Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View hindmost's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Bond market is latest sign that coal is getting killed [View news story]
    Thanks for your reassuring comment. It's very comforting to know that things can change given 25 years. I am now completely relaxed about POTUS' war on coal, because after 25 years without power - the blink of an eye - the US will return to normal.

    And I'm sure that there's no need to be concerned that some foreign entity will take advantage of the US while it's crippled. First, we can keep quiet about them having a once-in-a-millenium opportunity, hoping they won't notice, and second there's not much they can do in just 25 years. Is there?
    Jul 17, 2015. 03:25 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Column: Why investors should short oil majors [View news story]
    Obviously I can't see into the author's mind ... but I can see that a short wishing to cover could seek to induce others to sell.
    Jul 12, 2015. 06:21 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • "No near term positive catalysts" for coal stocks, analyst says [View news story]
    vireoman - I'm intrigued by your confident statement "Coals obvious contribution to climate change worldwide seals its own fate.". Here's a challenge for you : Read the IPCC report and find where it explains how CO2, as emitted by coal usage, contributes to climate change. ANY level of explanation however simple will do.
    Hint : it doesn't!
    Jul 12, 2015. 06:07 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Did Iran Just Destroy ConocoPhillips' Cash Flow Plan? [View article]

    Just my personal opinion : The article is too focused on the short term and on conventional oil. Over time, the oil price is set by the cost of the last barrel needed to meet demand. That price is now being set by unconventional oil at around $56. IOW with short term influences out of the way, that would be the likely cost of oil. +1mmbbl from Iran doesn't make much difference to the longer term picture, because it doesn't drive that last bbl down to anything cheaper.
    (Where does "$56" come from? That's reportedly the cost of the bulk of current Athabasca prodn, and I think it reasonably represents the "last barrel").
    BTW, a handful of rigs going back to work doesn't mean much. Where are they, are they greenfield or brownfield, etc? Basically, $100 oil brought on massive new development which dropped the price which halted development which led to some price recovery. Where next? I think the price is steadying right now, and the immediate future is of gradually increasing drilling mainly to maintain existing production at a fairly steady price. Longer term, (A) if world economies collapse the oil price does too, (B) if world economies muddle through then new oil will be needed to offset natural production decline and the oil price will start moving up a bit.
    My money is on (B).
    Jul 9, 2015. 07:42 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • "No near term positive catalysts" for coal stocks, analyst says [View news story]
    No near term positive catalysts? That sounds like a negative.

    Price now 1.60. Price target 5.00.

    Some negative!
    Jul 9, 2015. 06:43 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Peabody, Thompson Creek cut to Sell at Deutsche Bank but only one falls [View news story]
    An upgrade to BUY means the price has already gone up.
    A downgrade to SELL means the price has already gone down.
    It's that simple.
    Jul 3, 2015. 05:34 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Peabody Energy Is Making New Lows - What You Need To Know [View article]
    Will $natgas increase? From memory (ie, I've not checked anything) natgas-US is a much lower price than natgas-otherplaces. There are plans in place and ?being implemented for 4 or 5 US LNG export terminals. That is likely to push up $natgas-US. Another factor is the collapse of drilling in some shale gas areas, also likely to push up $natgas-US. When? This year? No idea. Probably take a bit longer?
    Jun 14, 2015. 05:59 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Petrobras Debacle Ensnares National Oilwell Varco; $3B Contracts To Be Cut By 60% [View article]
    Agree. I note too that as a long I have a vested interest (though I'm not interested in the short term), and that as a short you have a vested interest (and that you are therefore interested in the short term). I note also that your article urges people in very blunt terms to sell - your last sentence is, in its entirety, "Get out.". To me that doesn't gel too well with your "Whether it's priced in or not is subjective [..] T S E wants to bring investors the most up to date news [..] If it's priced in then we'll know more when or if ..... ". I think that you are a short who is trying to force down the price so that you can make a short term profit. In my book, that's not nice.
    Jun 12, 2015. 04:28 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Petrobras Debacle Ensnares National Oilwell Varco; $3B Contracts To Be Cut By 60% [View article]
    I'm with John Rhodes on this - ie, my opinion is it's already in the share price (after all, it's not like this news is a surprise). I'm a long term holder (since 2005). This isn't a stock I would expect to trade at all, but luckily I needed cash last year and sold half at 71.xx. Recently, I got out of APA, thinking their strategy had gone wrong, and used that to buy back NOV at 52.xx. So I can stay fairly relaxed about what NOV does in the shorter term. In the longer term, this Petrobras thing looks pretty small beer. The oil price fall has shredded all drilling plans, and Petrobras is not exactly a large part of that. If the world as a whole doesn't do anything stupid the oil price will keep recovering, drilling will start recovering, and so will NOV. Unfortunately that's a big "If", but there are signs of the world coming to its senses at least a bit, with eg. COP21 (UN Climate Change Conference, Paris) looking like it is already a dead duck.

