Chesapeake Energy vs Expand Operating LLC

Side-by-side comparison of two oil and gas operators in AL,AR,CO,KS,KY,LA,MT,ND,NM,NY,OH,OK,PA,TN,TX,UT,VA,WV,WY and LA,OH,TX,WV. Drawn from public well data and state-regulator production filings.

Important — Public-Data Disclaimer. The information shown on this page is sourced exclusively from publicly available oil and gas regulatory records (Texas Railroad Commission, Oklahoma Corporation Commission, and aggregated public well data). Valor is presenting these public records side-by-side as an informational convenience only.

Chesapeake Energy

AL,AR,CO,KS,KY,LA,MT,ND,NM,NY,OH,OK,PA,TN,TX,UT,VA,WV,WY · 16,806 wells on file

Expand Operating LLC

LA,OH,TX,WV · 3,559 wells on file

Side-by-Side Statistics

MetricChesapeake EnergyExpand Operating LLC
Total wells16,8063,559
Wells producing (any time)4,0883,339
Permits filed (last 24 months)1246
Most recent permit date2024-09-092026-06-25
Most recent spud date2024-11-222026-07-03
Average lateral length (ft)3,9327,361
Top formationAnadarko BasinTravis Peak
Top countyBradfordDe Soto
States operating inAL,AR,CO,KS,KY,LA,MT,ND,NM,NY,OH,OK,PA,TN,TX,UT,VA,WV,WYLA,OH,TX,WV
Last-12mo oil production (BBL)216,3103,743,147
Last-12mo gas production (Mcf)3,099,5631,245,691,894

Shared Territory

Both operators target these formations / plays:

MarcellusAustin ChalkUtica

Per-Operator Top Counties & Formations

Chesapeake Energy

Counties: Bradford (1,439) · Tarrant (979) · Woods (956) · Woodward (703) · Converse (666)

Formations: Anadarko Basin (3,231) · Marcellus (2,724) · Barnett (1,284) · Austin Chalk (917) · Utica (673)

Expand Operating LLC

Counties: De Soto (1,149) · Red River (616) · Caddo (343) · Sabine (296) · Ohio (240)

Formations: Travis Peak (1,331) · Marcellus (486) · Austin Chalk (347) · Utica (243) · Haynesville (217)

Related Comparisons

About This Comparison