Chesapeake Energy Corporation

natural gas† {Chesapeake Annual Report, 1998, p. 1}. Recently, Chesapeake finished the transformation from an aggressive exploration company focused on developing short-reserve life, to a lower-risk, longer reserve life natural gas producer. Chesapeake†s operations are focused on â€Å"developmental drilling and producing property acquisitions.† These operations are â€Å"concentrated in three major areas: the Mid-continent, the onshore Gulf of Mexico and far northeastern British Columbia, Canada† [Chesapeake Annual Report, 1998, p. 1]. Aubrey K. McClendon is Chesapeake†s Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director. Tom L. Ward is the President, Chief Operating Officer and Director. â€Å"McClendon met cofounder Tom Ward in the 1980†³s. Both were independent oil producers; they teamed up in 1983† [Morgenson, p. 2]. They each have more than 16 years of experience in the oil and natural gas industry. All other members of the management team have multiple years 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 natural gas will be the fuel choice of the 21st century. The company has been highly competitive in both its exploration activities and efforts to increase its inventory of undeveloped leasehold land. This combination should enable Chesapeake to remain a competitive force in the energy producing industry. New technology in the oil and gas industry has made exploration and production more profitable. This is key for the survival of American businesses that compete with OPEC and other foreign cartels that have very low production costs. New technology, including three-dimensional imaging, which has greater resolution than the previously existing technology, will enable Chesapeake to detect reserves more accurately. Also, horizontal drilling has enabled companies to drain more than one reserve at a time. With profits continuing to be squeezed within this industry, new technology is necessary to help American businesses compete on a global scale. The oil and gas industry is truly a global market. The industry boosted gains in 1999 from increased production efficiency and a decrease in the current supply. U.S. firms, along with OPEC, have voluntarily reduced their total production, which has increased the price. OPEC currently supplies approximately 40% of the world oil production. If OPEC chooses to produce at a lower output, Chesapeake could easily increase production with its low production costs and huge reserves. Many other nations are emerging as competitors, such as the former Soviet Union and Latin American countries. The continuing increase in supply from other nations would potentially saturate the market, causing lower prices and lower profits. Demand is expected to rise only slightly more than two percent through the year 2005. The outlook for this industry is for increased competition domestically (from smaller companies) and internationally from emerging nations. The U.S. has superior technology, which will help keep profits up as supply increases and demand remains relatively constant. Natural gas makes up 72% of Chesapeake†s revenue. They usually sell the product to third parties and are not dependent on any one buyer. Less than 10% of their revenues are generated from two buyers. Governmental Regulations – Operational and Labor Relations The oil and gas industries are subject to considerable government regulation. These laws and regulations are primarily directed toward â€Å"the handling and disposal of drilling and production waste products and waste created by water and air pollution control devices† [Chesapeake 10-K, 1998, p. 10]. The oil and gas industry is accountable to numerous government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, the State Department and the Department of Commerce. Virtually every aspect of operations is subject to complex and ever changing regulations. The oil and gas industry is tightly regulated in regard to labor relations by government department and agencies, including the Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Some states have their own state sponsored occupational safety plans, while the remainder must comply with federal OSHA regulations. Some of the topics covered under OSHA include personal protective equipment, hazardous communication (HAZCOM) and safety process training. Chesapeake had 453 employees as of March 15, 1999. None of these employees were represented by organized labor unions. The company considers its employee relations to be good [Chesapeake 10-K, 1998, p. 13]. Unocal (NYSE: UCL) employed 7,880 people as of December 31, 1998, of which 575 were represented by various U.S. labor unions [Unocal 10-K, 1998, p. 12]. Both companies are subject to new laws and regulations regarding the environment and labor. Chesapeake and Unocal cannot predict what adverse financial conditions the new laws and regulations will bring. However, short-term and long-term costs will increase as companies improve existing operations to become and remain compliant with government regulations. As a result, all companies in petro-chemical industries are experiencing tremendous difficulty operating profitable businesses. Several businesses have ceased operations as a result of increased regulation coupled with poor profit margins. Chesapeake is at a higher risk regarding this scenario since most of its operations are