    One of the things that I have noticed over the years is that when the market is way way down, it often starts picking up after bad news - like it thinks it's the last bit of bad news - and the first good news starts trickling in long after the market recovery is underway. For NOV, or even for the whole oil market, could this Petrobras thing be the last bit of bad news? Maybe, maybe not, but no way am I selling NOV now.
    Jun 11, 2015. 08:15 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • OPEC Meeting Provides A Silver Lining For ConocoPhillips [View article]
    Interesting article. Thx. Oil rising to around $70/bbl is to my mind a likely outcome and the optimum outcome, where sound producers make enough profit to keep supplying the world's industries and those industries get a low enough price to be able to expand. And of course that's how a free market operates. If OPEC don't stuff up, the future is bright.
    Jun 8, 2015. 06:57 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Peabody Energy expects corporate cuts to save $40M-$45M/year [View news story]
    I agree - this is a positive move for BTU. And there's only 18 months to go to the US pres election, when the war on coal could be over.
    Jun 8, 2015. 06:17 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Oil industry rebuts proposed Arctic drilling mandates [View news story]
    Oil supply and demand do not stay out of kilter for long, because price is the great balancer. When POO went over $100 drilling went berserk. When POO then went below $50 drilling collapsed. Now POO is nearing $60 brownfields drilling is on the rise again. It's a self-correcting system, until some idiot thinks they can control it better. Regrettably, S/D for idiots can stay out of kilter for very long periods.
    May 29, 2015. 03:21 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Peabody Energy declares $0.0025 dividend [View news story]
    Well, at least we now know what you think...

    The reason for the dividend is surely simple : it's the non-zero dividend you have to have when you can't pay a dividend. (Some funds leave if there's no dividend.)
    May 5, 2015. 05:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Peabody Energy Champions Transition To Low Carbon Economy [View article]
    "Oh dear, now it is starting to get weird."

    "it", or Keith? I ask, because, as the article says, Peabody "ignores completely the reason for the need to transition to emissions reductions." and tries to make out that that is weird. Well that's not at all weird. There is no reason to transition to emissions reductions. Even if the IPCC report is absolutely correct (and there are extremely good reasons to suppose that it isn't), the effect on global temperature of cutting fossil fuel use in the USA is negligible. It is too small to be able to be measured.

    [As an aside - another weird thing is that the title of the article is clearly designed to mislead, as the article itself states the opposite in its very first sentence: "it isn't about decarbonizing it is about more coal.".]

    Hurting the economy to cut emissions is daft. The sensible course is to strengthen the economy by all possible means, including fossil fuels, so that if and when there is a climate change the USA can adapt to it. And bear in mind that the change might be a cooling not a warming. There are now very serious concerns that the current long period of no global warming may turn into global cooling. [NB. That's only a "may" because no-one - not the IPCC not anyone - actually knows.]
    "The sun is now virtually blank during the weakest solar cycle in more than a century
    [..]if history is a guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a cooling impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere - and where we all live[.. reference Little Ice Age..]"

    Keith Williams describes Greg boyce's "flawed computer models" as taking "denial of science and expert analysis to new levels". That's tosh. Many people, including many of the world's top scientists have been pointing out for years and years that the computer models are seriously flawed. The idea that Greg Boyce referring to it somehow takes it to "new levels" is simply deluded. But it is typical of the distortions that Keith Williams persists with in his one-eyed campaign against coal and against Peabody.

    For example, he cites a Bloomberg article, saying that fossil fuel subsidies outnumber renewable energy subsidies 5 to 1. But it would appear that he hasn't read the full article, or possibly that he wants to mislead by omission.

    Those fossil fuel subsidies occur overwhelmingly in the Middle East and oil-producing countries, not in the countries where SA readers mostly live.
    As Forbes points out,
    it all depends on how you look at it, and you can easily make the case that "Renewables Get 25 Times The Subsidy That Fossil Fuels Do". Forbes summarises as follows:
    "These are, as I say, very different types of subsidies. We’re not wandering around throwing money at Exxon and Shell but we are very much doing so for their counterparts in the renewables industry. And we’re not subsidising the consumption of renewables but certain foreign countries are for their citizens."

    That is an evidence-based and balanced view. If only Keith Williams could learn from that.
    May 3, 2015. 05:52 AM | 23 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Peabody Energy Q1 Earnings Call: Business As Usual, But What Sort Of Business? [View article]
    Thanks, Biological. I note that a comment of yours got deleted from this thread. I did see it before it went, and it didn't strike me as offensive in any way at the time. Obviously it did upset someone.
    Apr 29, 2015. 09:27 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment