Gold/Mining/EnergyBig Dog's Boom Boom Room

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: robert b furman who wrote (165720)3/18/2012 10:53:21 PM
From: Bearcatbob
3 Recommendations   of 198317
Great find Bob. It is good to bring "numbers" to the discussion and not leftist talking points. Numbers are like light to cockroaches!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: Bearcatbob3/19/2012 12:23:05 AM
1 Recommendation   of 198317
Guess who to the Sweet 16 - an Ohio tournament!

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: ames who wrote (165703)3/19/2012 1:52:44 AM
From: upanddown
25 Recommendations   of 198317
The problem is that this thread has turned into a forum for right wing prattle.

I guess the moderator agrees with it since the moderator does nothing about it.

If you say something negative about Obama, you get multiple recs and a bunch of "preaching to the choir" responses.

If you dare to say something positive about Obama, you get "Hey, get that political crap out of here".

Watch what happens.

From the EIA

Domestic crude production in 2008 averaged 4950 mmbd.
That was the lowest production since 1946.
Crude production declined in every one of the Bush years (2001-2008).
We exited 2011 with a daily production rate of 5877 mmbd.
During the Obama years (2009-2011), we increased crude production by 18.74% from 2008.
That is the fastest rate of increase since the late 60's.

Domestic NG production in 2008 averaged 2.136 tcf monthly
NG production increased less than 1% annually during the Bush years (2001-2008).
We exited 2011 with a production rate of 2.558 tcf monthly.
During the Obama years (2009-2011), we increased NG production by 19.74% from 2008.
That is the fastest rate of increase since the early 70's.

If it is Obama's intention to suppress domestic energy E&P, he is doing a terrible job of it.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)

To: upanddown who wrote (165723)3/19/2012 2:21:21 AM
From: ames
4 Recommendations   of 198317
Yes, ideological warp is a problem. But perhaps even more important is the grotesque distortion of investment analysis that comes of overestimating Washington's control over global (and domestic) energy, especially when it scapegoats a single political figure. That's regrettable. And expensive.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: upanddown who wrote (165723)3/19/2012 2:23:34 AM
From: The Reaper
6 Recommendations   of 198317
OK so now go into those numbers and just take a look at production from federal lands and see what you get as far as production increases. The only reason that production is up is because it's coming from private lands. That's something that Obama can't suppress..........yet.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: The Reaper who wrote (165725)3/19/2012 2:46:22 AM
From: The Reaper
2 Recommendations   of 198317
I may as well give everybody the data so we don;t have to argue about the accuracy of my statement.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: upanddown who wrote (165723)3/19/2012 3:44:33 AM
From: The Reaper
7 Recommendations   of 198317
I did a little digging from the BLM website. The last three years of Bush, new oil leases on federal land accounted for 12.0 million acres. The first three years of Obama the new leases have accounted for 5.3 million acres, a 56% drop. Tell me again how Obama is not suppressing exploration.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (165721)3/19/2012 4:01:14 AM
From: The Reaper
4 Recommendations   of 198317
For a look at how a liberal tries to explain how Obama is the "oil president".

This is such a poor argument I'm almost ashamed to bring it to the board but here it is:

There is a long running script that you can halt by refreshing the page and then disabling the script if the page doesn't load quick enough for you.

In a nutshell he's comparing the new leases and drilling permits from Bush's first three years in office (when oil was $30/bbl) to Obama's first three years in office. I had to leave some comments to his fallacial arguments so we'll see if he responds to them as he has done to other comments or just deletes them as they are "awaiting moderation" at this time.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

From: Big Dog3/19/2012 6:45:10 AM
1 Recommendation   of 198317
Pritchard Capital

Natural Gas Prices: How Much Lower Can They Go?

Our research suggests gas prices are unlikely to go significantly lower due to pricing pressure from stored gas at this time. The amount of gas in storage relative to available capacity does not appear tight enough to necessitate release of large quantities quickly to preserve the viability of storage facilities, nor is there a strong economic motive to release the gas in this manner. Instead, we think a slow steady oversupply of the market is the more likely outcome and should be a gentler price suppressor as the result. Should gas production continue to grow, or summer demand proves excessively mild, this subject will require revisiting in the fall. We also do not believe falling coal prices will reduce the incentive for coal-to-gas (CTG) switching in the power stack unless coal prices fall dramatically. The amount of price decline required plus past coal production discipline leads us to believe this is an unlikely outcome at this time.

Natural gas prices and the relative performance of predominately gassy producer equities provide ample evidence that current natural gas oversupply in North America is well understood. From this realization two primary lines of inquiry emerge: how low can natural gas prices go (and why); how high can natural gas prices eventually recover (and why)? In this essay we think about the first question in relation to gas in storage and the price of coal.

