SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Gold/Mining/EnergyBig Dog's Boom Boom Room


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Big Dog who wrote (75874)12/4/2006 12:21:41 AM
From: buckbldr
   of 205756
 
Yo, Your Bigness...Put me and Mz B in the "interested" column. We're doing some calculating to see if we can afford to board for what sounds like an intriguing event for this group.

Are there any plans/efforts to try to obtain group prices on the cruise fares, and/or the air fare to Copenhagen? If so, what would be the closing dates for us to indicate confirmation?

If we can just keep ol' Que lookin' out to th' bright side on this weather ('05 summer, extreme hurricanes in GOM...'06 summer, nary a one! Soo...why not '06 Jan, lazy hazy days of summer...'07 Jan, freezin' the balls off a well driller?). Sure would help me and the Missus see fit to come aboard for what's bound to be a helluva great party!

Just added a new pair of long johns to Santa's list to keep my butt warm this winter, Que. <ggg>

Buck

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: energyplay who wrote (75876)12/4/2006 12:34:16 AM
From: buckbldr
   of 205756
 
An excellent post, EP. Very enlightening. Thanks, Buck

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: energyplay who wrote (75876)12/4/2006 2:25:07 AM
From: White Bear
   of 205756
 
You might find this interesting.

union.edu

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Dennis Roth who wrote (75864)12/4/2006 4:00:17 AM
From: enginer
   of 205756
 
US Govt Develops alternative to Palm Oil, uses much less Land

In a multi-decade long project the government studied an oil source that would reduce the impact on Cornflakes prices from the rediculous ethanol fad we are seeing. Many millions are being spent on this concept by private companies who see the potential to gain carbon credits and even eliminate much NOx from power plant stacks...

Land costs are 1000 times less than biodiesel from Soy!

nrel.gov

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: White Bear who wrote (75879)12/4/2006 6:02:53 AM
From: Condor
   of 205756
 
That was very interesting.
Thanks a lot thanksalot.

C

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: energyplay who wrote (75876)12/4/2006 7:18:44 AM
From: tom pope
   of 205756
 
Thank you ep, great post.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Ed Ajootian12/4/2006 8:07:01 AM
   of 205756
 
The linked article about the January Effect, finance.yahoo.com , makes an interesting point -- that it mostly just applies to the lower market cap stocks.

Bringing this home to the E&P arena, I present my top 3 candidates for January Effect moves this year:

1) Petrosearch Energy (PTSG) -- this company is taking the term "late bloomer" to the max, but, more than a year after it raised a bunch of cash it is finally starting to put some numbers on the board. The stock price has recovered recently but I believe it has a lot more to run, which I predict will occur once the tax-loss season is over.

2) Westside Energy (WHT) -- they have a great play going in the Barnett Shale, only problem is nobody knows it. A big chunk of their acreage is in the same county that EOG was recently singing the virtues of.

3) Dune Energy (DNE) -- they are going nutty drilling and fracing holes, but the market is wary of buying the stock because they have to come up with $25 M in about a month to complete the financing for their Barnett Shale acquisitions. Once this occurs, and tax-loss selling season is over, this turkey should fly.

If you wanna talk low market caps for January Effect stocks, you got 'em -- each of the first 2 companies have market caps below $30 M.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)


From: ldo7912/4/2006 8:21:45 AM
   of 205756
 
One to keep an eye on. Our not-so-friendly crude suppliers to the south, east and west would love to inflict $USD pain.

US tells banks to shut down Iran operations
By Andrew Murray-Watson
Published: 03 December 2006

Several of the UK's largest banks fear they could face the full legislative wrath of the US government unless they bow to Washington's pressure to shut their operations in Iran.

It is believed that officials in President George Bush's administration have also put pressure on banks with operations in the US, including RBS, HSBC and Barclays, to stop acting on behalf of UK business customers in Iran. Barclays, it is thought, has already told its corporate clients that it will not accept deposits from transactions originating in Iran.

The finance director of an AIM-listed company with significant operations in Iran said: "Barclays told us that it is unable to act as our bank as far as Iran is concerned. We have not been told why." HSBC has said it will no longer accept dollar transactions from within Iran, while RBS declined to comment.

Although the UK banks involved are listed and incorporated in the UK, all have either a secondary listing or substantial operations in the US that makes them potentially vulnerable to US government action.

A senior executive at one of the banks affected said: "The consequences of not toeing the American line on Iran have not been made clear, but we were left in no doubt that we might not want to find out."

A spokeswoman for the US Treasury Department confirmed that meetings had taken place with senior UK bankers. However, she stressed that the talks had been set up so that US government officials could "equip banks with information" about the dangers of allowing Iran to remain part of the international financial community.

Business leaders in the UK have grown increasingly worried that they might fall foul of US legal or regulatory censure for actions that take place in the UK or in another country. It emerged last month that American victims of terrorist attacks were pursuing civil actions against US subsidiaries of NatWest and Crédit Lyonnais on the grounds that their parent companies provided banking facilities in the UK and France for charities that the US Treasury Department believes has links to Hamas, the militant Palestinian organisation.

The US has imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran - because of its alleged support for international terrorism - and individuals found to have breached the economic restrictions face a fine of up to $250,000 (£126,000) and 20 years in jail.

Several of the UK's largest banks fear they could face the full legislative wrath of the US government unless they bow to Washington's pressure to shut their operations in Iran.

It is believed that officials in President George Bush's administration have also put pressure on banks with operations in the US, including RBS, HSBC and Barclays, to stop acting on behalf of UK business customers in Iran. Barclays, it is thought, has already told its corporate clients that it will not accept deposits from transactions originating in Iran.

The finance director of an AIM-listed company with significant operations in Iran said: "Barclays told us that it is unable to act as our bank as far as Iran is concerned. We have not been told why." HSBC has said it will no longer accept dollar transactions from within Iran, while RBS declined to comment.

Although the UK banks involved are listed and incorporated in the UK, all have either a secondary listing or substantial operations in the US that makes them potentially vulnerable to US government action.

A senior executive at one of the banks affected said: "The consequences of not toeing the American line on Iran have not been made clear, but we were left in no doubt that we might not want to find out."

A spokeswoman for the US Treasury Department confirmed that meetings had taken place with senior UK bankers. However, she stressed that the talks had been set up so that US government officials could "equip banks with information" about the dangers of allowing Iran to remain part of the international financial community.

Business leaders in the UK have grown increasingly worried that they might fall foul of US legal or regulatory censure for actions that take place in the UK or in another country. It emerged last month that American victims of terrorist attacks were pursuing civil actions against US subsidiaries of NatWest and Crédit Lyonnais on the grounds that their parent companies provided banking facilities in the UK and France for charities that the US Treasury Department believes has links to Hamas, the militant Palestinian organisation.

The US has imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran - because of its alleged support for international terrorism - and individuals found to have breached the economic restrictions face a fine of up to $250,000 (£126,000) and 20 years in jail.

news.independent.co.uk

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Ed Ajootian who wrote (75883)12/4/2006 8:44:14 AM
From: Ed Ajootian
   of 205756
 
Corrected link for my prior post: marketwatch.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: energyplay who wrote (75876)12/4/2006 9:02:38 AM
From: smh
   of 205756
 
EP,

Thanks for the informative reply. I saw your participation in discussion of some exotic elements and thought you might add some perspective to the concerns raised in the REE article. You exceeded my expectation, but then you remind me of someone who posts on the biotech threads who seems to be able to speak authoritatively on just about everything. You are in the same league.

SMH

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10