Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
probably selling related to some sort of equity financing scheme.
I actually had a rather long rambling post going on the subject of toxic financing but hit a wrong key and it disappeared before I could post it. Probably too long and rambling anyway. <g>
I wonder just how toxic their financing is at this point?
(e.g. convertables)
good find.
maybe time to "buy the rumor" ?
re: "...where is management during all this? sipping coffee at the cafe?"
The cafe isn't open yet. They would have had to go to McDonalds. <g>
Come to think of it, that could be another problem. MCD has a growing presence in China. Starbucks sales are getting decimated by MCD's introduction of inexpensive "gourmet" coffee to their menu.
Of course, that's over here. People are cutting back due to the faltering US economy, trying to spend less. Over there, middle class is growing, Chinese economy and domestic spending on consumer goods and so forth continues to expand. Supposedly GWDC has a tariff advantage over starbucks but considering the poor performance so far, hard to say how much that is going to help...
This thing is like one of those paintings where if you look up close you can't tell what it is but if you stand back far enough the picture becomes obvious.
Nice to be still so gung-ho. Wish I still felt that much confidence.
It's like not being able to see the forest for the trees. I'm ok with the forest, but certain trees seem to block the view.
Like, supposedly pxd was supposed to "front" the $20m drilling costs because... well, they had done similar in the past. But, although there was a precedent, it doesn't seem that they were under any firm obligation to do so.
Unless can prove it was in a general "best-efforts" basis such that there is a implicet obligation to make such a best effort.
Too bad it isn't more like a traffic accident. If one party was breaking the law, say, driving without a license, it usually automatically results in losing the case. So. pxd did an illegal farmout, seems like they should have lost right away. Yet it just seems to keep going on and on...
nat gas price chart
re: "Did NG not spike in the winter of 2005-2006 to above $15 or $16?..."
As you can see, spike was in 2005. In 2006, price started dropping. In the fall there was a spike up to the $9 level. but it was short lived, cementing a perception that it would stabilize/drop, which it more-or-less did for quite a while.
(until recently)
re: "put stocks on the call only list and that DPDW's presence on that list currently was not because of anything specific to DPDW.
Has anyone heard anything different??"
Have experianced the same thing w/ Scott. Same thing happened trying to buy MOSH after it had a price spike a while back and more lately with DPDW. When I asked them about it, I got a similar vaguesness of explanation but I did get a bit more in that they were flagging penny stocks with "an unusually large upward price moves". I got the impression that the person I talked to wnated to say more, but wasn't supposed to.
However, I have a theory.
A while back there was a news piece about how computer hackers had somehow gotten access to online account information. The hackers/accomplices would buy up a bunch of some penny stock. Then they would run a automated program that would basically hijack a multitude of online accounts rapidly logging in, sending a buy command, logging out, one after the other for that same stock which would send the pps skyrocketing. Then the hackers/cronies would sell st a tremendous profit.
I surmise that disabling online buys, having to manually call in the order, would be an effective means of de-railing that particular scheme.
They probably wouldn't want to talk too much about it since no broker would want to admit to suffering a security breach. Also, it's possible that maybe they are doing it to try to catch whoever was doing it, here again, not advertise what they were doing.
It's been a while now, so maybe the flap is over. Maybe they consider it more of a preventive measure now.
Like I said though, just a theory. But it would also fit with "not having anything specifically to do with a particular company".
re: "We are working on putting together a press release that will detail our (new Management) plans to turn this ship around. And yes, this is no doubt a long-term hold. We are looking for long-term success, and not a band-aid temporary fix. "
I don't know about you, but I wasn't made aware that there were problems apart from the presumed power outage/delivery problems due to unusually bad winter snow storm. Well, the snow has melted, we have been shown a nice picture of a coffee shop shop filled with furniture that looked ready to go... what gives?
They seemed to have such a nice story.
