Mmarrkk's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/13201/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/174577-the-oil-casino-sec-heading-for-monte-carlo-part-iii?source=feed#comment-772777 772777
The new rules will be more more "fit for purpose" for reserves engineers. I've done reserves accounting for over 30 years and I fully support the new rules. If anything, they don't go far enough in changing the way we account for reserves.

And, having a lot of reserves doesn't really matter. Its the VALUE behind these reserves. Having 100 million barrels of oil in the oil sands or in a high tax rate state such as certain middle east companies is not the same as having 100 million barrels of oil in the shallow Gulf fo Mexico. Its all about dollars and profit, not barrels.]]> Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:36:10 -0500
The new rules will be more more "fit for purpose" for reserves engineers. I've done reserves accounting for over 30 years and I fully support the new rules. If anything, they don't go far enough in changing the way we account for reserves.

And, having a lot of reserves doesn't really matter. Its the VALUE behind these reserves. Having 100 million barrels of oil in the oil sands or in a high tax rate state such as certain middle east companies is not the same as having 100 million barrels of oil in the shallow Gulf fo Mexico. Its all about dollars and profit, not barrels.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174300-options-trader-thursday-outlook-cre-data-day?source=feed#comment-768808 768808
1. How does one have the **lls to go from a tax cheat to the Treasury Sec.? Or better yet, how does one avoid criminal prosecution when it is found that you are a tax cheat?

2. How does one request additional taxation of the common, everyday citizen when the Treasury Sec. cheated on his own taxes?

3. As Treasury Sec., how does Timmy intend on paying off the trillions of dollars of debt he and his boss are saddling us and our children with?

4. Why doesn't he scream about the additional deficit spending being taken on by his boss? Trillions more spending in healthcare reform, even if you cheat and use the gov't estimates which we know will be at least 50% too low!]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:46:46 -0500
1. How does one have the **lls to go from a tax cheat to the Treasury Sec.? Or better yet, how does one avoid criminal prosecution when it is found that you are a tax cheat?

2. How does one request additional taxation of the common, everyday citizen when the Treasury Sec. cheated on his own taxes?

3. As Treasury Sec., how does Timmy intend on paying off the trillions of dollars of debt he and his boss are saddling us and our children with?

4. Why doesn't he scream about the additional deficit spending being taken on by his boss? Trillions more spending in healthcare reform, even if you cheat and use the gov't estimates which we know will be at least 50% too low!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174411-the-slippery-truth-about-oil-price?source=feed#comment-768786 768786
What's missing? Anything that remotely looks like a plan for the near and mid terms. Seeking Truth, you have anything constructive to add? Two verses of kumba yah does not count!]]> Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:38:37 -0500
What's missing? Anything that remotely looks like a plan for the near and mid terms. Seeking Truth, you have anything constructive to add? Two verses of kumba yah does not count!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174138-no-climate-bill-this-year-senators-say?source=feed#comment-767393 767393
And where will all this money go? Why, to our friendly tax collecting hogs in the federal government who wil then take it, give it to slugs who aren't working or waste it on pet projects. Never ever give the government more money! They will waste it! Give it to private industry and they will create jobs! Real jobs, not made up jobs like our beloved President has done. Liar!]]> Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:30:48 -0500
And where will all this money go? Why, to our friendly tax collecting hogs in the federal government who wil then take it, give it to slugs who aren't working or waste it on pet projects. Never ever give the government more money! They will waste it! Give it to private industry and they will create jobs! Real jobs, not made up jobs like our beloved President has done. Liar!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/174138-no-climate-bill-this-year-senators-say?source=feed#comment-767388 767388
I only hope that more of the Socialist-in-Chief's plans and programs go down in flames! We must push forward with a Fail-Baby-Fail plan that renders him and his jack-booted fellow socialists toothless and harmless. 2010 elections will be a great start.

Hat's off to Sen. Lieberman for standing up to this Joker!]]> Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:25:53 -0500
I only hope that more of the Socialist-in-Chief's plans and programs go down in flames! We must push forward with a Fail-Baby-Fail plan that renders him and his jack-booted fellow socialists toothless and harmless. 2010 elections will be a great start.