domestic. Unocal, although a U.S. based company, operations are concentrated primarily overseas, and therefore experience increased leniency regarding environmental and labor regulations. During the last two years, Chesapeake Corporation took a significant hit in terms of earnings, stock price and credit ratings. Positive 1996 earnings turned to a loss in 1997 and tumbled to a bigger loss of $10 per share in 1998. This earnings decline caused the stock price and credit rating to plummet. The company also faces a class action lawsuit stemming from alleged violations of federal securities laws. Top management and directors are accused of using insider information to sell personal holdings in the company at artificially inflated prices. Chesapeake had very disappointing years in 1997 and 1998 as evidenced by the fall in the stock price. The company underwent a substantial repositioning to increase natural gas holdings and reduce risk. As a result of this repositioning, Chesapeake incurred considerable debt and is dependent on the market prices of oil and natural gas to increase, and in effect, improve profit margins. Additionally, in 1997, Chesapeake changed their fiscal year end from June 30th to December 31st. As part of the repositioning, Chesapeake increased long term debt over $400 million to a total of $920 million, coupled with a short-term indebtedness of $25 million. This increased borrowing drastically reduced the company†s ability to obtain additional financing. Standard Poor†s and Moody†s placed Chesapeake on review with a negative outlook. The ability to meet obligations for this additional debt will depend on the production and financial performance of the company, market prices of oil and natural gas, and general economic conditions. Common Size Income Statement Analysis Chesapeake had an extremely large write-down of assets (impairment) as a result of reduced oil and gas prices during the past few years. This charge increased operating costs by over $1.2 billion during 1997-98 with 72% of that cost coming in 1998. The asset write-down, combined with expense increases in production, marketing and interest, were the main contributors of total operating costs to be over three times total revenue. The result was 1998 EBIT of ($920) million, and a non-existent ROE, since the company had a net loss approaching $1 billion. Unocal†s ROE was 5.9% in 1998 and 25.1% in 1997. The impairment cost reported by Chesapeake is questionable because of the very large amount that was charged. In perspective, Unocal with over $5 billion in property assets recorded an impairment charge of $97 million during 1998. If oil and gas prices rise in the near future, the impairment costs may be reversed giving the impression that the company is doing very well. Future investors of Chesapeake equities should consider this fact prior to making any investment decisions. Chesapeake had a $140 million reduction to both sides of the balance sheet. The repositioning of the firm focused on increasing inventory of natural gas reserves, â€Å"the fuel of choice for the 21st century† [1998 Annual Report, pg. 18]. Oil and gas properties nearly doubled from 1997 to 1998, totaling $2.2 billion. However, nearly $1.6 billion was depreciated, depleted and amortized. Additionally, cash decreased nearly $100 million, short-term investments were liquidated, and paid-in capital exceeded $1.1 billion over the past two years to provide additional cash for purchases of gas reserves. As a result, total property, plant and equipment was 85% of total assets in 1998 compared to 77% in 1997. In comparison, Unocal†s PPE was 66% and 64% of total assets respectively. Long-term debt increased over $400 million in 1998, totaling $920 million compared to $510 million in 1997. The $920 million was 113% in relation to total liabilities and owners equity of $813 million. In 1998, current liabilities were $131 million compared to current assets of $118 million. This resulted in a reduced current ratio of .90 from a 1997 ratio of 1.42. The Unocal current ratios during 1998 and 1997 were 1.01 and 1.29 respectively. Chesapeake has relied primarily on cash flow through financing activities during the past few years. Cash flow from operations was approximately $95 million in 1998 and $180 million in 1997, while cash flow from financing was $365 million and $278 million respectively. Sales accounted for $378 million in 1998 and appear to be rising approximately 35% annually from 1996 and 1997. However, an accurate comparison is unavailable because of the change in the company†s fiscal year end. Low oil and gas prices forced Chesapeake to borrow, sell equity, and liquidate short-term investments in order to continue operations and invest in oil and gas properties. The company is dependent on the rise of prices during 1999 to continue operations and provide shareholder wealth. The company has several restrictions from being able to borrow additional funds. Additionally, the price of stock has dropped from a high of $34 in 1996 to a low of $.63 in 1998. This has further reduced the company†s ability to generate cash. The current ratios for Chesapeake Energy are as follows: 1.00 (June 96), 2.03 (June 97), 1.42 (December 97), and .90 (December 98). Current liabilities remained constant over this period, ranging from a high of 19% (June 96) to a low of 15% (June 97), with the current level at 16% of total