Now, I don't know. I don't think that management knows how to make money which is to say, form a company that makes money. It is obvious they figured out how to get money for themselves on an individual basis.
One big problem with the business model I perceive is the concept of roasting the beans in California and then air-shipping them all the way to China. That has to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible. Seems they could have installed one roaster oven in a small warehouse to stockpile beans in China especially since they were supposedly planning on an exponentially expanding operation there.
Have been pretty much out since they were late reporting. Am thinking to wait until signs of some actual crust appear on what is increasing seeming like "pie in the sky", heavy on lofty expectations, non-existent on execution.
They probably haven't even thought of serving pie to go with the coffee, either...
"Working on putting together a press release..."
sheesh. hope they don't exhaust themselves. <g>
re: "In other words, she's on our side..."
Am given to recall some spoken lines from a wacky old popular song:
"I noticed the judge was an old fishing' buddy of mine,
Hey Judge!
I'll pay you back that hundred I owe you if you get me outa this spot,
...Waddayamean, contempt of court?!"
-excerpt from "When You're Hot You're Hot (When You're Not You're Not) <g>
That's naked fiber. You can't field deploy that with any hope of it even surviving the deployment process. For industrial applications you need to over-design things to be practically indestructable, then, they might just last awhile. <g>
(I used to work in a related industrial field, before I took up stock trading full time.)
Typically many strands get bundled together.
And, for a harsh environment (mile deep ocean qualifies), you would then need several layers of protection such as cushioning/strain relief, waterproofing and abrasion/shear resistant armor sheathing.
No, I'd say the size looks about right.
re: "i wonder if this spool is fiber optic cable, from the late Friday trailer load of gear"
Looks to be approx. 50 count of turns on top layer.
Let's say max diam of spool = 8 ft.
Min diam 4 ft, avg. diam 6ft
6ft x 3.14 (pi) = 18.84 ft /turn
8 miles x 5280ft = 42240ft
42240 ft / 18.84 = 2242 turns
2242 / 50 turns per layer = 44 layers
Yup, looks to be around 8 miles of cable on that spool <g>
re:"Afterall, our trust was spared of the $20 million+ E&D expense obligation, which would have bankrupted our trust"
I hope that I won't regret voicing my concerns a little more directly. $20m / 70m units = -.28 per unit.
Could unitholders have been "charged" for this?
On initial examination the section I mentioned says that we are not a "limited partnership". Apparently most royalty trusts nowadays are formally written to structure liability like owning stock in a corporation. If the company goes negative, all you can lose is your initial investment. Now, this trust was made in the early days of trusts, and some of the later "refinements" aren't in there.
So, I'm thinking that there could be state or federal statutes that could still offer some protection for unitholders beyond what would normally be written into a trust's charter nowadays. But I don't know this.
On the other hand, it would be pretty tough to try to send a bill to an anonymous stack of certificates in some closet somewhere. If known unitholders were going to be exposed in this way, it seems like that would effect the issue of Standing. Maybe that was what was holding them back. Obviously they wouldn't have wanted to do anything to bolster unitholders case for Standing. I don't know.
So you may see that what bothers me is the question: Is this like an option or more like a future?
re: "Given what we know, i don't know who would want to take the chance of being on the outside looking in. [...]"
I looked on the court site for an "Investors Application for Loss Reimbursement Due to Court Clerical Error Induced Market Panic" form to fill out. Alas, there doesn't seem to be one.
The combination of uncertainty and waiting puts people on edge. The recent, um, incident, inspires pessimism. If all pessimism were expelled, we'd be to the moon already. So, some focus back on risk.
One thing we know is that there is a huge spread between us'ns and them'ns valuation.
Summary Judgement
A grant of summary judgement would result in liquidation. The obvious thing holding back the motion for summary judgement is the big question of liquidation value being a question of material fact. Hence upholding the motion for more comprehensive (extended) discovery is only prudent.
