Yes in answer to your question - the same ground under different management would be worth a look, definitely, but it would still now be a comparison between TNR and CHK.
And from what I can see TNR have more alteration and thicker zones of alteration that imply that they are more advanced in their exploration efforts than CHK. How do I know this? Because I can read their exploration announcements. Of course its possible that an orebody may not exist in TNR's tenements as well. This is exploration drilling and success is rare, and failure is fairly common. Management can't conjure an orebody out of thin air, they can only be honest and open about what they have or have not found, and CHK seem to have a bit of a problem with that, whereas some other companies do not.
So a theoretical investor has a choice of two high risk mineral explorers with similar exploration techniques, targets and depths of cover and regulatory environments, but one company communicates clearly and in a timely manner, while the other one treats its shareholders like mushrooms and can't keep to its own timelines. Pretty easy decision isn't it?