assets. Extreme levels of change in current assets caused the current ratio to fluctuate drastically. Current assets declined from a high of $297 million (31% of total assets) to a current low of $117 million (15% of total assets). This decline in current assets caused the deterioration of the current ratio. The acid test ratios are as follows: .94 (June 96), 2.00 (June 97), 1.37 (December 97), and .81 (December 98). As previously mentioned, current liabilities remained constant. Net accounts receivable remained flat as a percentage of total assets: 9% in 1996, 7% in 1997 (Both June December), and 9% in 1998. Marketable securities were sold off during the past three years, decreasing from 11% ($104 million) of total assets to zero. Cash decreased from 13% ($124 million) of total assets in 1997 (both June December) to 4% in 1998. The combination of severe decreases in both cash and marketable securities are the reasons that the acid test ratio decreased so dramatically. The quick ratios are as follows: .96 (June 96), 2.00 (June 97), 1.38 (December 97), and .86 (December 98). As mentioned previously, current liabilities remained constant and current assets declined. As with the current ratio, the main reason for the deterioration of the quick ratio is the continued loss of current assets. The above ratios and the reasons for their poor trends indicate Chesapeake is currently in a liquidity crisis. This, in combination with the increased debt liabilities, is an extreme warning to both investors and management. This condition also adds to the suspicion that assets are being sold off to fund current debt obligations. The firm†s ability to meet its obligations with cash, as they come due, is approximated by the cash flow liquidity ratio. As previously mentioned, solvency improved and then deteriorated as indicated by the current and quick ratios. The trends are confirmed when looking at cash flow. From 1995 to 1997, Chesapeake†s cash flow liquidity improved from 1.47 to 1.8. 1997 to 1998 showed a large drop in liquidity from 1.8 to 0.95. The company†s financial statement data gives an indication as to why. From 1995 to 1997, short-term solvency improved from 1.47 to 1.8. When looking at the data, cash from operations rose from $55 million in 1995, to $139 million in 1997. The 1997 rise was due to a change in the accounting period. During this same period, cash on hand rose from $56 million to $123 million and marketable securities rose from zero to $13 million. While cash was increasing, current liabilities rose from $75 million to $153 million. Current liabilities doubled during this period, while cash flow increased 150%. The larger increase in cash flow, relative to short-term obligations, accounts for the improvement in solvency during the 1995 to 1997 period. During the 1997 and 1998 periods, liquidity deteriorated as shown by the decrease in the cash flow liquidity ratio from 1.8 to 0.95. The data indicates that cash from operations dropped approximately 32% to $95 million. When looking at the Cash Flow Statement, the large decrease in operating cash is mainly due to the large net loss incurred during the period. At the same time, cash dropped 76% to $30 million while marketable securities fell to zero. Much of the cash appears to have gone to fund the company†s payables and accrued liabilities. Current liabilities were reduced 15% to $131 million. The larger reduction in cash flow relative to current obligations accounts for the deterioration in short-term solvency. The cash flow data confirms that Chesapeake†s liquidity suffered severe deterioration. A reduction in current liabilities is a good sign, but the little amount of cash generated and being used to fund current obligations is not enough. Cash assets are being used to fund these obligations as well. In comparison to the industry debt ratio of .31, Chesapeake ended with a debt ratio of 1.31 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, while the industry average was .44. The tremendous increase in debt was attributable to significantly lower oil and gas prices during the past three years, and a failed drilling venture known as the Louisiana Trend. The company was forced to liquidate assets and take on a substantial amount of debt to meet operational expenses and increase oil and gas field reserves. Chesapeake was added to the Standard Poor†s â€Å"CreditWatch with negative implications† [Yahoo Finance, Nov. 14, 1999] in December of 1998. The low price of fuel during fiscal years 1996 through 1998 was the primary reason for Chesapeake†s troubles. The debt incurred has covenants restricting the company from seeking additional debt and from paying dividends to preferred stock holders. Principal on a large portion of the outstanding debt is not due until 2004 allowing the company time to improve operations. This will also give fuel prices a chance to rise, which is determinant to the company†s survival. The industry average for times interest earned is 5.2, while Chesapeake†s operating profit was ($856) million. The ratio equated to well below zero in 1997 and 1998. In 1998, interest payments were more than $68 million. The financial leverage index could not be computed since there was not a return on equity. Chesapeake overextended their credit by substantially financing with debt and has jeopardized their ability to make obligated payments for their debt and fixed costs. Chesapeake Energy Corporation natural gas† {Chesapeake Annual Report, 1998, p. 1}. Recently, Chesapeake finished the transformation from an aggressive exploration company focused on developing short-reserve life, to a lower-risk, longer reserve life natural gas producer. Chesapeake†s operations are focused on â€Å"developmental drilling and producing property acquisitions.