Seeking Alpha

TimeOnTarget

TimeOnTarget
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View TimeOnTarget's Comments BY TICKER:
AAPL, ABBV, ACAD, ACHN, ACOR, ADXS, AERI, AHC, AIG, AIQUF, AIQUY, ALJJ, AMBS, AMC, AMD, AMGN, AMZN, APA, APAGF, APC, AR, AREX, ARO, ASTM, ATI, ATRS, AUDC, AVTC, AWLCF, AXAS, AXPW, BA, BAC, BAM, BBG, BCLI, BIB, BIIB, BIOF, BK, BKS, BNCC, BNNY, BP, BPT, BTH, BTU, BXE, C, CAG, CAMT, CDOM, CDXI, CENT, CHK, CHUY, CL, CLDX, CLMT, CLNE, CLR, CLX, CNK, CNNEF, COG, COP, CPHMF, CREE, CRK, CRTN, CRUS, CUR, CVI, CVX, CWCO, CWEI, CYNAF, CYTR, D, DD, DDD, DEPO, DRC, DRYS, DTHRF, DVN, DVY, DWCH, EAC, EADSF, ECA, ECL, ELY, EOG, EOX, EPD, EPRS, ERF, ESOFF, EW, EXC, EXXI, F, FB, FCUUF, FCX, FFNT, FHCO, FIZZ, FRGI, FRO, FRX, FSM, FST, FXI, GA, GALE, GCVRZ, GDP, GDXJ, GE, GEOS, GHM, GILD, GLD, GLGI, GLRE, GLW, GMET, GOGO, GPOR, GPT, GST, GTATQ, GTE, GY, HCLP, HD, HIIQ, HK, HLF, HOG, HOLL, HOTR, HPJ, HRTPY, HRUFF, HTCH, HUSKF, HXGCF, IAU, IBB, IBM, IMNP, IMOS, INO, INTC, IOC, IPGP, IPO, IPXL, ISCO, JBLU, JCP, JNJ, KIOR, KMI, KMP, KNPRF, KOG, LCUT, LEI, LGORF, LINE, LL, LOJN, LORL, LOW, LPI, LPRI, LRAD, LSTMF, LULU, LYB, MA, MAXX, MCF, MCP, MGMCF, MHR, MLNX, MMTMF, MON, MRO, MSFT, MU, MUB, NBS, NETE, NFLX, NFX, NICK, NQ, NROM, NUE, OEDV, OMED, ORXGF, OSK, OSTK, OTIV, OUTD, OXY, OXYS, PAA, PARXF, PDCE, PDEX, PEIX, PER, PFE, PHOT, PII, PLUG, PNPFF, PNPWF, POEFF, POLR, POZN, PSX, PTAXF, PTIE, PVA, PWE, PXD, QEP, QLTI, RBCN, RDI, RDS.A, RDS.B, RGEN, RGR, RNN, ROSE, RST, SALDF, SCS, SCTY, SD, SDR, SDRL, SDT, SH, SHLD, SHLX, SLCA, SLV, SM, SNDK, SNTA, SPCB, SPGYF, SPWR, SPY, STO, STX, SVON, SVXY, SWHC, SWK, SWN, SWS, SYN, SYRG, SZYM, TAS, TC, TEVA, TIDZQ, TNXP, TPL, TPLM, TRAGF, TRP, TRQ, TSLA, TTS, UDN, UNG, UNIS, UPL, URA, UREE, URG, USO, UUP, VLO, VNR, VRNG, VRSN, VTI, VXX, WAIR, WDC, WFC, WFM, WFSTF, WINA, WLL, WLT, WPX, WRES, WWWW, WZGRF, X, XIV, XOM, YHOO, YOHOF, ZAZA, ZIV, ZPTAF
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Is Peabody Energy A Buy At $3? [View article]
    Yep. And when you get congress decreeing that the military must use X amount of biofuels . . . . Talk about a crowning piece of stupidity on top of a giant stinky pile of corrupt stupidity to begin with.

    Is it just me, or would anyone else rather our military not have to worry about how much ethanol they manage to use to appease our prostitute politicians? Or worry about talking about global warming to so that the ladies sewing circle in charge doesn't get angry with them.
    Jun 24, 2015. 06:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Peabody Energy A Buy At $3? [View article]
    @T1243 --

    I don't follow that very closely. How big a factor is the oil and gas exploration and production slowdown in that? Or is it more of a China being the big dog kind of thing?