Hat's off to Sen. Lieberman for standing up to this Joker!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/170775-natural-gas-extraction-may-be-more-expensive-than-it-seems?source=feed#comment-742843 742843
The water goes down into the ground and the volumes pumped out are put in retention ponds, treated, and re-used for frac'ing future wells.

BTW, many of the shale plays use plain old sand, not ceramic proppant.

The chemicals used in fracing make up less than 1 % and most are found in your home right now. Look at the contents in a bottle of Formula 409 or Windex!

Look at the "back-end" costs for building a freaking Toyota Prius. Those batteries contain some pretty nasty crud too, you know. As does the plastices/fiberglass that makes up the body. And did you know that NATURAL GAS is used as a raw material for making many of those parts? Get a grip you NIMBY!]]> Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:05:56 -0500
The water goes down into the ground and the volumes pumped out are put in retention ponds, treated, and re-used for frac'ing future wells.

BTW, many of the shale plays use plain old sand, not ceramic proppant.

The chemicals used in fracing make up less than 1 % and most are found in your home right now. Look at the contents in a bottle of Formula 409 or Windex!

Look at the "back-end" costs for building a freaking Toyota Prius. Those batteries contain some pretty nasty crud too, you know. As does the plastices/fiberglass that makes up the body. And did you know that NATURAL GAS is used as a raw material for making many of those parts? Get a grip you NIMBY!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/170775-natural-gas-extraction-may-be-more-expensive-than-it-seems?source=feed#comment-742310 742310
The price of gas will probably be driven by the rate at which companies will be able to access these resources, the ability to get experienced rig and frac crews and the overall macro economic conditions. If demand stays low, gas will be plentiful, prices will stay low and drilling will be slow. But if demand picks up, there will be a temporary shortfall that drives prices up. As prices go up, drilling will rapidly increase since the shale developments can be turned "on and off" with somewhat relative ease. As drilling ramps up, supply will outstrip demand and prices will fall a bit. Then drilling will slow down and production will go down, falling below demand, and the whole supply/demand pricing cycle will start over again. Watch for prices bouncing along between $4 and $8 for a while!

Prices can't stay low forever, since new drilling won't occur below $3-4/mcf. That will cause shortfalls, rising prices and, well, you know the cycles!]]> Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:49:50 -0500
The price of gas will probably be driven by the rate at which companies will be able to access these resources, the ability to get experienced rig and frac crews and the overall macro economic conditions. If demand stays low, gas will be plentiful, prices will stay low and drilling will be slow. But if demand picks up, there will be a temporary shortfall that drives prices up. As prices go up, drilling will rapidly increase since the shale developments can be turned "on and off" with somewhat relative ease. As drilling ramps up, supply will outstrip demand and prices will fall a bit. Then drilling will slow down and production will go down, falling below demand, and the whole supply/demand pricing cycle will start over again. Watch for prices bouncing along between $4 and $8 for a while!

Prices can't stay low forever, since new drilling won't occur below $3-4/mcf. That will cause shortfalls, rising prices and, well, you know the cycles!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169914-conocophilips-time-to-embrace-natural-gas-transportation?source=feed#comment-740417 740417
Yes, $145/BO was a disaster in general. Yes, it helped me out a lot as an investor in oils and an employee of oil/gas co'. But on a macro level, given the state of the economy, it was bad. Now, layer on that oil price on top of the ever increasing debt, the soon to be increasing taxation, the anti-business legislation we seem to see everyday, and the precarious condition of the stock market, I think it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back! The stimulous money only stimulated a lot of government pocket books and executive salaries and union chief's savings. It isn't going to what needs stimulating. My wife's small business is doing well, but will probably not make it through healthcare reform due to the taxes and requirements that will be placed on them. Based on what she's read of the bills so far, she'll just shut it down and lay off the employees and let them go as contractors. Fine with me...I get my full-time wife back! But the employees will probably not be too happy!

I'm still pushing nat gas as a transport fuel and I'm fighting with all of my energy and money the cap/tax/trade bills. Those will drive costs way too high at the wrong time. Its too much, too soon, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons and needs to be put on the back burner (nat gas burner BTW) until our economy is out of ICU.


