Big Dog's Boom Boom Room | Stock Discussion Forums

web analytics

web analytics

Gold/Mining/Energy | Big Dog's Boom Boom Room

Previous 10 | Next 10

To: CusterInvestor who wrote (157553)	10/29/2011 12:41:41 PM
From: Joe Dancy	3 Recommendations of 179025

We are still bullish CusterInvestor, especially on the energy and ag sectors. Long term trends are just too powerful to ignore. We still like oily stocks, small firms, that are growing production. Fact is global crude oil demand - driven by Asia and the Middle East - is set to reach record levels, a major support for higher crude oil prices. Libyan production is slow to return to global markets, while the futures market has flipped to backwardization - a bullish signal that supplies are tight. Meanwhile China is facing diesel shortages and merger and acquisition activity in the sector is heating up. All bullish signs for robust crude oil prices, and healthy energy stock prices. We discuss the trends this week - and some of the firms we like (GEOI, GTE, FXEN, EPM) this week: lsgifund.com The discrepancy between energy equity valuations and the outlook for these firms has rarely been larger. Dan Steffens of the Energy Prospectus Group out of Houston has been saying the same, we have similar outlooks. He really likes MIND also, and GPOR, he does a knock-up analysis. If I had to buy just one right now, based on potential gains versus potential risks, with would be FXEN. Dan calls them "a million dollar lottery ticket with no downside" - I like his summary. They updated their corporate presentation last week and added risked value for their Bakken stuff, apparently testing is going well.

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read

To: Dennis Roth who wrote (159105)	10/29/2011 1:51:01 PM
From: Dennis Roth	of 179025

OT Cold fusion - Italian style Peter Ekström, Division of Nuclear Physics Lund University Nuclear physics problems [ note - superscripts and subscripts do not cut and paste well on SI, hence 10 to the minus tenth power meters comes out as 10-10 m, so 10 meters is not what is meant below.] 1) Since both the Ni nucleus and the proton are positively charged, the proton will have to go through a Coulomb barrier in order to be captured in the nucleus. This barrier is much higher than the kinetic energy of the proton. The transmission probability according to the long established theory of quantum tunneling would be virtually zero. This is pointed out in the paper by Focardi and Rossi1. It is very hard to see how the chemical environment (distribution of electrons) which is of the order of 10-10 m can influence the Coulomb barrier which has a radius of the order of 10-15 m. 2) Once the proton gets into the nucleus (inside the barrier) it will form a compound Cu nucleus in a highly excited (unbound) state. The compound nucleus will decay very fast to the ground state by emitting gamma rays. These gamma rays are not observed. 3) In table 3 of the paper by Focardi and Rossi1 it is stated in the top row that the energy released in p + Ni-58 fusion is 41.79 MeV. In figure 1 of the same paper the binding energy per nucleon for the appropriate mass is about 8.5 MeV. The question is: where does all the additional energy come from? 4) In the fusion of a proton with 58Ni a substantial activity of 59Cu is formed. 59Cu decays with a half-life of 82 seconds by ß+ decay. In the Focardi and Rossi article it is stated that "No radioactivity has been found also in the nickel residual from the process". Considering the very high activity of 59Cu that is produced, it is surprising that no activity is detected. Even ten half-lives after the end of a run the activity should be of the order of 1013 Bq, which is not only easily measurable (with a detector far away from the source) but also deadly for everybody present in the room! 5) The detection of 10% of copper isotopes2 in the residue from the E-Cat is difficult to understand, especially since only stable copper isotopes (63Cu and 65Cu) are detected. The isotope ratios of the stable copper isotopes in the residue are the same as that of natural copper. This is highly unlikely if the copper is produced by fusion reactions as Rossi claims. 6) The detection of 11% iron is even more disturbing. Since nickel has Z=28 and iron has Z=26, one has to remove two protons to transform nickel to iron. This would cost energy so the process would violate the law of conservation of energy. If the iron comes from contamination from steel structures, the copper could come from contamination of copper tubing, which removes the evidence for fusion of protons with nickel. 7) Considering that the natural abundance of 58Ni (68%), 62Ni (3.6%) and 64Ni (0.9%), it is strange that no 59Cu is produced from the abundant 58Ni and that only the two stable copper isotopes are produced. It seems that nature by magic has given 62Ni and 64Ni special properties so that stable copper isotopes can be produced!