We could conceivebly win here even by losing if discovery yields a decent number. Theoretically, up to the $1.2 B...
It's quite the coincidence that the defendants just happen to come up with a value slightly above zero. A little too convenient if you ask me. Strikes me as a combination of low-balling the reserves estimate and inflating costs....
Unitholder Liability
Anybody else read that section? It is the same as in the 10k for tidewater but it still creeps me out a little.
If it wasn't boilerplate, would almost sound like some kind of veiled threat. One implication would be, if they can adjust their figures anywhere they want, what would stop them from piling on more charges to make it come out negative? Are they just being "nice"? How likely is that?
Oh, well, got all weekend to figure out how this would fit into a risk assessment if need be...
Initially I thought that jpm did a lot of work putting together a rather lengthy and extensive report (here i thought i was longwinded! <g>) That would be compared to their prior rather sketchy monthly royalty reports.
It turns out, or at least it seems to me, that they likely just used a standard boilerplate report text and just filled in the blnks as it were, plugging in different numbers, remarks, for the most part.
I was looking for 10-k for similar trusts and came across one for tideland and the similarities are striking. I would say pretty much identical in parts. I haven't actually compared them side by side but they sure seem to read almost the same, in a large measure...
Below is a link in case anyone else is curious how I arrived at this opinion.
tideland boilerplate 10-k
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?SessionID=lqNXCAWGR6WgROc&ID=5074792
re:"You know what would be really weird? If all of these post were staged by some madman. lol"
At least the courthouse building appears to actually exist. <g>
100/70 = 1.4285
1.4285 X .20 = 0.2857
Lease blocks have appreciated a few percent per year.
Accrued production should offset expenses. It seems unlikely mosh would get nothing on all counts. worst case seems less likely than getting _something_ even if it is just throwing out some overcharges.
That should be good for a few cents.
Now we consider that nat gas is main commodity involved, but, that too is going up. Plus there is the "white oil" condensate that fetches a premium to regular crude...
Anyway, "thirtyish" seems more like it would be in the ball park, even somewhat pessimistically speaking.
Add a even a little pinch of optimism, and that's one way of explaining where we are right now.
Actually oil closed at 101.68, which would be .2905 but since 70 is a ballpark figure, should go round numbers all around.
hmm. with 120 oil ( & presumably proportionately higher ng) that gives us 0.342 <g>
btw - my opinion on "oversold" would have been based on chart technicals. Here again, chart interpretation is highly subjective - what can I say.. I look at a lot of charts <g>.
It all happened so fast there was no point anyway...
btw. I'm sorry about my whining before. It wasn't really about the time factor, more like feeling left out of a conversation. When it comes to sports technicals it reminds me that I am pretty much a total ignoramous on that particular subject. People sometimes don't like being reminded that they are not as knowledgeable as they'd like to be. And, I, for one, wouldn't spend so much time reading through boards and newsletters if I didn't enjoy it.
So it you guys want to talk sports or whatever, go ahead. Besides facts, people just like to shoot the breeze sometimes, so what if it's not always exactly, on topic...
In retrospect I much prefer seeing a little sports talk to having the totally-on-topic sh*t scared out of me like what happened today. <g>
yeah, that talk of stops earlier got me wondering. I've been experimenting with them for trading and conceievebly could be handy on small stocks but generally not perfect in general to say the least.
Still long too. Fortuneately, my core position survived through this latest debacle, more or less intact.
I don't really view this as a lottery ticket any more.
It's more of an investment in "truth, justice, and the American way". <g>
Which is also, why I'm not, I suppose, _all_ in...
I have to admit that my mental figure for liquidation value is pretty much undocumented and unsophisticated.
I've been reading through factoids and posts on this board for quite a while now and I could swear that there was some calculation being attempted from which I absorbed some numbers by osmosis, but now I can't really say who or when this might have been done... sorry <g>
Maybe that would be a new class project for some of us when we get over today's exhaustion.