† These operations are â€Å"concentrated in three major areas: the Mid-continent, the onshore Gulf of Mexico and far northeastern British Columbia, Canada† [Chesapeake Annual Report, 1998, p. 1]. Aubrey K. McClendon is Chesapeake†s Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Director. Tom L. Ward is the President, Chief Operating Officer and Director. â€Å"McClendon met cofounder Tom Ward in the 1980†³s. Both were independent oil producers; they teamed up in 1983† [Morgenson, p. 2]. They each have more than 16 years of experience in the oil and natural gas industry. All other members of the management team have multiple years 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 natural gas will be the fuel choice of the 21st century. The company has been highly competitive in both its exploration activities and efforts to increase its inventory of undeveloped leasehold land. This combination should enable Chesapeake to remain a competitive force in the energy producing industry. New technology in the oil and gas industry has made exploration and production more profitable. This is key for the survival of American businesses that compete with OPEC and other foreign cartels that have very low production costs. New technology, including three-dimensional imaging, which has greater resolution than the previously existing technology, will enable Chesapeake to detect reserves more accurately. Also, horizontal drilling has enabled companies to drain more than one reserve at a time. With profits continuing to be squeezed within this industry, new technology is necessary to help American businesses compete on a global scale. The oil and gas industry is truly a global market. The industry boosted gains in 1999 from increased production efficiency and a decrease in the current supply. U.S. firms, along with OPEC, have voluntarily reduced their total production, which has increased the price. OPEC currently supplies approximately 40% of the world oil production. If OPEC chooses to produce at a lower output, Chesapeake could easily increase production with its low production costs and huge reserves. Many other nations are emerging as competitors, such as the former Soviet Union and Latin American countries. The continuing increase in supply from other nations would potentially saturate the market, causing lower prices and lower profits. Demand is expected to rise only slightly more than two percent through the year 2005. The outlook for this industry is for increased competition domestically (from smaller companies) and internationally from emerging nations. The U.S. has superior technology, which will help keep profits up as supply increases and demand remains relatively constant. Natural gas makes up 72% of Chesapeake†s revenue. They usually sell the product to third parties and are not dependent on any one buyer. Less than 10% of their revenues are generated from two buyers. Governmental Regulations – Operational and Labor Relations The oil and gas industries are subject to considerable government regulation. These laws and regulations are primarily directed toward â€Å"the handling and disposal of drilling and production waste products and waste created by water and air pollution control devices† [Chesapeake 10-K, 1998, p. 10]. The oil and gas industry is accountable to numerous government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, the State Department and the Department of Commerce. Virtually every aspect of operations is subject to complex and ever changing regulations. The oil and gas industry is tightly regulated in regard to labor relations by government department and agencies, including the Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Some states have their own state sponsored occupational safety plans, while the remainder must comply with federal OSHA regulations. Some of the topics covered under OSHA include personal protective equipment, hazardous communication (HAZCOM) and safety process training. Chesapeake had 453 employees as of March 15, 1999. None of these employees were represented by organized labor unions. The company considers its employee relations to be good [Chesapeake 10-K, 1998, p. 13]. Unocal (NYSE: UCL) employed 7,880 people as of December 31, 1998, of which 575 were represented by various U.S. labor unions [Unocal 10-K, 1998, p. 12]. Both companies are subject to new laws and regulations regarding the environment and labor. Chesapeake and Unocal cannot predict what adverse financial conditions the new laws and regulations will bring. However, short-term and long-term costs will increase as companies improve existing operations to become and remain compliant with government regulations. As a result, all companies in petro-chemical industries are experiencing tremendous difficulty operating profitable businesses. Several businesses have ceased operations as a result of increased regulation coupled with poor profit margins. Chesapeake is at a higher risk regarding this scenario since most of its operations are