    Thanks.
    Jun 24, 2015. 06:41 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Peabody Energy A Buy At $3? [View article]
    @Ledlights --

    Am I remembering correctly that you posted a link one time about a Berkeley Prof. who changed his mind 180 degrees after studying it in more detail, then wrote about it and made the work just about as transparent as possible?

    I thought that was good stuff. I particularly like the transparency aspect. All science could use that. I actually like the suggestion that all studies get published, whether they show anything or not. The absence of a connection is valuable information too.
    Jun 24, 2015. 06:37 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Peabody Energy A Buy At $3? [View article]
    @paul ehrlich --

    "The articles pointing out thickening ice are too numerous to mention."

    Why Paul! I missed you had discussed sea ice too, in your own inimitable way.

    Please be so kind as to incorporate by reference my derogatory remarks to the other commenter who didn't know squat about sea ice, or physics, and apply them to yourself. They are found below.
    Jun 24, 2015. 06:23 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Peabody Energy A Buy At $3? [View article]
    @Keith Williams--

    Anyone worth a hoot does lifecycle analysis. Although I think it would be great if solar was genuinely going to be able to do something useful for the grid, I have my doubts. Storage changes everything in terms of energy return on energy invested as well as emissions. Distributed solar is a much shrewder application.

    I don't want to go on a rant right now, so I wont' go into the idiocy of trying to use wind power for the grid. It is not quite as stupid as our government mandating and subsidizing ethanol, but it is close. And, since ethanol is the absolute epitome of government at its worst, that isn't much of a compliment. Government throwing taxpayer money at special interests and acting like they are doing something good when they are basically doing something idiotic and permanently distorting the markets in a way that makes no sense at all. It is disgusting.

    You want to reduce CO2 emissions? Really tax carbon. There. That was hard.

    But, if I ever get to build the ranch house I want, I fully expect to utilize both solar and wind. For my house. Not for the grid. Grid vs. on site generation for homes, offices, etc. are wildly different in what they require and what will work and what won't.

    As things stand now, for grid power, the new super efficient combined cycle gas plants are completely the way to go. You need to consider full lifecycle costs and associated emissions as well as, very importantly, it having a solid amount of energy return on energy invested. (Give coal its due: On that single metric it does score well. On emissions, including mercury, not so much.)
    Jun 24, 2015. 06:18 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Peabody Energy A Buy At $3? [View article]
    @Graham Disciple--

    One thing that you have to be careful about is just considering surface temperatures. The atmosphere is very, very small part of the Earth's total heat capacity. The vast, vast majority of the heat is retained in the oceans. I believe I recall 93% of the additional retained heat being in the oceans. Some in the continents. I think it is less than 2% in the atmosphere. So, when you are talking about the temperature only having gone up less than one degree C, go ahead and multiply by 50 get a more accurate understanding of what has happened to the system as a whole.

    The oceans do not retain nearly all the heat that they absorb either. There is a constant flux between ocean and atmosphere where the ocean is taking in heat and spitting it back out (tropical convection is one big chunk). One huge thing about the oceans is the role that sea ice, Arctic and Antarctic ice play. That ice and snow cover is far, far, far more reflective than open ocean water or land are. When we compromise that, we open ourselves up to a substantial increase in the amount of heat the Earth retains on a daily basis. If you ever see people getting wound up over sea and Arctic ice, that is a big reason why.

    When it comes to climate, nothing is as simple as it seems. The temperature differences between areas drive a significant portion of both atmospheric and ocean current circulation. Somewhat ironically, the additional heat the atmosphere has may be lowering the temperature difference between the Arctic air mass and the warmer air further south. That can reduce the velocity of the polar jet, which is then less of a barrier to arctic air migration and more susceptible to disturbances that cause "meanders" and cold fronts like we have had the last couple of winters in the NE and Midwest U.S.

    Looking at the most recent paper by the ocean Big Dog, the amount of heat retained by the upper 2000 meters of the ocean from 1955 until 2010 was 24 + or - 1.9 * 10^22 joules. so let's just use 22.1.

    I think it is useful to consider things in day-to-day terms. I've done some playing around with evaluating electrical car and battery efficiency, so I happen to remember that 1 megajoule is 277.8 watt/hours.