Right now I look at historical Katrina price which is pretty low, what .10 or .12 ? The price of oil has at least doubled since then. Also ( I actually posted and article/link somewhere here about the following - sorry getting tired), interest in aquiring GOM blocks by oil co.'s is increasing, number of bids and amounts have been going up. Plus, if I assume _not_ fire sale prices and consider that production has partially resumed/improvements have been made, well, then, I think could double the basement price a couple times then cut back 30% to be "conservative".
Mostly look at the more recent market. Even when "all hope" seems to be lost, we bounce back to to .30 level or so.
Sorry, not very scientific at this point, but that's the mental figure I seem to conjure when contemplating what to do.
When you come right down to it, really, nobody knows. Look at Bear Sterns. I've actually traded BK companies (not that one) because people thought that they would get more at some point.
With Bear, it seemed a dome deal at $2. Why would anybody buy at $4 or $5 or whatever it was? Gut feelings? Osmosis? But what do you know, they got $10 now.
Another weird thing...
Online trading was disabled on Scottrade this morning. I kept trying a small test order every 15 minutes or so, so I can't ascertain the exact time, I was just about to call them, but then it seemed to come back on just as mosh was entering dump mode.
Trading was off for all stocks, not just mosh. Probably just a coincidence, but it probably made the situation worse.
The combination of events started to get me rattled. But when the smallish test order went through, appeasing the emotional factor a little, I came to my senses, and like the other poster realized that we had dipped below liquidation value.
I was about to post an opinion that we were oversold, but by then it had come back up.
re:stops
Just curious. What retail broker allows stops on OTC/Pinks?
Scottrade certainly doesn't. Also not on equities less than $1.
I realize you said that you are out of here, so maybe this can be a general question as well.
A lot of traders don't like to hold through earnings, is all.
fwiw, I'm holding, because I figure that the optimistic runup is justified, but I still don't like to do it, generally.
Well, to those of us who don't follow organized sports, it's just so much meaningless babble to try to step through.
I try to cover as many stock boards, reading as much as I can in a given day in addition the other dd, and a string of off-topic posts just dilutes that effort.
I have been practicing restraint, I think, in that I could fill this board up with political commentary about how Ron Paul, a viable candidate, has been mistreated by the media, rendered invisible, while other, deficit-spending candidates get tons of free publicity every time they make a face at each other... etc.
Politics, religion, sports... Deliberate board disruptors do this to screw up investors' thinking process when something is going on with a stock (among other tactics). Not the case here, but, still, it can be annoying.
In the old pre-web bbs days, mods would allow metaphors, and the occasional ot comment, so long as some reference was made in the post to the main subject matter of the board. Otherwise the posters would get booted to a "penalty box" to continue their totally off-topic discussion elsewhere..
The idea about prefixing posts with OT:Sports (whatever) is a good one. It would be great if ot posters could remember to try to do that. thank you.
Sorry, guess I'm in a bad mood today. Tax time. I made some income profit last year, but running a loss so far this year, and now I'm going to have to write a big fat check to the IRS just when I need that capital the most. If I were to identify with MOSH, the government is starting to seem a lot like PXD.
Speaking of MOSH/PXD, (remember them?), I just had another thought, I hope the defendants et al, as part of some sinister strategy, perhaps, don't keep trying to drag things out too long. After all, it won't be too many monthes before hurricane season comes along again. The possibilty of another Katrina is probably very low but who knows, maybe they figure they could get lucky. A little more time for discovery is OK so much as may be needed but, this shouldn't be allowed to drag until some external event disrupts everything. It would be like a case involving earthquake damage in California. Wait long enough, maybe another earthquake will hit eventually...
One could imagine PXD agents contracting with the Russians for weather modification at some point? Maybe not, but , the again, how desperate might they be? <g>
There will be oil (imho)..