domestic. Unocal, although a U.S. based company, operations are concentrated primarily overseas, and therefore experience increased leniency regarding environmental and labor regulations. During the last two years, Chesapeake Corporation took a significant hit in terms of earnings, stock price and credit ratings. Positive 1996 earnings turned to a loss in 1997 and tumbled to a bigger loss of $10 per share in 1998. This earnings decline caused the stock price and credit rating to plummet. The company also faces a class action lawsuit stemming from alleged violations of federal securities laws. Top management and directors are accused of using insider information to sell personal holdings in the company at artificially inflated prices. Chesapeake had very disappointing years in 1997 and 1998 as evidenced by the fall in the stock price. The company underwent a substantial repositioning to increase natural gas holdings and reduce risk. As a result of this repositioning, Chesapeake incurred considerable debt and is dependent on the market prices of oil and natural gas to increase, and in effect, improve profit margins. Additionally, in 1997, Chesapeake changed their fiscal year end from June 30th to December 31st. As part of the repositioning, Chesapeake increased long term debt over $400 million to a total of $920 million, coupled with a short-term indebtedness of $25 million. This increased borrowing drastically reduced the company†s ability to obtain additional financing. Standard Poor†s and Moody†s placed Chesapeake on review with a negative outlook. The ability to meet obligations for this additional debt will depend on the production and financial performance of the company, market prices of oil and natural gas, and general economic conditions. Common Size Income Statement Analysis Chesapeake had an extremely large write-down of assets (impairment) as a result of reduced oil and gas prices during the past few years. This charge increased operating costs by over $1.2 billion during 1997-98 with 72% of that cost coming in 1998. The asset write-down, combined with expense increases in production, marketing and interest, were the main contributors of total operating costs to be over three times total revenue. The result was 1998 EBIT of ($920) million, and a non-existent ROE, since the company had a net loss approaching $1 billion. Unocal†s ROE was 5.9% in 1998 and 25.1% in 1997. The impairment cost reported by Chesapeake is questionable because of the very large amount that was charged. In perspective, Unocal with over $5 billion in property assets recorded an impairment charge of $97 million during 1998. If oil and gas prices rise in the near future, the impairment costs may be reversed giving the impression that the company is doing very well. Future investors of Chesapeake equities should consider this fact prior to making any investment decisions. Chesapeake had a $140 million reduction to both sides of the balance sheet. The repositioning of the firm focused on increasing inventory of natural gas reserves, â€Å"the fuel of choice for the 21st century† [1998 Annual Report, pg. 18]. Oil and gas properties nearly doubled from 1997 to 1998, totaling $2.2 billion. However, nearly $1.6 billion was depreciated, depleted and amortized. Additionally, cash decreased nearly $100 million, short-term investments were liquidated, and paid-in capital exceeded $1.1 billion over the past two years to provide additional cash for purchases of gas reserves. As a result, total property, plant and equipment was 85% of total assets in 1998 compared to 77% in 1997. In comparison, Unocal†s PPE was 66% and 64% of total assets respectively. Long-term debt increased over $400 million in 1998, totaling $920 million compared to $510 million in 1997. The $920 million was 113% in relation to total liabilities and owners equity of $813 million. In 1998, current liabilities were $131 million compared to current assets of $118 million. This resulted in a reduced current ratio of .90 from a 1997 ratio of 1.42. The Unocal current ratios during 1998 and 1997 were 1.01 and 1.29 respectively. Chesapeake has relied primarily on cash flow through financing activities during the past few years. Cash flow from operations was approximately $95 million in 1998 and $180 million in 1997, while cash flow from financing was $365 million and $278 million respectively. Sales accounted for $378 million in 1998 and appear to be rising approximately 35% annually from 1996 and 1997. However, an accurate comparison is unavailable because of the change in the company†s fiscal year end. Low oil and gas prices forced Chesapeake to borrow, sell equity, and liquidate short-term investments in order to continue operations and invest in oil and gas properties. The company is dependent on the rise of prices during 1999 to continue operations and provide shareholder wealth. The company has several restrictions from being able to borrow additional funds. Additionally, the price of stock has dropped from a high of $34 in 1996 to a low of $.63 in 1998. This has further reduced the company†s ability to generate cash. The current ratios for Chesapeake Energy are as follows: 1.00 (June 96), 2.03 (June 97), 1.42 (December 97), and .90 (December 98). Current liabilities remained constant over this period, ranging from a high of 19% (June 96) to a low of 15% (June 97), with the current level at 16% of total