On Oct 30 05:10 PM Michael Fitzsimmons wrote:

> long_on_oil: hey, i love BP and STO. of all the earnings released,
> i think you'd have to say that BP and CVX had the best quarters.
>
>
> Mmarrk: i have sent emails to Conoco's BOD. no reply, and obviously
> no success. in light of all their investments in natural gas plays,
> i just don't undertand COP management's aversion to natural gas transportation.
> what jim cramer tonite, he's in OK interviewing some natural gas
> heavyweights. i am sure they'll be talking about it. the U.S. will
> have to migrate to natural gas transportation at some point - we'll
> have no choice. the question is, will the government wait until there
> is rioting in the streets, or will we do it before a crisis. of course,
> i think last year's $145/barrel oil was a crisis...
>
> auto44: if you are compariing to the US dollar, it's a good question,
> but a better question maybe this: china, india, brazil, france, and
> germany have all said they are in favor of a new world reserve currency
> not based on a single country. so, the real long-term question is
> this: what will the U.S. dollar be valued to wrt a new world reserve
> currency based on a basket of currencies, gold, and silver? the answer
> to this question, i believe, is: "less than it is valued today".]]> Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:25:27 -0500
Yes, $145/BO was a disaster in general. Yes, it helped me out a lot as an investor in oils and an employee of oil/gas co'. But on a macro level, given the state of the economy, it was bad. Now, layer on that oil price on top of the ever increasing debt, the soon to be increasing taxation, the anti-business legislation we seem to see everyday, and the precarious condition of the stock market, I think it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back! The stimulous money only stimulated a lot of government pocket books and executive salaries and union chief's savings. It isn't going to what needs stimulating. My wife's small business is doing well, but will probably not make it through healthcare reform due to the taxes and requirements that will be placed on them. Based on what she's read of the bills so far, she'll just shut it down and lay off the employees and let them go as contractors. Fine with me...I get my full-time wife back! But the employees will probably not be too happy!

I'm still pushing nat gas as a transport fuel and I'm fighting with all of my energy and money the cap/tax/trade bills. Those will drive costs way too high at the wrong time. Its too much, too soon, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons and needs to be put on the back burner (nat gas burner BTW) until our economy is out of ICU.


On Oct 30 05:10 PM Michael Fitzsimmons wrote:

> long_on_oil: hey, i love BP and STO. of all the earnings released,
> i think you'd have to say that BP and CVX had the best quarters.
>
>
> Mmarrk: i have sent emails to Conoco's BOD. no reply, and obviously
> no success. in light of all their investments in natural gas plays,
> i just don't undertand COP management's aversion to natural gas transportation.
> what jim cramer tonite, he's in OK interviewing some natural gas
> heavyweights. i am sure they'll be talking about it. the U.S. will
> have to migrate to natural gas transportation at some point - we'll
> have no choice. the question is, will the government wait until there
> is rioting in the streets, or will we do it before a crisis. of course,
> i think last year's $145/barrel oil was a crisis...
>
> auto44: if you are compariing to the US dollar, it's a good question,
> but a better question maybe this: china, india, brazil, france, and
> germany have all said they are in favor of a new world reserve currency
> not based on a single country. so, the real long-term question is
> this: what will the U.S. dollar be valued to wrt a new world reserve
> currency based on a basket of currencies, gold, and silver? the answer
> to this question, i believe, is: "less than it is valued today".]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169982-recycling-u-s-coins-into-silver?source=feed#comment-740392 740392
Now, overall, that won't kill off the general premise of using Nat Gas for transport; LNG will keep the price low for a while. But it does get us back into a dependency we'd rather not have. Going forward, big LNG exporters will be Qataris, Iranians, Russians and Australians. Only one of which I feel totally comfortable with!]]> Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:15:37 -0500
Now, overall, that won't kill off the general premise of using Nat Gas for transport; LNG will keep the price low for a while. But it does get us back into a dependency we'd rather not have. Going forward, big LNG exporters will be Qataris, Iranians, Russians and Australians. Only one of which I feel totally comfortable with!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169914-conocophilips-time-to-embrace-natural-gas-transportation?source=feed#comment-736916 736916
Borrowing money to pay dividend? Bad

Increasing dividend while increasing borrowing to pay for said increasing dividend? I just don't understand!