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read

To: KyrosL who wrote (156957)	10/29/2011 5:06:32 PM
From: Dennis Roth	1 Recommendation of 179025

Shell studying US Gulf gas-to-liquids project Message 27734574 excerpts: London-Shell is studying the economics of a possible gas-to-liquids export project on the US Gulf Coast and is looking at opportunities to invest in an unconventional oil field development in the country, CFO Simon Henry said October 27... ...Henry said Shell is looking at the "long-term potential" of a GTL export plant on the Gulf Coast based on the same technology the company is using for its massive Pearl GTL project in Qatar. He said a GTL project in the US, in addition to being very capital intensive, is dependent on the outlook for the long-term differential between US gas prices and global oil prices. "We are doing some potential design work and we have even identified a couple of sites but we're at least six or seven years away even if we took the decision tomorrow," Henry told analysts on a second conference call...

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read

To: richardred who wrote (158837)	10/29/2011 9:24:40 PM
From: richardred	2 Recommendations of 179025

FWIW- Enthusiasm for U.S. LNG exports runs deep A 3.5 mtpa deal bodes well for reducing U.S. trade deficit By Jeff Lewis October 29, 2011 An enthusiastic tweet from Encana Corp. caught my attention yesterday. It read: Big news on #LNG for Cheniere and @BGGroup ow.ly/7c5f8 This is not surprising. Any deal that has the effect of taking gas away from North American markets sits nicely with officials at the Calgary-based natural gas and liquids producer. Company chief executive Randy Eresman made no show of hiding is enthusiasm during a conference call to announce third-quarter results Oct. 20, noting that Encana would support “as many LNG export facilities as can be constructed in North America.” It turns out that interest runs deep, and that natural gas producers aren’t alone in backing U.S. exports. Encana’s show of support via Twitter put me in the mind to look back at the approval given to Cheniere Energy for its 16-million-tonne-per-year Sabine Pass LNG project by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The deal announced this week will see Cheniere sell 3.5 mtpa to Britain’s BG Group for no less than 20 years, Reuters reports. To the chagrin of groups like the American Public Gas Association, which believes LNG exports spell trouble for domestic gas users, energy supplies and national security, FERC seems generally supportive of liquefaction schemes. Here’s the agency paraphrasing Encana, which filed a letter with U.S. regulators in support of Cheniere’s export application. Encana maintains that allowing Sabine Pass to open the door to new markets will have a salutary effect on domestic natural gas development efforts. As a natural gas producer, Encana states that it is interested in exploring the potential LNG export market as one of many market options for its North American production. Sabine Pass has broad implications, broader even than the massive Kitimat LNG venture in which Encana owns a 30 per cent stake. The backdrop to the Cheniere-BG deal is a swollen U.S. trade deficit. Consider that when Cheniere submitted its export application to the Department of Energy in August 2010, the 2009 deficit stood at a whopping US$380.7 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Cheniere points out in its export application that more than half the total – some US$204 billion – stems from a negative trade balance in petroleum products. (The monthly trade deficit for August 2011 was US$45.6 billion, pretty much on par with the month before). That the Obama administration is actively looking to chip away at that figure – via its National Export Initiative – is one reason, over and above the flood of shale gas unlocked by new drilling techniques, to expect more LNG export schemes will materialize south of the border. Big news indeed. albertaoilmagazine.com

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (159114)	10/30/2011 10:40:08 AM
From: not_prudent	8 Recommendations of 179025

You're right, it is a bitch, but somehow management always seems to take care of itself while someone else suffers the consequences - usually the shareholders, employees and customer base. I once worked in a union shop. You'd be amazed at how much you can accomplish and how much pain people are willing to take when you take the time to explain the how's, why's and consequences and let them know that the sacrifice runs through the entire corporate chain as opposed to letting them believe it's being put all on them (unless it is). I learned that from a mentor. I don't pretend to know what's going on at Quantas or Air France but I'd bet you a buck that management is part of the problem.

Share	Recommend \| Keep \| Reply \| Mark as Last Read \| Read Replies (1)

Previous 10 | Next 10

Copyright/IP Policy

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.