assets. Extreme levels of change in current assets caused the current ratio to fluctuate drastically. Current assets declined from a high of $297 million (31% of total assets) to a current low of $117 million (15% of total assets). This decline in current assets caused the deterioration of the current ratio. The acid test ratios are as follows: .94 (June 96), 2.00 (June 97), 1.37 (December 97), and .81 (December 98). As previously mentioned, current liabilities remained constant. Net accounts receivable remained flat as a percentage of total assets: 9% in 1996, 7% in 1997 (Both June December), and 9% in 1998. Marketable securities were sold off during the past three years, decreasing from 11% ($104 million) of total assets to zero. Cash decreased from 13% ($124 million) of total assets in 1997 (both June December) to 4% in 1998. The combination of severe decreases in both cash and marketable securities are the reasons that the acid test ratio decreased so dramatically. The quick ratios are as follows: .96 (June 96), 2.00 (June 97), 1.38 (December 97), and .86 (December 98). As mentioned previously, current liabilities remained constant and current assets declined. As with the current ratio, the main reason for the deterioration of the quick ratio is the continued loss of current assets. The above ratios and the reasons for their poor trends indicate Chesapeake is currently in a liquidity crisis. This, in combination with the increased debt liabilities, is an extreme warning to both investors and management. This condition also adds to the suspicion that assets are being sold off to fund current debt obligations. The firm†s ability to meet its obligations with cash, as they come due, is approximated by the cash flow liquidity ratio. As previously mentioned, solvency improved and then deteriorated as indicated by the current and quick ratios. The trends are confirmed when looking at cash flow. From 1995 to 1997, Chesapeake†s cash flow liquidity improved from 1.47 to 1.8. 1997 to 1998 showed a large drop in liquidity from 1.8 to 0.95. The company†s financial statement data gives an indication as to why. From 1995 to 1997, short-term solvency improved from 1.47 to 1.8. When looking at the data, cash from operations rose from $55 million in 1995, to $139 million in 1997. The 1997 rise was due to a change in the accounting period. During this same period, cash on hand rose from $56 million to $123 million and marketable securities rose from zero to $13 million. While cash was increasing, current liabilities rose from $75 million to $153 million. Current liabilities doubled during this period, while cash flow increased 150%. The larger increase in cash flow, relative to short-term obligations, accounts for the improvement in solvency during the 1995 to 1997 period. During the 1997 and 1998 periods, liquidity deteriorated as shown by the decrease in the cash flow liquidity ratio from 1.8 to 0.95. The data indicates that cash from operations dropped approximately 32% to $95 million. When looking at the Cash Flow Statement, the large decrease in operating cash is mainly due to the large net loss incurred during the period. At the same time, cash dropped 76% to $30 million while marketable securities fell to zero. Much of the cash appears to have gone to fund the company†s payables and accrued liabilities. Current liabilities were reduced 15% to $131 million. The larger reduction in cash flow relative to current obligations accounts for the deterioration in short-term solvency. The cash flow data confirms that Chesapeake†s liquidity suffered severe deterioration. A reduction in current liabilities is a good sign, but the little amount of cash generated and being used to fund current obligations is not enough. Cash assets are being used to fund these obligations as well. In comparison to the industry debt ratio of .31, Chesapeake ended with a debt ratio of 1.31 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, while the industry average was .44. The tremendous increase in debt was attributable to significantly lower oil and gas prices during the past three years, and a failed drilling venture known as the Louisiana Trend. The company was forced to liquidate assets and take on a substantial amount of debt to meet operational expenses and increase oil and gas field reserves. Chesapeake was added to the Standard Poor†s â€Å"CreditWatch with negative implications† [Yahoo Finance, Nov. 14, 1999] in December of 1998. The low price of fuel during fiscal years 1996 through 1998 was the primary reason for Chesapeake†s troubles. The debt incurred has covenants restricting the company from seeking additional debt and from paying dividends to preferred stock holders. Principal on a large portion of the outstanding debt is not due until 2004 allowing the company time to improve operations. This will also give fuel prices a chance to rise, which is determinant to the company†s survival. The industry average for times interest earned is 5.2, while Chesapeake†s operating profit was ($856) million. The ratio equated to well below zero in 1997 and 1998. In 1998, interest payments were more than $68 million. The financial leverage index could not be computed since there was not a return on equity. Chesapeake overextended their credit by substantially financing with debt and has jeopardized their ability to make obligated payments for their debt and fixed costs.