Found most recent report on their website - almost overlooked it. Kind of a pain, delay to load (pdf), but it is pretty informative. :
http://www.fogl.com/documents/FalklandOilandGasLimited-CorporatePresentation-2008-03-18.pdf
You might want to add it to the ibox.
I especially like the pps projections on page 10 - (and that is for $50 oil!)
Although I trade other stocks, am kind of a lazy investor on flkof, can't really trade it, glad I didn't considering the abrupt move back up a while ago, anyway, finally got around to checking up on old fogl and thought to stop by the board, guess it was last year the last time, how time flies...
Rigzone Article on Value of GOM Blocks
Of passing interest to MOSH since we have blocks in GOM and are interested in how market might value them.
[From ihub DPDW board (another stock I currently own/follow) originally posted by alex86]
"The bullish news regarding GOM activity continues...]
Weekly Offshore Rig Review:
GOMExplorer Monday, March 24, 2008
Last week, the MMS held the Central and Eastern GOM lease sales, with the CGOM sale breaking records in terms of the dollar amount bid for the leases. Given the importance of the Central GOM lease sale, this week's Offshore Rig Review will focus on the details and trends related to that sale. We'll be examining some of the key statistics regarding the sale and how it compares to CGOM lease sales of the past.
Blocks with Bids
First, we'll take a look at the number of blocks that received bids in order to gauge the breadth of interest in the blocks offered in the lease sale. This will be an indicator of whether the level of interest was focused on a particular portion of the blocks up for lease or spread more broadly across the blocks available.
In this most recent CGOM Lease Sale, a total of 615 blocks received bids. That is the 7th largest number of blocks receiving bids in a CGOM lease sale in the last 25 years. At the same time, a total of 5,569 blocks were offered, which is the 11th largest number of blocks offered in a CGOM lease sale. In order to bring these two data points together, it helps to look at the percentage of blocks that received bids. For CGOM lease sale 206, 11% of the blocks on offer received bids.
So how does that compare with previous years? Starting with the CGOM lease sale held in 2001, an average of 11.8% of the blocks on offer have received bids. So, this year's 11% rate is close to, just slightly below, the level of interest shown in the previous 7 CGOM lease sales. Looking back further at the history of CGOM lease sales, there was a low of just 2% of blocks receiving bids in 1986 and a high of 20.4% of blocks receiving bids in 1997. The all-time average for CGOM lease sales is 9.9% of blocks receiving bids.
This year's 11% is slightly above par for the last 25 years, but slightly below par for the last 7 years. More broadly, the blocks up for lease in the most recent CGOM lease sale had a broader appeal than CGOM lease sales of the past, although the bidding focus was slightly narrower than during the last 7 years.
Bids per Block
Another useful indicator of the level of interest at a given lease sale is the number of bids per block that received bids. This is a measure of the level of competition within the lease sale, as the number of bids per block points out how many companies (or groups of companies) were pursuing specific blocks.
With an average of 1.72 bids per block that received bids, this most recent CGOM lease sale was the 4th most competitive CGOM lease sale, just behind the 1.73 bids in 1997, the 1.75 bids in 2006, and the 1.98 bids in 2007. This is about 13% higher than the historical average of 1.52 bids per block in all previous CGOM lease sales.
Thus, this most recent CGOM lease sale generated a significantly higher amount of interest and competition than other CGOM lease sale have historically.
High Bids
The single most striking aspect of the most recent Central GOM lease sale is the fact that it was the highest-grossing CGOM lease sale ever, at least in real dollars. With a total of $3.68 billion in high bids, it was the first CGOM lease sale to exceed the record set in 1983 at the initial CGOM lease. That first sale resulted in $3.47 billion in high bids. So, this year's CGOM sale passed that mark by $208 million, which is about 6%.
Of course, when inflation is taken into account, the current lease sale still falls far short of the 1983 record. The inflation-adjusted value of the 1983 high bids is $7.37 billion in 2008 dollars, which is essentially twice the amount bid in 2008.
