Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View hindmost's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • 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 | 3 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
  • Peabody Energy Q1 Earnings Call: Business As Usual, But What Sort Of Business? [View article]
    For the record:

    In this thread, Keith Williams accused commenter "Biological" of "seeking to call black, white ". That is, he accused this person of deliberately misrepresenting something. In other words, and in plain english, that he lied. Well, Keith Williams is certainly well qualified to comment on that, because he is a master at it.

    You can see earlier in this thread that I asked for an apology from Keith Williams. He replied "I am sorry that you feel aggrieved.". That, of course, is no apology. He then went on at a tangent (something else that he is very good at) and for good measure threw in another insult. So, for the record, here is what Keith Williams should have apologised for:-

    The comment of mine that started this sequence was a reply to commenter "rogbra", in which I made as clear a statement as I could of where I agreed with "rogbra" about climate science, and where the disagreement between sceptics and mainstream climate science lay. My comment, in full, was as follows:

    "Hi robgra - Please get the following absolutely clear, I want to you understand absolutely what the argument is about:
    Numerous experiments have verified that CO2 is a greenhous gas - that it traps radiated heat. - Correct. The science is about as proven as it is possible for science to be.
    It is also a fact that the combustion of coal to generate electicity (its primary use) creates 1.7 times as much CO2 per KW-Hr as does natural gas. - Correct. (NB. I haven't checked the "1.7" but I'm happy to accept that it is about right.)
    There is no question that CO2 traps heat and contributes to long term warming. - Correct.
    There are valid arguments as to what degree it does so, but no one argues that it has no effect at all. - Correct.

    I totally agree with everything you said in that comment on the climate of science. Totally.

    The problem with your comment is that it fails to address the actual points of difference between mainstream climate science and its critics. The issue is not the warming effect of CO2. The issue is the exaggeration of its warming effect in the climate models by (a) ignoring or being unable to represent any of the natural factors that affect climate, and (b) including major "feedback" effects which are not supported by the science and which virtually treble the warming effect of CO2. There is some evidence that the "feedbacks" are actually negative, ie they reduce CO2's warming effect, but that too is as yet unproven.

    The end result is a set of computer models which grossly exaggerate the warming effect of CO2, and cause unnecessary alarm. Warming has itself been demonised, so that something which is a rather nice net benefit is portrayed as a life-threatening horror. (My "rather nice net benefit" does assume that CO2 is able to make a measurable difference, something which is as yet unproven.). CO2 has been demonised, so that something of net benefit is regarded as pollution, and massive amounts of money are already being wasted on trying to eliminate it. Keith Williams' absurdly one-eyed campaign against Peabody is just the tip of the iceberg.

    Unfortunately, like the real icebergs (, that particular iceberg is not melting."

    You will note that the arguments in my comment are all about climate science, and exactly where the climate models go wrong, namely that they contain "feedbacks" for which there is no scientific basis which incorrectly multiply the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about 3, and the models therefore grossly exaggerate the warming effect of CO2.

    Keith Williams' relentless campaign against coal, and against Peabody in particular, relies totally on the climate models. If the models are found to badly overestimate the warming effect of CO2 then the whole campaign against fossil fuels collapses, and he knows it. He was therefore desperate to counter my comment, but he had no scientific basis on which to do so. So he deliberately misrepresented what I had said, in other words, he sought to call black, white.

    His reply to my comment said, in full:

    "In response to hindmost and for the benefit of readers who are trying to make sense of what he is saying.
    Hindmost is saying he accepts the facts about CO2 causing warming, except that he doesn't accept the outcomes of that warming.
    In other words he accepts the science, because it isn't controversial, but he doesn't accept the consequences, because he wants to keep burning fossil fuels.
    Go figure ..... "

    In my comment, I pointed out where climate science was correct about CO2, and where it went wrong. In this comment, Keith Williams has picked up on the first part and deliberately ignored the second. In other words, he lied by omission (

    He then went on to portray the situation exactly backwards in a rather nasty ad hominem. He accuses me as ignoring science because I "want to keep burning fossil fuels". So he is turning the scientific discussion into a personal attack (ad hominem) in which he accuses me of ignoring science for a base motive (that's nasty). The true situation is that after finding that climate scientists were getting things wrong - and this is what I tried to explain clearly - I understood that there was no climate-based need to stop burning fossil fuels. [At first, I believed Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth". Always interested in science, I started trying to find out more about climate science, and soon became concerned. The first concern was that in Al Gore's famous graphs of temperature and CO2, the temperature always changed before CO2 changed. Al Gore's graphs actually showed that temperature fell fastest while CO2 concentration was highest, and rose while CO2 was lowest. I have since spent a lot of time trying to learn more. My conclusion, along with very many others, is that the basic science of CO2 is good, but that unsupported science has been used to exaggerate its effect and the end result is a set of climate models that overestimate CO2's warming effect and that are then used to spread unjustified alarm.]

    The apology that I asked for was for misrepresentation and a nasty ad hominem.

    This is an old thread, so probably no-one is reading it. I have placed this comment here so that the facts are at least in the record.
    Apr 27, 2015. 06:02 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Peabody Energy Q1 Earnings Call: Business As Usual, But What Sort Of Business? [View article]
    If the heat has indeed gone into the oceans (the evidence suggests otherwise then there is nothing to fear. The ocean holds 1,000 times as much heat as the atmosphere. It would take many multiples of the total reserve of fossil fuels to raise its temperature by even 1/10 of a degree.

    No model predicted that the deep oceans would warm but they did predict that the upper ocean and the atmosphere would warm. So the situation now is that (1) the atmosphere has stopped warming but the climate models predicted that it would warm, (2) the upper ocean is not warming but the climate models predicted that it would warm, (3) the deep ocean is claimed to be warming but the climate models did not predict that it would..

    The models that engineers use are not like that.
    Apr 27, 2015. 12:50 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Peabody Energy Q1 Earnings Call: Business As Usual, But What Sort Of Business? [View article]
    Please stop your revoltingly insulting comments - "Scientists have become demons in your mind" is an arrogant and offensive way of addressing the scientific dispute. What I did very carefully in my comment was to explain exactly where there was general agreement with climate science, and to point out two major places where there was disagreement. There are of course other indications that mainstream science and the climate computer models have exaggerated the warming caused by CO2, and the obvious one is that the global temperature, which was predicted to increase by 0.2 deg C per decade has now stopped increasing, and has stopped for longer than the climate models say is possible. In science, empirical evidence trumps theory, and models simply apply theory. It is time for the scientific community to recognise that the models have got things seriously wrong.
    Apr 26, 2015. 08:30 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Peabody Energy Q1 Earnings Call: Business As Usual, But What Sort Of Business? [View article]
    It's not just the ability to monitor the global climate that is inadequate. They also admit that it can't be modelled. From the third IPCC report:
    "In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible."
    Apr 26, 2015. 09:04 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Peabody Energy Q1 Earnings Call: Business As Usual, But What Sort Of Business? [View article]
    Keith, that is your most pathetic effort yet, a disgusting and deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. An apology would be appreciated.
    Apr 26, 2015. 08:20 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment