Comments on Timothy D. Kailing's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/timothy-d-kailing/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/160193-natural-gas-production-outlook-decreases-are-in-the-offing?source=feed#comment-669181 669181 Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:38:27 -0400 tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav...
The figures you are using include gas used in extraction (ie returned to reservoir,) also carbon dioxide, water and non-gas contaminants and so on.
For ten years 1998 - 2008 dry production swung between 1.5 and 1.7 quadrillion cu feet per month declining to 1.5 to 1.6 per month in the years 2004 to 2008 but rising to 1.6 to 1.8 in 2008 to present.
This compares with consumption swinging between 1.5 (summer) and 2.5 (winter). The balance comprising about .25 per month was made up by imports from Canada and of LNG.
www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oi...
Shows this clearly. Whilst I understand your notion of looking at the rate of change of increase however, in a time of collapsing industrial demand and negligible spare storage or pipeline capacity, I think it ludicrous to imply that a slowing increase in production (as more expensive production is closed - hence collapse of rig counts) implies future pressure of shortage of supply.
Strange also that your article makes no mention of Quatar, of Canada, of deep well production... no mention of the collapse of European demand which led to prices at close to zero in the UK. www.theice.com/product... no mention of LNG imports/exports and no mention of demand figures.

It really does not really matter if supply is dropping if supply still exceeds demand and there is no storage which is clearly the case.
I recommend this piece in Time which explains it well:
www.time.com/time/busi...
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160193-natural-gas-production-outlook-decreases-are-in-the-offing?source=feed#comment-667271 667271 >>1. It is the simplest way to seasonally adjust the data, >>>which is important because there is considerable seasonal >>>pattern in natural gas production (this seasonal pattern had >>>been less pronounced lately, but it is still significant). Umm, what? Natural gas production exhibits virtually NO seasonality. Here is U.S. Dry Natural Gas Production (bcf/d) by month since Jan-1997. The difference between the biggest month (March) and the smallest month (September) is only 4.4%. Furthermore, I’m fairly sure this is explained by the effects of large hurricanes, which is not really “seasonality”. Jan 52.6 Feb 52.6 Mar 53.2 Apr 52.7 May 52.7 Jun 52.9 Jul 52.2 Aug 52.2 Sep 50.8 Oct 51.6 Nov 52.1 Dec 52.1 ]]> Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:37:29 -0400 >>1. It is the simplest way to seasonally adjust the data,
>>>which is important because there is considerable seasonal
>>>pattern in natural gas production (this seasonal pattern had
>>>been less pronounced lately, but it is still significant).


Umm, what? Natural gas production exhibits virtually NO seasonality. Here is U.S. Dry Natural Gas Production (bcf/d) by month since Jan-1997. The difference between the biggest month (March) and the smallest month (September) is only 4.4%. Furthermore, I’m fairly sure this is explained by the effects of large hurricanes, which is not really “seasonality”.