Pttls Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 1

Pttls - Essay Example I am responsible for training other instructors. I have to ensure that the prospective instructors pass their briefs and assessments. I have to ensure that they acquire the necessary experience and that they have clean records with the R.T.I.T.B. Prospective instructors also have to possess a clean bill of health. This will render them suitable to take up the responsibilities that come with being a reach and counterbalance truck instructor. Qualified instructors determine the quality of the instruction given at the training center. The third major responsibility that I have as an R.T.I.T.B. The instructor is to ensure that the training center is accredited. Accreditation is a continuous process that requires constant adherence. I am required to ensure that all the teaching material is up to date. I also have to ensure that the prospective operators are getting proper instruction. The quality of my work is determined by the kind of operators I am able to train. The team that I set up to assist me in the running the training program will determine the effectiveness of the center. Adherence to the requirements for accreditation will earn the training center a reputation for excellence. Sloppy work and a weak team will result in poor training and the loss of accreditation. It is, therefore, imperative that my team and I pursue excellence in the training program. The R.T.I.T.B. Training protocol is based on three major pieces of legislation. The first is the Health and Safety at work Etc Act of 1974. It requires that the employees of an organization should receive adequate instruction and training. This means that the instruction I give must be thorough and complete. The R.T.I.T.B. Training manuals take this legislation into consideration. This means that I should base my instruction on the R.T.I.T.B. Training manual to reach and counterbalance trucks. The second piece of legislation is the Provision

Smoke Signal Film Analysis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Smoke Signal Film Analysis - Essay Example The existence if this film completed the conception of Indians churning out their own stories a reality. Even so, will self-depiction by Native Americans within Hollywood finally, eventually take place again? American Indians inhabit a controversial position in the Hollywood thoughts. They would seemingly appear to be an element of America’s unusual myth. This falsehood glaringly seems to be overtly determined to twirl into realism. The last decade has observed more Indian themed movies launched with the participation of bona fide Indian actors than ever before. Additionally, whether modern Indian Smoke Signals is an outstanding incident still is debatable. However, time will only tell whether actors of Native American origins will eventually, absolutely, be granted the starring responsibilities to which they rightfully deserve. In the film Smoke Signal, Native Americans were classified into an assortment of the noble savage, the atrocious warrior, the faithful assistant, amid other subversive names (Morgan, 2010). It is evident that Native Americans stand in for a very minimal margin of the American population. The only way they are represented according to solid evidence is though the medium that is the media. The media such as television and movies have a certain primacy with which they represent this minority group of Native Americans. A major exit from the classic action against the Native Americans, Smoke Signal is a superficially human anecdote, superfluous with dissident political commentary (Morgan, 2010). The issue of Alcoholism in the film is brought out by Victor’s father who is an erratic alcoholic. Victor’s father in this scenario depicts parental desertion and alcoholism. Here, the movie sends up Indian cynics, who struggle with dysfunctions. Even more, Smoke Signals gallops on not present fathers and wondering fathers. As a clever way of settling his late father’s affairs, Victor goes down to Arizona and comes back wi th his ashes. Victor is depicted as very bitter at his father’s drinking and desertion. While in Arizona Victor realizes some truths about his father. In this context, Smoke Signals stresses the importance for bringing together between father and son. This movie, as a result, depicts Indians as down-and-out drunks, unseemly addicted to alcohol as they are to the unpleasantness at their batch in life. This film depends heavily on human correlation and salvation. Struggling with the crippling grief, Victor’s father takes to alcoholism and violence as way of escapisms from the challenges facing him. When he dies, Victor is put to the task of inheriting his father’s estate. But the crippling financial challenges combating his family do not allow him to travel to Arizona. But his friend bails him out his financial crisis by providing him with the money required to travel to Arizona. This point depicts that Native American were always looking after each other, incase of dire hardships (Morgan, 2010). Victor’s father abandonment is seen not as decision, but as something he was meant to do. In order to escape from guilt, Victor’s father then resorts to alcoholism. However, the abandonment of Victor’s father is much less important than his own acceptance of it. This is because Victor has is left no option but to continue with his daily existence. Conversely, the Indian reservation is cast in a fashion as if it existed in a time line where progress is

Analytical essay on debate and conflict between federalists and anti