    So (22.1 x 10^22/1,000,000) * 277.8 = 6.14e19 watt/hours.

    A typical space heater you would use around your house is approximately 1500 watts. So, dividing the number of watt/hours by 1,500 and dividing that by the number of hours from 1955-2010 (481,800) and you should have the number of space heaters that you would have needed to run continuously since 1955 to warm the oceans as much as they have warmed.

    I get 84,950,601,909 space heaters of 1,500 watts running continuously for 24 hours a day since 1955.

    Earth has 196.9 million square miles of surface area. So, what, 431 space heaters every square mile. Running constantly 24 hours a day. For 55 years. Once again, that is the heat RETAINED. So far. Even if we never added another pound of CO2, the system will still be gaining heat for a long, long time as a consequence of what has been added already.

    By the way, contrary to what Mr. Paul Ehrlich thinks, this isn't about political ideology. I'm a fiscal conservative, tend to be rather hawkish on foreign policy, and tend to be libertarian on civil liberties. I also worked for a number of years for a Fortune 50 energy company (Guess what? The people I knew that worked there sure believed in global warming, including one of the biggest honchos).

    It shouldn't matter what your politics are on this one: It is an I.Q. test.

    Back in the early 1990s, there were a number of unanswered questions. The early global warming scientists badly overestimated the system's sensitivity and communicated the risk issues very, very poorly. So, when they got some egg on their face over the pace at which the warming would occur, it undermined their credibility.

    But, what people need to know is that fundamentally they were right. It isn't even debatable anymore. I read Nature and PNAS and I have for a number of years; I can't even remember any article disputing the basic premise or the fact that it is a big problem.

    We are adding more and more goldfish to a bowl whose water cannot be changed and that is located in an area where its temperature will keep going up. Guess what is going to happen? This really isn't that hard.

    I don't want more people. I don't want more coal. We have had about all of each that the planet can handle. The prospect of billions and billions of people living in abject poverty with virtually nothing remaining of the ecosystems I grew up knowing I find to be very depressing.

    I'll be glad to send you pretty much however much info you want on the subject if you are willing to read it. Or pick a subset. Oceans. Atmospheric transport, how and where CO2 causes the effect it does, proxies, geochemistry-- you name it.
    Jun 24, 2015. 05:54 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Peabody Energy A Buy At $3? [View article]
    @paul ehrlich--

    "Beyond the energy it creates if anything else the world actually benefits from CO2."

    Well, on that point we agree. At least up to the 280 ppm point.

    You know, many people might look at the rapidly increasing levels of CO2, know that it is a very important greenhouse gas, and know that without those greenhouse gases, the world would be approximately 59 degrees colder. But, they might look at the diagrams below and wonder something like "Wow. If 280 ppm CO2 is a big part of that extra 59 degrees we get from greenhouse gases, I wonder if it would be possible to affect the earth's temperature by, say, cranking that amount up 40% in about 100 years."

    http://bit.ly/1LohTkq

    http://1.usa.gov/1LohUVm

    They might be worried. But, they will feel so much better to know that what they do won't affect anything and that it might actually make things better. That is such great news. Very convenient too.
    Jun 24, 2015. 02:26 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Peabody Energy A Buy At $3? [View article]
    @paul ehrlich--

    "You pathetically repasted all the propaganda spewed out by the elitists and leftists over the world and believe everything they spoon feed you."

    Let's see, that attempted criticism of me, the "useful fool," would be what I basically explained to you that you were doing for the various special interest groups that attempt to muddy the water concerning global warming. At the time I said that, I didn't realize you were a knowing and proud parrot.

    " . . . you mock anyone who thinks for themselves and applies any reason or thinking."

    Is it because you are a proud parrot that you actually turned right back around and characterized yourself as an "independent" thinker, just like the talking points the special interest groups encourage? Or did you independently think of yourself as an independent thinker? Hmmmm.

    Well, Mr. Independent Thinker. Perhaps you can explain something to me. Why is it we have these sudden temperature swings during the last million years?

    http://bit.ly/1Lo3pB1

    (and here is the data for the graph to help you answer that question)

    http://bit.ly/1Lo3pB9

    Plus, I am sure you will want to examine insolation over that time period.