Jan 52.6
Feb 52.6
Mar 53.2
Apr 52.7
May 52.7
Jun 52.9
Jul 52.2
Aug 52.2
Sep 50.8
Oct 51.6
Nov 52.1
Dec 52.1
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160193-natural-gas-production-outlook-decreases-are-in-the-offing?source=feed#comment-666361 666361 Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:53:28 -0400 ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160193-natural-gas-production-outlook-decreases-are-in-the-offing?source=feed#comment-665830 665830 Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:13:00 -0400 That all depends on what is being done with the excess Carbon Dioxide when Nat Gas is extracted dried and scrubbed. Norway sequesters it but as I understand the US does not... big, big difference.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160193-natural-gas-production-outlook-decreases-are-in-the-offing?source=feed#comment-665329 665329 Mon, 07 Sep 2009 13:31:14 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/160193-natural-gas-production-outlook-decreases-are-in-the-offing?source=feed#comment-665317 665317 Mon, 07 Sep 2009 13:23:39 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/160193-natural-gas-production-outlook-decreases-are-in-the-offing?source=feed#comment-665202 665202 why can't it go under $2? If most of the producers are 100% hedged > for '09 (hence likely why their stock prices are not in the toilet > w/ NG price) and they have to produce to keep their valuable leases > and we have a 100 year supply, then why stop production at any price > when you're getting top (hedged) $ any how??? Someone needs to explain > to me why will they given these (and many other simar) factors. > > > Besides, did you notice that rig counts bottomed in early June and > actually started to uptick in July-Aug. Also, day rates never came > down enough. Not a good sign if you believe in major production cuts. > > > Also, if you look at the last recessions NG droped to around $2.5-2.7 > in real terms (adjusting for inflation); however, that was when US > NG production was believed to have peaked, which is why we later > created infrastructure for LNG imports- and those lows were before > we became the Saudi-Arabia of NG with massive supplies. So, it would > stand to reason that we'll see below $2 easy; esp. since we got so > quickly to $2.5 w/o resistance. > > Moreover, I'm very concerned about the long term pricing of NG. I'm > trying to see it as bullish as you do, but many long-term factors > seem like it might keep it very low- not the least of which is LNG > imports from Russia and Arabs when NG gets back over $4. > > Have a look at the LNG import spike between end '06 and early '07 > and it tracks *exactly* with a step down of NG price from 7 to 5. > This is insane that LNG could crush prices during a robust US economy. > I'm very scared now that with the paltry 2% trend growth expected > for the US (and EU?) going forward that they'll dump excess Euro > LNG onto the US and repeat that '06/'07 event. This would almost > certainly keep NG prices under $4 in the expected weak situation > for '10. This is a huge uncertainty in playing '09 weakness esp. > if buying into NG driller/services securities to play the "perfect > storm" against NG. That is, the LNG would dump just enough supply > to easily keep the storage full, thus keeping NG exploration and > cap ex down to a minimum, and b/c most NG producers are only partially > hedged for 2010 (maybe 30% or less?) then they would get killed in > 2010 making there hedged supported stock prices 2009 quite high. > This uncertainty really sucks! Can you discount this scenario?
> > the EU is expected to recover more slowly than the US so why (in > the context of those reports/articles I sent you) won't the LNG plays > dump what ever they can on the US. As I analyze the charts, the LNG > chart tells me a very bad story. That is, the June '09 LNG was sold > at only ~ $4.3 while volumes where a little above that just before > the '06 event (see above) when NG price in '06 was ~7, and then dumped > 2X the volume for 6 months and were more than happy to collect only > $5 in that time. Again, this was when the EU and US were heading > into a peak earning cycle. This tells me that the LNG players will > keep US NG prices in the toilet (<$4) until the US (and EU?) are > in a full recovery. Very, very bad for NG sector stocks for 2010. > Please debunk this gloom and doom scenario! It seems all too possible > if the magal V-shape recovery does not materialize in early 2010. > Hence, why with a weak EU they'll dump there LNG at a (double? june > '09) high rate and keep the US storage near max, thus NG prices in > the toilet. > > I'd really hate to additionally bet on a V-shape recovery on top > of the structural NG risks I've discussed. There are much more (risk > adjusted) profitable bets on a V-shape recovery in the market.
> > Betting on a V-shape recover is over the top for a NG bet at this > point. Also, how can you be so sure that that '06/'07 event (see > above) won't repeat in 2010? > > In summary, NG prices seem destined to go well under $2 well into > November, and while it may rebound next year LNG will keep it near > $4 and kill/hurt most US NG producers until the economy fully recovers > (1-2 years) and get NG price in the $5-6 range. > > So, you can try catching a falling knife or put your money in NG > stocks which will collapse next year when there hedges are gone and > NG is kept too low b/c of LNG. Seems like NG is a bad bet until > at least Nov. > > Cheers, > Ariel- > > ]]> Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:16:36 -0400
Intelligent and detailed comment. I don't have time to answer every detail, but the short answer is that you present the sort of scenarios that present a risk to any bullish gas investment at the moment. Particularly if U.S. growth (if any) is anemic, the risks are considerable. And while North American production still dominates the U.S. gas market, one of those risks is that LNG may have sufficient volume to have a real impact on NG at the margins if growth remains weak. Of course, low prices will generally tend to depress LNG, given the non-negligible transport and storage costs. But if, say, some Russian oligarch decides to dump LNG on the U.S. market, that would certainly further crater prices (but why he would want to do such a thing is hard to figure, though).