Method:We examined gas inventories in storage and the total cost to generate electricity from Central Appalachian (CAPP) coal, Powder River Basin (PRB) coal, and natural gas to determine if gas released from storage and lower coal prices could be catalysts to significantly lower natural gas prices, which we define as at or below $1.80/Mcf. Significantly lower also encompasses a durative component. Prices dropping below $2.00/Mcf and recovering within a month are unlikely to have a marked effect on either forward price curves or producer behavior. Prices stuck in the $1.80-$1.99 range past a couple of months are likely to produce demonstrative effects on both.

What Else Could Create Much Lower Gas Prices? CTG switching support of gas prices depends on how much gas utilities can consume. A Congressional study taking 2007 Combined Cycle Gas Turbines plants (CCGT) in operation, the normalized amount of unutilized CCGT capacity through 2009, and 85% capacity factors as a realistically sustainable capacity ceiling determined the theoretical limit of CTG switching as approximately 17 Bcf/d. With the stricture that a CCGT and coal plant must be located within a 25 mile radius to eliminate electricity transport mismatches as a variable, additional gas demand from coal displacement dropped to 3.6 Bcf/d. CTG displacements as high as 6+ Bcf/d have already been reported over the past three winters so the 25 mile stricture does not appear to be valid. While admitting the path from theory to reality remains opaque for a variety of reasons, market behavior seems to indicate the upward limit of fuel switching capability has yet to be reached. However, should that limit arrive and gas production continues to grow, increased production as a further suppressor of the gas price seems the logical outcome.

Can Excess Storage Create Much Lower Gas Prices? Whether natural gas is ultimately burned, compressed, or liquefied, it must first be transported from wellhead to processor to distributor and finally end user to be consumed. Along the way, interstate pipeline companies, intrastate pipeline companies, local distribution companies (LDCs), and independent storage service providers[2] store gas during periods of lesser demand to satisfy periods of greater demand perhaps hoping to store at lower prices and sell at higher prices taking advantage of variable demand trends. The mild winter we are exiting provided few opportunities for storage to serve this high demand function, the result likely being approximately 31% higher inventories than usual on a five year average basis moving into the upcoming summer injection season. Storage ratchets refer to how the storage owner/operator's obligation to inject or withdraw gas for a storage customer varies with the actual performance of the gas storage facility. In plain English this means facilities can refuse to take in new gas or force the release of stored gas through penalties or confiscation based on the level of fullness in the facility at certain time periods.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

From: Big Dog3/19/2012 6:50:23 AM
1 Recommendation   of 198317
Pritchard Capital

Top fundamental long ideas remain: Halliburton Company (HAL - $34.54), Cameron International (CAM - $52.94), and Superior Energy Services (SPN - $28.63). Merely six months ago we were contemplating ultra-deepwater dayrates that were approaching $500,000 and premium jackup rates in the $120,000-$140,000 range. Recently, rates for those two classes have increased: for UDW drillships, the relevant range is now approaching $550,000 at the lower end and bids are beginning to exceed $600,000 at the high end (and as high as $695,000 for an option beginning in November 2014).

As for jackups, that band now stands at more like $140,000 to $160,000. Although defining dayrate ranges is imprecise -- due to issues including term, location, and rig specifications – we view the trend in rates as rising rapidly. The main driver of this increase is growing demand for such highly capable rigs. Interestingly, high spec rigs are not universally deployed in applications that test their technical limits. There are certainly plenty of examples of rigs working in water depths that simply exceed the depth capacity of the competition. In other cases though, such newer rigs are working in relatively more conventional applications, but are able to complete such work with efficiencies that justify otherwise premium dayrates. Accordingly, utilization at the upper end of both floaters and jackups is high.

We recognize that all of the rate increases are not all flowing to the driller’s bottom line as margin. Wages continue to increase, we estimate by mid-single digit percentages. The higher cost of fuel no doubt flows through as an indirect component of consumables, supplies, and maintenance. Nevertheless, a meaningful portion of the accretion in dayrates will bolster driller margins as they are realized. A derivative beneficiary of this rate environment is the equipment industry. First, higher dayrates (and returns on capital) will likely result in additional newbuilds.

The content opportunity on a newbuild drillship (with a single BOP stack) can run as much at $250 million, and a spare BOP stack, handling equipment, etc. could drive that figure closer to $300 million. Second, we think newbuilds will be increasingly equipped with spare BOP stacks as well as spare BOP control pods. The cost of downtime related to BOPs can justify the additional capital for such spares. We think up to 70% of rig downtime is associated with the BOP.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.