You are right about the natural gas transportation. Maybe we need to direct this line of thinking to the B.O.D.'s?]]> Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:56:28 -0400
Borrowing money to pay dividend? Bad

Increasing dividend while increasing borrowing to pay for said increasing dividend? I just don't understand!

You are right about the natural gas transportation. Maybe we need to direct this line of thinking to the B.O.D.'s?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/168850-shale-gas-promises-promises-promises?source=feed#comment-735250 735250 Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:55:54 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/169403-two-ways-to-profit-from-new-york-s-uncertainty-about-drilling-for-natural-gas?source=feed#comment-735189 735189
This is just another Greenie Weenie attempt at ruining American Industry.

And the difference between "alleged" and "proved" is a huge one! Anyone can "allege" that someone killed another person, but you gotta prove it! Many of the cases I've seen of "alleged" pollution of ground water by frac jobs are just crappola! The science doesn't back up the claim, and by science I mean simple things like physics, geometry, fluid dynamics.]]> Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:14:19 -0400
This is just another Greenie Weenie attempt at ruining American Industry.

And the difference between "alleged" and "proved" is a huge one! Anyone can "allege" that someone killed another person, but you gotta prove it! Many of the cases I've seen of "alleged" pollution of ground water by frac jobs are just crappola! The science doesn't back up the claim, and by science I mean simple things like physics, geometry, fluid dynamics.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/168850-shale-gas-promises-promises-promises?source=feed#comment-732314 732314 Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:56:03 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/165272-is-exxon-betting-on-100-oil?source=feed#comment-706957 706957
XOM invests for the long term. For those on Wall Street, "long term" means something more than 1 or 2 quarters out!! Just wanted to make sure you knew that. XOM is looking 5-10 years out. Oil >$100 in 2015-2020: almost a dead-certain cinch!

While you talk about political risk in Ghana, the current U.S. Congress and Administration make investing in the U.S. much more risky. For example: at their whim, the Congress is talking about completely changing the tax rules for only the major oil companies. We have that blubbering idiot Sen. Markey wanting to re-write contracts with companies just because prices are high and Congress wants to! Thanks, Supreme Court, for reminding him that when you sign a contract, you adhere to the terms on that contract!! Investing in capital projects in the U.S. carries an ever increasing amount of risk due to a) overwhelming budget deficits, b) nothing on the horizon that shows our government will do anything about spending c) in fact, rapid rises in social giveaways and increased government control and spending d) the desire to change tax law to continue to soak the successful e) the desire to change tax law to discriminately tax single industries or companies deemed as not "politically correct".

Sorry, I vote with XOM over the next ten years! They have more money in the bank than most banks have in the banks! And have proven management, not like our political leaders who are only proven as failures.]]> Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:17:45 -0400
XOM invests for the long term. For those on Wall Street, "long term" means something more than 1 or 2 quarters out!! Just wanted to make sure you knew that. XOM is looking 5-10 years out. Oil >$100 in 2015-2020: almost a dead-certain cinch!

While you talk about political risk in Ghana, the current U.S. Congress and Administration make investing in the U.S. much more risky. For example: at their whim, the Congress is talking about completely changing the tax rules for only the major oil companies. We have that blubbering idiot Sen. Markey wanting to re-write contracts with companies just because prices are high and Congress wants to! Thanks, Supreme Court, for reminding him that when you sign a contract, you adhere to the terms on that contract!! Investing in capital projects in the U.S. carries an ever increasing amount of risk due to a) overwhelming budget deficits, b) nothing on the horizon that shows our government will do anything about spending c) in fact, rapid rises in social giveaways and increased government control and spending d) the desire to change tax law to continue to soak the successful e) the desire to change tax law to discriminately tax single industries or companies deemed as not "politically correct".