I also agree with you that some gas companies are more vulnerable, in the medium and longer term, than is gas itself, as their hedging level decays. Overall, I don't dismiss your bearish scenarios at all, but I think the deceleration of U.S. domestic production is not widely priced in by many investors (or even recognized) and is sufficiently important to have a real impact on prices fairly soon, which was why I wrote the article. I think this is likely to have a bullish impact on prices, all else being equal. But as you detail, all else may not be equal. I think there is large uncertainty on the consumption side (as I noted), and you point out that there are still uncertainties on the production side (citing LNG imports especially); both of which means that this is, by no means, a sure thing (rare things, those). If I had to put numbers on it (which I try to do, to optimize my reward/risk as best I can) I would say there is c. 30% probability of more, but probably modest, NG declines from here, but a c.70% probability of increases, and included in the latter is a real possibility of quite rapid price increases, far more than many expect (as they throw in the towel, in many cases). This is an ideal scenario for a levered option play, with known bounded risk, but potentially large returns. But it is no sure thing. As always assess and limit your risk -- unless you have a 100% probability of success, you must limit your downside!

One thought as to rig counts ticking up: it may be a small proportion, but I suspect that some of the activity of late is by producers in tight formations whose production has fallen off so much that they are forced to infill to deliver what they've already hedged.


On Sep 07 03:27 AM Aricool wrote:

> why can't it go under $2? If most of the producers are 100% hedged
> for '09 (hence likely why their stock prices are not in the toilet
> w/ NG price) and they have to produce to keep their valuable leases
> and we have a 100 year supply, then why stop production at any price
> when you're getting top (hedged) $ any how??? Someone needs to explain
> to me why will they given these (and many other simar) factors.
>
>
> Besides, did you notice that rig counts bottomed in early June and
> actually started to uptick in July-Aug. Also, day rates never came
> down enough. Not a good sign if you believe in major production cuts.
>
>
> Also, if you look at the last recessions NG droped to around $2.5-2.7
> in real terms (adjusting for inflation); however, that was when US
> NG production was believed to have peaked, which is why we later
> created infrastructure for LNG imports- and those lows were before
> we became the Saudi-Arabia of NG with massive supplies. So, it would
> stand to reason that we'll see below $2 easy; esp. since we got so
> quickly to $2.5 w/o resistance.
>
> Moreover, I'm very concerned about the long term pricing of NG. I'm
> trying to see it as bullish as you do, but many long-term factors
> seem like it might keep it very low- not the least of which is LNG
> imports from Russia and Arabs when NG gets back over $4.
>
> Have a look at the LNG import spike between end '06 and early '07
> and it tracks *exactly* with a step down of NG price from 7 to 5.
> This is insane that LNG could crush prices during a robust US economy.
> I'm very scared now that with the paltry 2% trend growth expected
> for the US (and EU?) going forward that they'll dump excess Euro
> LNG onto the US and repeat that '06/'07 event. This would almost
> certainly keep NG prices under $4 in the expected weak situation
> for '10. This is a huge uncertainty in playing '09 weakness esp.
> if buying into NG driller/services securities to play the "perfect
> storm" against NG. That is, the LNG would dump just enough supply
> to easily keep the storage full, thus keeping NG exploration and
> cap ex down to a minimum, and b/c most NG producers are only partially
> hedged for 2010 (maybe 30% or less?) then they would get killed in
> 2010 making there hedged supported stock prices 2009 quite high.
> This uncertainty really sucks! Can you discount this scenario?

>
> the EU is expected to recover more slowly than the US so why (in
> the context of those reports/articles I sent you) won't the LNG plays
> dump what ever they can on the US. As I analyze the charts, the LNG
> chart tells me a very bad story. That is, the June '09 LNG was sold
> at only ~ $4.3 while volumes where a little above that just before
> the '06 event (see above) when NG price in '06 was ~7, and then dumped
> 2X the volume for 6 months and were more than happy to collect only
> $5 in that time. Again, this was when the EU and US were heading
> into a peak earning cycle. This tells me that the LNG players will
> keep US NG prices in the toilet (<$4) until the US (and EU?) are
> in a full recovery. Very, very bad for NG sector stocks for 2010.
> Please debunk this gloom and doom scenario! It seems all too possible
> if the magal V-shape recovery does not materialize in early 2010.
> Hence, why with a weak EU they'll dump there LNG at a (double? june
> '09) high rate and keep the US storage near max, thus NG prices in
> the toilet.
>
> I'd really hate to additionally bet on a V-shape recovery on top
> of the structural NG risks I've discussed. There are much more (risk
> adjusted) profitable bets on a V-shape recovery in the market.