Analytical on debate and conflict between federalists and anti federalists - Essay Example Those opposed to the constitution, the Anti-Federalists which included John Hancock, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, also wrote a series of arguments now known as the Anti-Federalist papers. They feared the potential powers of centralized federal government dominating the will of the states. The Federalists gave assurances that this was not their intention; that they were not trying to create a tyrannical governing system much like the one in Britain which the colonies had just fought a war to escape. This is how the Bill of Rights was formed. It was a compromise forged between the two conflicting viewpoints. The terms describing these differing opinions is somewhat misleading. Federalists are better defined as Nationalists because they supported a powerful federal government. The Anti-Federalists could be more accurately described as federalists because they preferred the government be a federation of autonomous states. This discussion examines the perspective of both Federalists an d Anti-Federalists, how they reached a compromise after two years of heated debate and the reasons why one was ultimately the better choice. The Federalist Papers conveyed the shortcomings of the loosely confederated union between the states that existed at the time and the benefits of unifying the states into an effective central government. The Federalists, being wealthy land and business owners, believed that a strong centralized federal government operated by learned, influential persons would encourage commerce which was to their own and the country’s benefit. In the second of the Federalist Papers, John Jay enumerated this motive first over all other reasons to unite the states by enacting a constitution. â€Å"It has until lately been a received and uncontradicted opinion that the prosperity of the people of America depended on their continuing firmly united, and the wishes, prayers, and efforts of our best and wisest citizens have been constantly

Anti Heros Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 1

Anti Heros - Essay Example The Maltese Falcon is a film that has a hero as well as an antihero; the film stars Humphrey Bogart as the director / private investigator Sam Spade who has been regarded as the antihero and not the hero, for reasons discussed within the purview of this paper. Sam Spade has a very tough exterior as he lives life by his own rules and rarely listens to anyone else. When his partner in crime dies, he does not even seem to bother or care, displaying an aura of someone that does not have any emotions. He tries to put forth a very strong and non caring attitude towards the audience. He does not possess any scrupulousness; this is clear when the audience finds out that he had been having an affair with the wife of his partner. Furthermore, he plays along with Brigid within the movie, not letting people know for sure whether or not he actually had feelings for her. This makes a number of people averse to his entire character because he does not come off as a man who would listen to anyone or be liked by most people. He says, â€Å"When a mans partner is killed, hes supposed to do something about it. It doesnt make any difference what you thought of him. He was your partner and youre supposed to do something about it. And it happens were in the detective business. Well, when one of your organization gets killed, its bad business to let the killer get away with it. Bad all around. Bad for every detective, everywhere.† (The Maltese Falcon) Spade’s rugged aura puts off a number of people and his smooth mannerisms help to provide a very hard twist to the entire story. Spade is truly an antihero with a penchant for women. A number of people have maimed the movie to be exactly like its contemporary, Citizen Kane. Spade does not carry a gun throughout the movie; however he shows people that he is not afraid to use one. He will do anything in order to make some money and is not attached to many things, probably because of his prior life

EDU 508 Family Chapter Presentations Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

EDU 508 Family Chapter Presentations - Assignment Example The transition helps the child when leaving secondary school life and prepares him for adult life. One of the greatest challenges is faced in the transition period. During this period, parents and facilitators must engage in substantive dialogue about the child. In most cases, families from diverse backgrounds get upset or confused. The issue behind this setback is culture. I would employ an intercultural communication approach so that the parents who play key role in development of IEP appreciate their culture rather than feel upset or confused. The assessment done on the students revealed that the student is disabled and must be accommodated in the learning atmosphere. The criterion used by the team is satisfactory to help the needy child. It has identified some ways to accommodate the students with disability in a future classroom and as shown in the film and the lessons learnt from the

Organizational Structure Paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Organizational Structure Paper - Essay Example BPs marketing system has been to present itself as a green company producing new cleaner fuels for reducing CO2 emissions. On the other hand, this scheme might lead to loss of business to its competitors as people question its green image. Profit earned from selling product and services is shared among shareholders, used to fund future expansion and retains part of it to aid in search of new oil and gas reserves and invest on new technology or replace old machinery. Internal leadership and management are segmented into divisions that review contractors, thus enhancing flow of communication within the organization. Finally, BP focuses on diversification and branching out in its operations (Brown, 2012). Oil located in deep sea helps BP develop better processes for deep-sea drilling from cementing, testing for leakages, to well control and risk management. Functionally, BP should educate and train its personnel to enhance capability and competence. Departmentally, BP ought to adopt a centralized organizational structure as this will improve cost efficiency and inject consistency into operations. Finally, BP should focus on diversifying its marketing channels for the companys advantage (Bateman & Snell,