I did answer the question and I will add some detail for you.
First....you are kidding...right?
gas from $5.44 to $5.27 is your reason. LOL
And, there is no 2016 on the slide.
So, since you have a natural gas drop in 2016, you want to attribute that as a causation of some event.... you also did not mention the higher percentage of puts to protect upside.
Oh, that probably implies that you expect natural gas prices to be below the hedge prices in 2016 and not higher. If they are higher then the puts allow for more profit.
BUT that is not particularly relevant.
Because, it is such a small part of what you call declining hedge prices as some kind of a cause.
You have all of the OIL which has hedges that are going UP, and not down.
You have 2012 to 2015 gas hedges prices which went almost sideways.
And, you also have roughly 17% of present production that remains not hedged as natural gas liquids (except for part of the BP/Hugoton deal NGL's).
How nice....Did you just prefer to ignore all of the OIL?
The fact that the deal from today is OIL also & it is already hedged.
That OIL is now OVER $100/Bbl today, and the added hedge prices are probably above those shown on the slide.
You just do not like to be wrong.....kinda reminds me of someone else.
The other day I commented how pricing was declining despite the inclusion of NGLs and got attacked. Note on bottom of page 4 are the footnotes on the NGL hedges (via natural gas puts), but then again sand will devise some clever excuse as to why this doesn't count.
He appears thin skinned and incapable of objective analysis of his investment. Note, he didn't attack my post regarding the Anadarko carried interest deal because I approved of it. It shows how shallow you are...so shallow.
Natural gas hedge prices are slowly dropping.
'12 - $5.44
'13 - $5.39
'14 - $5.21
'15 - $5.27
'16 - $4.57
That is, with the exception of '15, a drop from $5.44 to $4.57. Anything else or do you need to call Clay to confirm it?
I love it how you never actually answer any questions, especially when they are either over your head or you know you can't dispute it.
Just more of your self-serving uninformed BS.
This is nonsense:
"Don't be fooled by sand."
You are a bit confused.
Unlike you I post the links & references so you or anyone else can't be fooled, and it is easy to check......fool.
"Sand likes to argue for the sake of arguing."
That is not true.
"The point is, Linn shouldn't be chasing marginal conventional flat production...etc... just more of your BS.
"Completely foolish but the intent is to plug DCF/unit holes brought on by declining hedge prices... "
Silly & incorrect.
Where are the declining hedge prices?
See slides #s 3,4,&5.