>
> Betting on a V-shape recover is over the top for a NG bet at this
> point. Also, how can you be so sure that that '06/'07 event (see
> above) won't repeat in 2010?
>
> In summary, NG prices seem destined to go well under $2 well into
> November, and while it may rebound next year LNG will keep it near
> $4 and kill/hurt most US NG producers until the economy fully recovers
> (1-2 years) and get NG price in the $5-6 range.
>
> So, you can try catching a falling knife or put your money in NG
> stocks which will collapse next year when there hedges are gone and
> NG is kept too low b/c of LNG. Seems like NG is a bad bet until
> at least Nov.
>
> Cheers,
> Ariel-
>
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160193-natural-gas-production-outlook-decreases-are-in-the-offing?source=feed#comment-664849 664849 Mon, 07 Sep 2009 03:27:46 -0400
Besides, did you notice that rig counts bottomed in early June and actually started to uptick in July-Aug. Also, day rates never came down enough. Not a good sign if you believe in major production cuts.

Also, if you look at the last recessions NG droped to around $2.5-2.7 in real terms (adjusting for inflation); however, that was when US NG production was believed to have peaked, which is why we later created infrastructure for LNG imports- and those lows were before we became the Saudi-Arabia of NG with massive supplies. So, it would stand to reason that we'll see below $2 easy; esp. since we got so quickly to $2.5 w/o resistance.

Moreover, I'm very concerned about the long term pricing of NG. I'm trying to see it as bullish as you do, but many long-term factors seem like it might keep it very low- not the least of which is LNG imports from Russia and Arabs when NG gets back over $4.

Have a look at the LNG import spike between end '06 and early '07 and it tracks *exactly* with a step down of NG price from 7 to 5. This is insane that LNG could crush prices during a robust US economy. I'm very scared now that with the paltry 2% trend growth expected for the US (and EU?) going forward that they'll dump excess Euro LNG onto the US and repeat that '06/'07 event. This would almost certainly keep NG prices under $4 in the expected weak situation for '10. This is a huge uncertainty in playing '09 weakness esp. if buying into NG driller/services securities to play the "perfect storm" against NG. That is, the LNG would dump just enough supply to easily keep the storage full, thus keeping NG exploration and cap ex down to a minimum, and b/c most NG producers are only partially hedged for 2010 (maybe 30% or less?) then they would get killed in 2010 making there hedged supported stock prices 2009 quite high. This uncertainty really sucks! Can you discount this scenario?

the EU is expected to recover more slowly than the US so why (in the context of those reports/articles I sent you) won't the LNG plays dump what ever they can on the US. As I analyze the charts, the LNG chart tells me a very bad story. That is, the June '09 LNG was sold at only ~ $4.3 while volumes where a little above that just before the '06 event (see above) when NG price in '06 was ~7, and then dumped 2X the volume for 6 months and were more than happy to collect only $5 in that time. Again, this was when the EU and US were heading into a peak earning cycle. This tells me that the LNG players will keep US NG prices in the toilet (<$4) until the US (and EU?) are in a full recovery. Very, very bad for NG sector stocks for 2010. Please debunk this gloom and doom scenario! It seems all too possible if the magal V-shape recovery does not materialize in early 2010. Hence, why with a weak EU they'll dump there LNG at a (double? june '09) high rate and keep the US storage near max, thus NG prices in the toilet.

I'd really hate to additionally bet on a V-shape recovery on top of the structural NG risks I've discussed. There are much more (risk adjusted) profitable bets on a V-shape recovery in the market.

Betting on a V-shape recover is over the top for a NG bet at this point. Also, how can you be so sure that that '06/'07 event (see above) won't repeat in 2010?