Sorry, I vote with XOM over the next ten years! They have more money in the bank than most banks have in the banks! And have proven management, not like our political leaders who are only proven as failures.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164713-how-much-natural-gas-remains-in-the-usa?source=feed#comment-703645 703645
Second, all these "nasty's" you talk about are found in your grocery store in things like Formula 409 cleaner.

The good folks of New York don't want anyone drilling for natural gas but will be the same people screaming when their natural gas costs them $15/mcf or when they are beholden to Middle Eastern Countries for the import of LNG. Oh, yeah, they won't allow that either. Maybe we should let them freeze in the winter a while. ]]> Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:35:09 -0400
Second, all these "nasty's" you talk about are found in your grocery store in things like Formula 409 cleaner.

The good folks of New York don't want anyone drilling for natural gas but will be the same people screaming when their natural gas costs them $15/mcf or when they are beholden to Middle Eastern Countries for the import of LNG. Oh, yeah, they won't allow that either. Maybe we should let them freeze in the winter a while. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164713-how-much-natural-gas-remains-in-the-usa?source=feed#comment-702483 702483
First: shale gas is economical at somewhere between $5 and $7 per mcf. There is an ever-decreasing amount of risk to these resource volumes in the shales. So discount the shale gas at your own peril. Even if only half of it is actually recoverable, then we still have a large volume of reserves to transition us to another source.

Second: someone earlier pointed out excatly that proven reserves are dependent on price. Push the price of gas up to $10 and you'll see an increase in proven reserves and you'll also find exploration activity picking up. Those "undiscovered" resources are based on past experience and geological studies of new basins. Start drilling and you will see these resources discovered.

Again, at today's prices, no there is not 75 years of reserves. But let the price rise a bit to that $7 range, and you'll see a bunch of new reserves. Get the goofy government off of our backs and you'll see even more.

One thing I do agree with you on: there is a "crisis" looming. But "crisis" needs to be defined: I view the crisis as gas prices rising to maybe $10 or more for a short period of time, but then drilling will rapidly increase, supply will outstrip demand and prices will decline. We'll constantly be in this up and down tug of war but at a reasonable price (less than $15/mmBtu) there is plenty of gas!]]> Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:56:30 -0400
First: shale gas is economical at somewhere between $5 and $7 per mcf. There is an ever-decreasing amount of risk to these resource volumes in the shales. So discount the shale gas at your own peril. Even if only half of it is actually recoverable, then we still have a large volume of reserves to transition us to another source.

Second: someone earlier pointed out excatly that proven reserves are dependent on price. Push the price of gas up to $10 and you'll see an increase in proven reserves and you'll also find exploration activity picking up. Those "undiscovered" resources are based on past experience and geological studies of new basins. Start drilling and you will see these resources discovered.

Again, at today's prices, no there is not 75 years of reserves. But let the price rise a bit to that $7 range, and you'll see a bunch of new reserves. Get the goofy government off of our backs and you'll see even more.

One thing I do agree with you on: there is a "crisis" looming. But "crisis" needs to be defined: I view the crisis as gas prices rising to maybe $10 or more for a short period of time, but then drilling will rapidly increase, supply will outstrip demand and prices will decline. We'll constantly be in this up and down tug of war but at a reasonable price (less than $15/mmBtu) there is plenty of gas!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/485670-money68/27300-epex?source=feed#comment-699974 699974 Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:07:45 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/164046-natural-gas-production-declines-are-becoming-more-evident?source=feed#comment-697218 697218 Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:57:39 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/162221-what-s-driving-natural-gas?source=feed#comment-682741 682741

On Sep 18 11:24 AM bradiop wrote:

> I find this part of the analysis hard to believe:
>
> Supply: Liquefied natural gas (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> flows may not flood the U.S. and domestic production could fall swiftly
> because it is not sustainable at current activity levels.
>
> There seems to be fair amount of evidence the supply of gas has increased
> and not going to decrease.]]> Fri, 18 Sep 2009 13:52:19 -0400

On Sep 18 11:24 AM bradiop wrote:

> I find this part of the analysis hard to believe:
>
> Supply: Liquefied natural gas (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> flows may not flood the U.S. and domestic production could fall swiftly
> because it is not sustainable at current activity levels.
>
> There seems to be fair amount of evidence the supply of gas has increased
> and not going to decrease.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/161001-what-s-the-u-s-s-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-671932 671932 Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:14:43 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/160548-why-is-congress-agnostic-about-natural-gas?source=feed#comment-668271 668271 Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:33:16 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/160548-why-is-congress-agnostic-about-natural-gas?source=feed#comment-668269 668269
Seriously, I just don't think he gets it...plus he's still in the pocket of Coal!]]> Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:32:50 -0400
Seriously, I just don't think he gets it...plus he's still in the pocket of Coal!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160282-tiber-oilfield-spells-major-upside-for-prices?source=feed#comment-665510 665510
"The reserve estimates you often hear quoted in the news are for estimates of original oil in place (OOIP), the total amount of oil contained in the reservoir."

This is incorrect. When someone uses the term "reserve" or "reserves", by definition this is what is recoverable. The word "resource" is used at times to define something less certain.

2020 sounds like a long time from now!! ]]> Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:28:07 -0400
"The reserve estimates you often hear quoted in the news are for estimates of original oil in place (OOIP), the total amount of oil contained in the reservoir."

This is incorrect. When someone uses the term "reserve" or "reserves", by definition this is what is recoverable. The word "resource" is used at times to define something less certain.

2020 sounds like a long time from now!! ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159845-bp-strikes-oil-enhances-exploration-potential-in-gulf-of-mexico?source=feed#comment-662208 662208
Guess you are worried about Hyundai as well, even if they are building cars in Alabama? Should we change the name? Same employees, same local taxes, payrolls, etc.]]> Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:30:53 -0400
Guess you are worried about Hyundai as well, even if they are building cars in Alabama? Should we change the name? Same employees, same local taxes, payrolls, etc.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159845-bp-strikes-oil-enhances-exploration-potential-in-gulf-of-mexico?source=feed#comment-660743 660743 ]]> Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:13:30 -0400 ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159124-supply-glut-pressuring-natural-gas?source=feed#comment-656280 656280

o
> those in developing countries would "mirror reality", right?]]> Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:41:15 -0400

o
> those in developing countries would "mirror reality", right?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159124-supply-glut-pressuring-natural-gas?source=feed#comment-655377 655377

On Aug 31 12:28 PM john s. gordon wrote:

> the relentless collapse of u.s manufacturing has seriously wounded
> the natural gas business.]]> Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:38:26 -0400

On Aug 31 12:28 PM john s. gordon wrote:

> the relentless collapse of u.s manufacturing has seriously wounded
> the natural gas business.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159124-supply-glut-pressuring-natural-gas?source=feed#comment-655058 655058

On Aug 31 11:31 AM Elliott wrote:

> On Aug 31 10:03 AM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:]]> Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:52:33 -0400

On Aug 31 11:31 AM Elliott wrote:

> On Aug 31 10:03 AM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158800-energy-secretary-chu-wimps-out-again?source=feed#comment-651217 651217

On Aug 28 10:50 AM john s. gordon wrote:

> the federal govt gas been controlled by big oil since 1981. what
> do you expect?]]> Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:50:24 -0400

On Aug 28 10:50 AM john s. gordon wrote:

> the federal govt gas been controlled by big oil since 1981. what
> do you expect?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156703-natural-gas-grim-outlook-through-late-2010?source=feed#comment-639529 639529
Scary is probably too gentle!

Related to EOG's comments: maybe they believe gas prices are going up but they are funnelling more money to their "oily" plays. Actions trump words! Plus, why wouldn't the CEO pump gas prices? He owns a gazillion stock options that stand to benefit if people BELIEVE prices are going up!]]> Fri, 21 Aug 2009 09:15:26 -0400
Scary is probably too gentle!

Related to EOG's comments: maybe they believe gas prices are going up but they are funnelling more money to their "oily" plays. Actions trump words! Plus, why wouldn't the CEO pump gas prices? He owns a gazillion stock options that stand to benefit if people BELIEVE prices are going up!]]>