Looking at the average high bids, this lease sale was even more remarkable. The average high bid for CGOM Lease Sale 206 was $5.98 million. That was nearly 50% higher than the average high bid from the previous CGOM lease sale in October 2007, and the 2008 average high bid was more than 7 times the average high bid from the previous 10 years before that ($839,000 from 1996 to 2006).
The average high bid of $5.98 million in the most recent CGOM lease sale was also the first to surpass the record average high bid of $5.29 million set in 1983. That represents a 13% increase over the previous record average high bid from 1983. Again, taking inflation into account sets the 1983 average high bid well above this most recent sale, but the fact still remains that CGOM lease sale 206 was record-setting.
By all of these marks, this was an exceptional lease sale that shows the level of interest that the Gulf of Mexico still holds.
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=58634
There is no MOST,
so far as I can tell, there is just MOSH
There is another "mesa" named entity MTR with a historical relationship but otherwise mesa offshore is MOSH.
I think that the 5% you mentioned represents a reduction in royalty interest via machinations of defendants which our lawsuit aims to restore to the prior 50%, among other things. Some of these docs are a little hard to read through and I admit I don't have a thorough understanding of the different types of royalities ("overriding", "working interest", etc.) how they work exactly. I imagine others with better grasp will chime in eventually with clearer explanation.
Did you happen to notice any indication of how long it took the appeals process to complete?
Obviously we are all hoping for a speedy (favorable) resolution in our case, but should also be mindful that delays are to be expected. Probably should half-expect some sort of appeals as a factor in accessing the overall situation as well. A comparison to the Texaco timeframe might give some indication.
Admittedly this is more of counting chickens before they are hatched...
If we accepted property, return of royalty interest, basically tangibles assets, as part of a settlement, this would be reflected as an increase in the trust's liquidation value and therefore a (presumably) much higher unit price. The advantage to the unitholder is that he would be able to forego paying taxes on the capital gain until he decided to sell some units. Whereas with cash only, (assuming it came this year), one would be stuck with a large one-time tax bill. Otherwise, one might be able to spread it out over a couple years or more...
Although the liquidity crunch is said to be easing (depending who you listen to), as I mentioned before, including some property in the mix might also make it easier for pxd to assemble an offer, since the property portion would not require raising cash on hand.
Of course, lost revenues is pretty much a cash proposition all around. So, cash is good too. <g>
I just had another thought re: JPM.
Seems to me that one of the jobs of Trustee would have been to keep track of unitholders over the years, who they are and where they are in order to perform their duty of communication, royalty distribution, and so forth.
Surely the missing holders didn't "disappear" all at once. Now, all of a sudden, not enough can be found for an active quorum. If jpm was reasonably diligent, they must have been aware that some unitholders were "dropping out" of contact bit by bit over time and they could have called a vote to amend the rules to address this problem before it droppped below the critical 50% level. Obviously it has been in every other party's interest except the unitholders to allow the situation to deteriorate to the point of disfunction in this regard.
I recall someone mentioning that JPM initiated some sort of "negative" vote. The implied proposition that absentee unitholders would accede to impoverishing and disenfranchising themselves is preposterious.
re: "A "Docket control order" is the order and date of of events going forward like jury selection, deadlines, etc..."
Thanks for the illumination. I can understand now how control of the timing of events can greatly effect the ability of one side or the other to represent their case. So achieving mutual agreement is desirable to establish an environment of fairness in that regard.
So, goodness me, it do seem like we are moving forward toward trial.
What is it that they have to agree on?
Isn't it like taking a number at the DMV?
I guess that I don't understand what a docket control order is? Presumably more than assigning an order number?
"I like #39"
"No, #13"
"No, that's unlucky, how about #1243?"?