In summary, NG prices seem destined to go well under $2 well into November, and while it may rebound next year LNG will keep it near $4 and kill/hurt most US NG producers until the economy fully recovers (1-2 years) and get NG price in the $5-6 range.

So, you can try catching a falling knife or put your money in NG stocks which will collapse next year when there hedges are gone and NG is kept too low b/c of LNG. Seems like NG is a bad bet until at least Nov.

Cheers,
Ariel-



]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160193-natural-gas-production-outlook-decreases-are-in-the-offing?source=feed#comment-664655 664655 if we can manage to start manufacturing things again in this country > (a big if), NG consumption will increase.]]> Sun, 06 Sep 2009 20:20:05 -0400

On Sep 06 12:10 PM john s. gordon wrote:

> if we can manage to start manufacturing things again in this country
> (a big if), NG consumption will increase.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160193-natural-gas-production-outlook-decreases-are-in-the-offing?source=feed#comment-664615 664615 Sun, 06 Sep 2009 19:36:32 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/160193-natural-gas-production-outlook-decreases-are-in-the-offing?source=feed#comment-664416 664416 Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:55:07 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/160193-natural-gas-production-outlook-decreases-are-in-the-offing?source=feed#comment-664037 664037 jack]]> Sun, 06 Sep 2009 12:10:20 -0400 > jack]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160193-natural-gas-production-outlook-decreases-are-in-the-offing?source=feed#comment-663866 663866 Sun, 06 Sep 2009 10:05:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/96685-why-drill-baby-drill-does-not-translate-into-effective-national-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-288363 288363 Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:21:58 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/99521-greenspans-monstrous-love-child-a-grim-bedtime-story?source=feed#comment-280798 280798 Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:59:38 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/99521-greenspans-monstrous-love-child-a-grim-bedtime-story?source=feed#comment-280626 280626 jack]]> Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:28:01 -0400 > jack]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/99521-greenspans-monstrous-love-child-a-grim-bedtime-story?source=feed#comment-280527 280527 Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:44:46 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/99521-greenspans-monstrous-love-child-a-grim-bedtime-story?source=feed#comment-280386 280386 Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:56:01 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/99521-greenspans-monstrous-love-child-a-grim-bedtime-story?source=feed#comment-280364 280364 Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:30:47 -0400
I salute your talent and compassion. Standing Ovation.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/99521-greenspans-monstrous-love-child-a-grim-bedtime-story?source=feed#comment-280353 280353 Sun, 12 Oct 2008 08:17:58 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/96685-why-drill-baby-drill-does-not-translate-into-effective-national-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-274029 274029 Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:09:21 -0400
Add to this opening up ANWAR and the shelf and oil shales and America would have all the fossil fuel it needs for 4oo years.... yes 400 years.

see; www.strategicnine.com/...

PROPOSED ENERGY EMERGENCY EXECUTIVE ORDER:

“THE BUSH AMERICAN ENERGY-ECONOMY FREEDOM PROJECT”

1. Declare an energy emergency and set aside the OCS permitting requirements so as to fast-track various critical new energy developments. Immediately Grant new ANWR, OCS and Oil-Shale “Energy Emergency” leases on a first come first served basis allowing smaller American companies to participate. This will blunt the complaints that big oil is being pandered to.

2. Exempt the new lease areas from any and all State and Federal lawsuits, imposts and delays. (See Senator DeMint’s proposed “Drill Now” Act.)

3. Offer low-interest loans for new energy projects production equipment, even more for natural gas projects, a cleaner low C02 fuel.

4. Grant a tax holiday for projects in declared special "American Energy Economic Zones" (AEEZ) to stimulate immediate action on the ground.

5. Temporarily eliminate up-front oil and gas lease payments and other imposts, in return for an increased royalty (20%) on the back end; after production commences.

6. Mandate that all new cars sold (not just made, but sold) in the United States within 3-4 years to be flexible fueled—operable on any combination of Natural Gas, Compressed Natural Gas, (CNG) or Gasoline. Alternatively alcohol (including both methanol and ethanol) or gasoline fuel.

