am

Carl,

  Unfortunately, Rolling Stone is influential and has a following. Recall "The Runaway General" article they did on Gen. McChrystal in 2010. Turned out to be the beginning of the end for him.

  I did think that CHK's responses were considered and well-crafted. So far at least RS's Shale/Chesapeake/McClendon bash does not seem to have elicited the same public reaction as the McChrystal article.

BluFlame

Permalink Reply by Chartist on March 3, 2012 at 9:08am

Rolling stone has one of the best financial writers in the universe in Matt Taibbi....I haven't read the CHK article, but if Matt wrote it, I know it's a good one.

Permalink Reply by Bluflame on March 3, 2012 at 9:55am

The writer is jeff Goodell.

BluFlame

Permalink Reply by Shower Bath on March 3, 2012 at 9:11am
Permalink Reply by Chartist on March 3, 2012 at 9:23am

Rolling stone isn't considered a main stream business mag yet....But it's widening its appeal with first rate business journalists....You'll get much better journalism out of rolling stone than anything you'll see on CNBC.

Permalink Reply by Bluflame on March 3, 2012 at 9:57am

Love it!

BluFlame

Permalink Reply by Shower Bath on March 3, 2012 at 9:42am

If the link works correctly, you will be able to read the article that Bluflame is referring to. The article is presented here for educational/discussion purposes. I have read most of info presented in other articles at other web sites. I have no political dog in the right vs left arguments. See the link...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-big-fracking-bubble-t...

Randy 

Permalink Reply by Shower Bath on March 3, 2012 at 9:46am

And here is Chesapeake's response. See the link....

http://www.chk.com/rollingstone/index.html

Randy

Permalink Reply by Bluflame on March 3, 2012 at 10:07am

Randall,

 

   Thanks for your two posts. Despite my CHK leaning, I find both the RS article and the CHK responses thought-provoking. Sort of summarizes all the rhetoric that has been endlessly hashed over on Go Marcellus Shale for at least the past year. 

    It would be mind-numbing to read all this cold without some background with the issues.

BluFlame

Permalink Reply by Shower Bath on March 3, 2012 at 2:00pm

Thanks. I too am leased with CHK and I want to see them do well. Aubrey is really a dynamic CEO, and he may be over the top at times, but I like his style. If their stock drops below $20 a share, I'll probably buy a few shares.

Randy

Permalink Reply by Bluflame on March 3, 2012 at 4:30pm

Randall,

  Truly, I couldn't have said it better myself!

BluFlame

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service