re: "starting to get paranoid lol
No fair. I called dibs on getting paranoid first. You're supposed to talk me out of it. <g>
Actually I am feeling a little better about things. Your previous analogy about how getting rid of the victims doesn't get rid of the crime was a good point.
So one is given to wonder, just what is it they are up to?
A saying comes to mind: "It's not paranoia when they're really out to get you" <g>
Since oil & nat gas are at multi-year lows this is just about the worst timing to try to sell o&g property from the seller's perspective. I'm currently trying to rest my brain from trying to understand an article I just read about something called "oil swaps". Nymex oil is based on WTI (West Texas Intermediate), higher quality oil than Brent crude, yet Brent is currently selling for 10% to 20% more than WTI. Very abnormal. Supposedly, WTI oil is being swapped out of the SPR
(Strategic Petroleum Reserve) in exchange for Brent, so it doesn't show up on accounting as a drain while at the same time it allows the storage facilities at Cushing to fill up-which is used for the petro report every Wednesday. Thwe bottom line is that crude prices are being manipulated.
The implication is that oil (and other energy e.g. nat gas) are set to rise, probably spike back up in the probably not too distant future, if not sooner when it all comes unravelled at some point. World production capability is still maxxed out and set to decline as exploration projects get canclled due to low prices and demand will come back with any kind of global recovery causing the expected price rise. We know that $140 oil causes a severe economic downturn, but the point at which economic recovery hits a wall again is probably somwhere in between, say $50 to $70 a barrel as an "equalibrium" point. That implies higher nat gas as well.
In regard to MOSH, I'm still pretty sure MOSH per se will get _something_ out of all this. The $50 million Woodside paid for a 50% interest in one lease implies at least .70 per unit worth of recent past investment value right there.
I noticed an attempted tankage on the news but interestingly it didn't seem to work very well.
I imagine this is an effort to scare unitholders out on the threat of cutting them out by announcing their intent to auction off the properties.
Actually I have had instances of restricted shares sitting in my account at all zeroes before so I'm thinking that worst case, even if gets sold, the cash will stay seperate, presumably paid to exisitng unit holders sooner or later but there would still be no reason to obliterate the actual units even if they ended up being shares of nothing physical any more. They would still have to be preserved as claims on pending settlements or damages awards, right?
So the spectre of announced auction is a little unsettling to unitholders, probably its main intent, but is actually just a paper tiger. It can't really hurt us, right?
Of course, paper cuts can be a b!tch... <g>.