The Democrats are secretly sticking with a flawed nation-killing, anti-carbon theology that opposes all new oil production. The ultimate cost of their policies if implemented, will be the destruction of the American economy.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/96685-why-drill-baby-drill-does-not-translate-into-effective-national-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-270488 270488 Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:01:55 -0400 Republicans have always advocated subsidizing the oil business, and fought subsidizing alternative energy. That is historical fact and you shouldn't deny it just because oil prices have suddenly gone up in the last year and it now looks dumb. A year ago you wouldn't have seen any reason to support alternative energy and neither would your party, because it doesn't look ahead.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/96685-why-drill-baby-drill-does-not-translate-into-effective-national-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-267502 267502 Sun, 28 Sep 2008 11:52:35 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/96685-why-drill-baby-drill-does-not-translate-into-effective-national-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-265947 265947 Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:12:01 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/96685-why-drill-baby-drill-does-not-translate-into-effective-national-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-263820 263820 Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:00:51 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/96685-why-drill-baby-drill-does-not-translate-into-effective-national-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-263488 263488 Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:26:27 -0400
I'm tempted to say "OK, fine, put your faith in drilling, build your house 40 miles from work, drive a gas-guzzler and let me know how that works out for you in the next 10-20 yrs." The problem is that the oil-is-everywhere cult stands in the way of developing an economy that can survive the $250-$500 bbl oil that we will probably see in our lifetimes. The folks who think $0.70 gasoline is right around the corner are the ones opposing light rail transit in and between our cities. They are the ones mocking wind, solar, and geothermal energy solutions. They are the ones who think anyone who prepares for the likely future by driving a small car or a hybrid is a granola-chewing fruitcake. They are the ones advocating wars in Asia and the Middle East to, in theory, obtain control over oil (despite plenty of evidence that such wars disrupt production, raise prices, and result in dictatorships). Finally, the oil-is-everywhere kool-aid-drinkers were the ones buying Ford Expeditions and GMC Tahoes to drive back and forth from their exurban homes to work. The plummeting average US fuel economy in the 90's and 00's plus the increased average commute distance during that same time is largely responsible for the quickly increasing US demand that drove up prices for ALL of us. Thanks a lot.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/96685-why-drill-baby-drill-does-not-translate-into-effective-national-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-263170 263170 Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:22:31 -0400
(laughs hard) Y'all don't use linen table napkins at lunch I reckon?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/96685-why-drill-baby-drill-does-not-translate-into-effective-national-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-263118 263118 Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:53:48 -0400
Carbonate - don't get too worked up. We'll make money off of the 1d1ots (I would just say idiots, but I get some satisfaction from mimicking ol' fearful) along the way! Now, I take exception to your assertion about some foreign countries having lower environmental standards - some have the same high standards, they just don't enforce them! You and I both know that a dozer and gradeall can do wonders with 5 million barrels of oil and a bunch of sand - hell, that is what you call stabilized drift sand.

Alan - there is those of us who understand, and there is them that don't. This whole thread of commentary addresses the rather sophisticated statistical analysis of the author, noting in particular that he knows nothing of the underlying subject matter as evidenced by the complete absense of discussion of natural gas. In that analysis, the author concludes that drilling won't "solve the probleml." Without defining what "the problem" is, I believe that a majority of the commentators have pointed out that drilling is PART of any solution of an ENERGY problem. But hey, what do I know, I'm only a lowly engineer. Who happens to be an attorney. Who has spent a decade or so in the Middle East. I'm sure I'm not as smart as ol' scared ass "Fearing" is. Alan, you live in Houston Tx, thus you are obviously backward. Carbonate, based on your name, you have G&G knowledge, thus probably live in some backward place like Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, or some other such hell hole. We are all inferior - so let's not argue, we need to just go make $$$$$$$. The other folks? They will be the source of that $$$$$$$!

Laissez Les Bon Temps Roulez!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/96685-why-drill-baby-drill-does-not-translate-into-effective-national-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-263095 263095 Tue, 23 Sep 2008 23:04:45 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/96685-why-drill-baby-drill-does-not-translate-into-effective-national-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-263008 263008 Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:17:35 -0400
The comment by 'carbonates' above is absolutely true, at least among the oil people who know what they're doing. Rugged individualism still exists. We don't give a damn what happens to the world as such. And if you get in the way, we go elsewhere.]]>