    Here. You can download the data from this link. The columns, from left to right, are date (from -1,000,000 yrs. to +300,000 years, expressed in thousands of Julien years, with an interval of 100 years), eccentricity, climactic precession, obliquity (in radians), and annual mean insolation quantity in W/m2.

    http://bit.ly/1Lo3swC

    It don't match Boss. What dat mean?

    I don't recall anyone who knows me accusing me of anything like " . . . . believ[ing] everything they spoon feed you." I read lots and figure stuff out: That is me. Perhaps you were passing a mirror, glanced at your reflection, and grew confused concerning to whom this criticism applied.

    But, thank you for explaining to this paranoid fool that the elitists and leftists are in cahoots. I would have never suspected that. Golly, what chance does a good, right-thinking fellow like you have against a team like that. It kind of reminds me of the great soccer conspiracy that Rush Limbaugh pointed out many years ago. The difference is he was joking.

    People do things for a lot of reasons besides money. One thing you can count on is that everyone is a hero in their own eyes: They will almost invariably distort both facts and their interpretive processes to achieve that result.

    If you were an executive at a coal mining company and were concerned that you might be badly harming the planet for future generations, well, that wouldn't tend to make you feel very good about yourself, would it? What's the solution? That actually it isn't harming the planet. Then these people can continue to maintain a self-image that they are good and ethical people. It is called cognitive dissonance.

    After all, who would want to tell their grandchildren about the tragedy of the commons and that they were the greedy, unethical person that ruined it for future generations. Lest this point confuse you, you should consider the environment as "the commons."

    "What part of this do you not understand? I could add to it but I have schooled you and Keith pretty exhaustedly [sic]. . . ."

    Not in the way you mean. But, Mr. Dunning-Kruger, and I do believe you deserve that name, but it has been very educational to observe the frailty of human cognition.
    Jun 24, 2015. 01:33 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Peabody Energy A Buy At $3? [View article]
    @paul ehrlich --

    Gullible, I am not.

    You are right though. I don't need to challenge your I.Q. This speaks for itself:

    " The bottom line is that mans footprint relative to the Earths mass and atmosphere makes it impossible for us to have an impact on the global climate."
    Jun 24, 2015. 09:57 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Peabody Energy A Buy At $3? [View article]
    @paul ehrlich--

    If you understood and intended the comedic irony in those statements, I'd think you were a genius.

    As it is, not so much.
    Jun 24, 2015. 03:42 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Peabody Energy A Buy At $3? [View article]
    @Paul Ehrlich, @Graham Disciple --

    You know the distressing thing about this to me is that you two guys probably perceive yourselves as "independent" thinkers. You undoubtedly further delude yourself that you understand science "better than the average person."

    I hate to break it to you, but you are basically parroting, and I mean parroting, the same B.S. arguments that global warming propaganda groups have been spitting out in various cut and paste forms for years and years. Americans for Prosperity and that ilk.

    One frequent mechanism is they will send out emails claiming that it is the opinion of a brilliant scientist that "natural variability," the PDO, the earth's orbit etc. explain everything. The most recent of those I saw (which my father received from a friend of his) had 9 such points. All of them unmitigated garbage.

    " The bottom line is that mans footprint relative to the Earths mass and atmosphere makes it impossible for us to have an impact on the global climate."

    That sentence is so devoid of sentient thought I expected to see drool hanging off the end of it.

    Do you really think that??? I'd explain otherwise, with 5 ways that immediately spring to mind but I get tired of doing stuff like shooting passenger pigeons. I mean that is the absolute dregs of the dregs in the stuff those greenhouse gas propaganda groups put out.

    Those groups are funded by such disinterested scientific minds as the Koch Brothers. Judging from the quality, they appear to use the Inhofe-Palin Think Tank to actually do a lot of their work.

    You do understand that we have satellites that take measurements, don't you? Measurements. Measurements. How much heat in. How much heat out. How much not come out. How much stay behind. Savvy???

    You do understand that we (well, not you) have been able to calculate the elliptical element of Earth's rotation as well at its precession and obliquity (how much him face sun) with a remarkable degree of accuracy going back literally millions of years.

    Guess what? I've compared what man has been able to do with what Mother Nature was able to do over her best 70,000 year period over the last 1,000,000 years. Man won. Decisively. The variations in insolation amounts due to distance and angle are far smaller than you might think. Not insignificant if taken over long, long periods of time. But, not huge either.