"gee, at this rate we're never going to agree on a docket control number..." <g>
NaturalGas(Nymex)(J8) 10.214 -0.016 -0.16% 06:26:00
per barchart.com
btw: There is also an etf that can be used to track (or invest directly in) nat gas:
UNG = United States Natural Gas Fund
also of possible interest, (previously mentioned)
USO = United States Oil Fund
The 60,800 units (realtively small amt) shown as short for MOSH is probably just normal market maker transactions that get squared up periodically. Obviously not enough to trigger a squeeze. (0.5 day to cover = probably what gets covered more or less each day by MM as they reset)
Whoever posted the shortsqueeze.com link - thanks. Using it look at some other stocks I'm interested in. Most interesting indeed <g>.
Too bad it doesn't show when or at what price distribution but still pretty good. (handy)
your wager was with dragon man so I guess I won't hold you to pay but a while back I heard that Schwab allowed shorting of pennies so I called them and asked the question.
The broker I talked to said, yes, they will let you short but it would "not be worth your while". Apparently they make the margin requirements so high that it is somewhat impractical in most cases. We didn't discuss a specific stock but I imagine that to short $1000 of, say, MOSH you might be required to hold $10,000 in cash, and so forth. Presumably it depends on the stock. I also think that there is a list of shortable including some but not all penny stocks. Probably also depends what they have on hand in inventory.
The number of different stocks increases logarithmically the lower the pps so I don't think that most brokers go out of their way to disallow retail shorting of pennies, they simply can't keep an inventory of 10,000 different stocks in sufficient quantity. There are probably practically countless more down in the quantum foam of the sub-penny realm.
A lot of them sit there with wide spreads with pretty much zero volume for days, so, as difficult as it is to simply exit a position on some these, trying to cover could be downright unnerving. SO there porbably really isn't that much demand anyway.
Someone said $3 but at least with Scott it is $5 minimum pps for shortable, but so far as I know (last time I checked). I think that is more typical. (with 100% margin being typical also)...
NaturalGas(Nymex)(J8) 9.99 -0.01 -0.10% 06:39:07
Up a bit more. Could break $10 soon... (ok ...duh <g>)
I believe coldest winter monthes and hottest summer are peak demand, considering that we are coming off of peak demand, rising price is intesresting (trend (?))...
There's a thought. Receiving property in leiu of (some) cash seems OK to me. I mean, PXD at some point has claimed that the wells in question have little or no value, so, if we were to take them at their word, handing them over should be no big deal for them, right? It would be an easy and painless way for thme to reduce their liability. (Unless the (our) properties are actually more valuable than they have previously claimed <g> )
yeah, so much for correlating with the price of oil today.
Well, 4 out of 5 stocks are down today. Law of averages I guess.
I use USO (US Oil Fund) to track intrday price of oil.
SOIGF seems to be tracking oil pretty closely at the moment. The 1.17 buys seems to have paused temporarily with a pause in oil.
Agree though that the low pps on these jr oilsands are irrational - way below book value. Just tough to call the gyrations.
"In accordance with the COGE Handbook, Discovered Resources are divided into "Recoverable Resources" and "Unrecoverable Resources" categories. "Unrecoverable Resources" include Contingent Resources, which are defined as those quantities of oil and gas estimated on a given date to be potentially recoverable from known accumulations but are not currently economic. "
--from the synenco website - northen lights section
So... (Recoverable) "Discovered Resources" are a whole lot better than the previous "Contingent Resources"
Conclusion: Tangible valuation of SOIGF just went up (alot) based on their recent (pre)feasability report.
SOIGF vs. BQI which is better?
Both are oil sands. Both keep upping reserves (of billions of barrels oil equiv). Both have only drilled a fraction of their overall holdings.
SOIGF has lower pps but is it truly a better value?
Just wonder if anyone has an opinion on this before I get around to more actual DD. My preliminary readings suggest both are more or less OK ...
I own a bit of both btw. (disclosure) <g>