    It doesn't matter a rat's toot what you think. This is stuff were enough data can be measured concerning recent conditions to enable a valid comparison with a very well known and widely used model for determining insolation (i.e., how much sun the earth got, e.g., 325,000 years ago).

    Although a lot of the brightest people in the world (present company excluded, of course) are working on this, it is some insanely complicated stuff.

    My bottom line is anyone who not only doesn't understand enough to know how much they don't know and who also isn't shrewd enough to keep their mouth closed rather than saying something like that simply shouldn't have the right to vote: Yes, I favor a certain very, very modest I.Q. standard, but below that, I'm sorry; it is just asking for all sorts of nonsense and trouble.
    Jun 24, 2015. 03:25 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Peabody Energy A Buy At $3? [View article]
    @LEGaLiZeIT--

    Oh, I think 25 years of making a special point of reading about the ocean in particular entitles me to my own opinion on this one.

    So, Mr. Wizard, which has a higher freezing point, fresh water or salt water?

    Then, perhaps you can tell me whether arctic and antarctic ice are freshwater or saltwater. If you know.

    And what might happen if freshwater entered saltwater that was actually well below 32 degrees? Anyone, anyone?????

    And, would that surface ice mean there was more or less ice than before? Anyone? Would that mean that the oceans were warmer or colder???

    There is a tremendous amount of data on the oceans, with dramatically more having been developed since 2007 when Argo was fully deployed. The records going back to 1955 are not as complete as the more recent years, but nevertheless decent. They have been able to take the data that has been collected over those years and calculate the amount of additional heat the ocean has RETAINED.

    It was a big number. When I worked it out, it was roughly the amount of heat you would get if 20 Billion 1,500 watt space heaters had been running 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for 60 years.

    And guess what: That is enough heat to make a difference.

    http://bit.ly/1dflfZ9
    Jun 24, 2015. 02:52 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • SandRidge - Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here [View article]
    Mike Filloon and Richard Zeits are two really good ones. Both those guys really know E&Ps and the tight oil and shale gas stuff in particular.

    But, you always have to do your own pricing assumptions to figure out a risk/reward you can live with.

    I have always invested mostly in E&Ps. You gotta be able to pick the good ones. If you can also time the market, sell high, buy back low every 7 years or so when it does this kind of thing, it can work really nicely.

    Personally, I'm waiting on more drop from both oil and gas before buying back into domestic E&Ps. They are both still dramatically oversupplied. You have to bear in mind that there are something like 30x pure financial trades in natty for every one where gas actually changes hands. Oil is probably worse. All those trades will ultimately level out and the prices will get to be more reflective of the physical market. It can, however, take a long, long time. Watch the fundamentals and be patient.

    And for God's sakes, buy a couple of good Marcellus/Utica producers like Cabot (COG) and not some God-awful Mississippian Lime dumb bubba with pretty decorating. Right now, because of the greatness of those formations (and I am thinking about the NE Dry Marcellus and the new SE Dry Utica wells in particular) and the lack of infrastructure to get to other markets, those guys are fighting each other. That means prices are really low in the NE, which previously had to pipe in all of its natty.

    Now the Marcellus and Utica guys have taken care of the NE and want to get to the Midwest, Gulf, and SE. They will eat every other producer that they can get to. As RBN Energy said in the summer of 2012: The Marcellus Changes Everything.
    Jun 24, 2015. 02:02 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • SandRidge - Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here [View article]
    You are right: They need the oil. The don't make squat on their gas. The NGLs could have been a big boost if they had been at levels they were at a couple of years ago.

    Yeah, I remember them breaking out the NGLs. I was wondering what the heck they were thinking before. I guess Atlas was just thinking "it helps to have the right kind of customer."

    And I must confess: I've never had the slightest interest in subscribing here. I was just rather surprised with the fee you described; before I could recover from my surprise, I had inadvertently covered a large area with spittle. I suppose you never can tell: Given the two prior articles I read, I would have thought the money should flow the other way.
    Jun 24, 2015. 01:40 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • SandRidge - Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here [View article]
    With you on the ETFs. They bleed really badly. You definitely want to get on the right side of that bleeding if you can (via shorts). But, they certainly have opened and changed the natty trading market; more people playing than if they had to pony up for a 10,000 MMBTU contract.
    Jun 24, 2015. 01:36 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
3,258 Comments
2,576 Likes