% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Repligen Corporation Message Board

brawn412 442 posts  |  Last Activity: Apr 28, 2015 12:43 AM Member since: Jan 25, 2012
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    You poor deluded Warmers

    by tristrem Apr 26, 2015 6:54 PM
    brawn412 brawn412 Apr 28, 2015 12:43 AM Flag

    Two things. Yes, temperature readings are being 'altered'. I live in Paraguay. We have and have always had accurate temperature readings. These accurate historical temperature readings show definite global cooling since the 1930's. However, the global warming frauds have 'adjusted' those accurate historical temperature readings to show slight global warming. A Completely fraudulent attempt to put lipstick on this pig known as global warming

    Second thing - anyone who regurgitates this nonsense that 97% of 'climate scientists' are in agreement with global warming needs to repeat the second grade - if they got that far. This number is as fraudulent as global warming itself. The real percentage of 'climate scientists' believing in global warming is the same as the percentage of the population believing in global warming - far less than 50%.

  • brawn412 brawn412 Apr 14, 2015 6:38 AM Flag

    The interesting thing is that it doesn't matter if RGEN makes or misses earnings or revenue estimates. RGEN is in favor and can do no wrong

    There is no correlation between RGEN's preformance, RGEN's business plan and RGEN's stock price.

  • brawn412 brawn412 Apr 12, 2015 1:54 AM Flag

    I don't know how this 0.31 EPS for 2015 keeps coming up. IT is from analysts. RGEN has predicted earnings of 0.25 to 0.30 ( 8-10 million net income) and that is with tax loss carry forward benefits. If RGEN paid a normal tax rate the EPS would be 0.15 to 0.25 EPS

    Also, hate to be a pessimist, but 0.46 EPS in 2016 appears to be a pipe dream. Again an analyst estimate but not very realistic considering that the medical supply business in slow and steady and considering that it is difficult to increase income by buying companies - companies that are making money are not cheap. Cheap companies are usually money losing dogs.

    Look, RGEN is a great company but positive sentiment about RGEN is becoming bizarre.

  • This is the one I had the most hopes for. The pancreatic imaging is basically worthless and the Freidrich's ataxia is never going to see the light of day.

    Thought Pfizer's SMA might have an outside chance but apparently not.

    Anyway, RGEN's core business remains slow, steady and solid.

  • Reply to

    The Problrem with Apple is

    by vivirenmiami Sep 26, 2014 6:26 AM
    brawn412 brawn412 Sep 26, 2014 6:44 AM Flag

    Right on vivir. I have had the same concerns. How long can AAPL survive with an idiot at the helm.

    I think the CEO should resign so he can spend all his time in the Church of Global Warming with all his mentally handicapped friends who believe in the same nonsense.

  • brawn412 brawn412 Aug 31, 2014 12:44 PM Flag


    You know I am a big fan of RGEN. Great management, loads of cash, no debt and increasing sales

    However, keep an eye on forward looking PE. This year it will be more than 60.. Next year also about 60. Assuming a share price of 20. Is a PE of 60 justified? Or is a PE closer to 20 or 30 or even 40 more reasonable.

    Anyway, great company with valuations that need to be taken into consideration.

  • brawn412 brawn412 Jul 22, 2014 4:42 PM Flag


    I don't think the shorts are driving ANR down. It is a terrible environment for coal. Met coal in oversupply and abundant and cheap natural gas.

    That being said, the met coal situation will correct and NG cannot be extracted at below cost forever. ANR has billions, maybe trillions of dollars in the ground, plenty of money and is burning very little cash.

    ANR will do well, but not this week or this month.

  • Reply to

    Have you heard?

    by ayscuew Jul 15, 2014 2:10 PM
    brawn412 brawn412 Jul 15, 2014 5:43 PM Flag

    OK, fracking causes earthquakes. Fracking is poisoning water. Is this an issue. Maybe

    What we know without any doubt is that global warming/climate change is complete and total nonsense.

  • Reply to

    Man-Made Global Warming = BTU Below $10

    by mooseonaplane Jul 7, 2014 1:18 PM
    brawn412 brawn412 Jul 7, 2014 6:33 PM Flag

    I think you meant to say "Why fight the pseudo science and the hoax of Man-Made Global Warming"

  • brawn412 brawn412 Jul 5, 2014 8:07 AM Flag

    But solar energy is exploding. It is projected that within 20 years solar share of electricity will be 0.30%

  • According the the Pew Poll, which is pretty reputable, 53% of american either think that man made global warming is complete and total nonsense or that there is less than convincing evidence that man made global warming is happening

    Another 40% believe man made global warming is happening. 7% have no opinion

    . Nationwide, public health services are trying to identify those 40% who still believe in this global warming nonsense and place them in straight jackets to protect themselves from their own stupidity.

  • The EIA projects that the United states will increase power production by 20-30% by 2040. Coal use will decline from 40% to 30%, according to the EIA. The amount of coal used in 2040 will stay about the same as it is today.

    What will really happen

    1) Nuclear power which accounts for 20% of power today will decrease to about 15% with nuclear power plant shutdowns and few new nuclear plants. There are 100 nuclear plants in the United States. In 2013 and 2014 8-9 nuclear plants will shut down. Many more will shut down in the future. It takes 6-7 years to build a nuclear power plant. 4 or 5 are on the drawing boards but the earliest they will be operational in 2020 - if at all.

    2) Economical natural gas is neither cheap nor plentiful. 50% of all natural gas in the United States come from only 30 counties. The sweet spots where natural gas can be extracted economically are vanishlngly small. Natural gas is the future only if you want to pay an arm and a leg for it.

    3) Solar acounts for 0.4% of power production in the United states - 0.17% worldwide. If solar had a future we would have seen it by now.

    4) New Wind power projects are extinct since the subsidies for wind power no longer exist

    5) Hydroelectric power maxed out 50 years ago. there is no more in the United States

    What is going to replace decreasing nuclear power production and expensive natural gas. Maybe coal.

    Once it is generally accepted that C02 has no influence on climate or temperature and once we get this primate out of the White House coal will be doing the heavy lifting for power production.

  • 1) No implimentation until 2017 at the earliest. Probably much later with legal challenges and congressional distain for the plan

    2) Any president can eliminate it with a signature. Probably the first action the next Republican President will take

    3) By 2017 it will be obvious that global warming/climate change is complete and total nonsense.

  • brawn412 brawn412 May 30, 2014 6:27 AM Flag

    Yes sir, Georgie, solar now accounts for 0.17% of power production worldwide and 0.4% in the United States. Maybe someday solar will account for 0.20% of power production worldwide. That's amazing.

  • Natural gas for power production accounts for 150-160 of the 500 natural gas produced each week.

    Natural gas accounts for about 24% of power generation. For ecah 1% change in the percentage of natural gas power production there is a change of 6 in the weekly natural gas storage injections.

    Last year natural gas accounted for about 28% of power production. This year about 24. The 4% difference represents 24 in storage injections. Each percentage point represents a change of 6 in storage injections.

    This year we are using 2, 3 or 4 percent less natural gas for power production than last year. Consequently we should have natural gas injections of 12, 18 or 24 more than last year.

    That is about what we are seeing. Higher natural gas injections than expected. If this continues we may see start of heating season storage about 3200-3300 rather than 3000.

  • Reply to

    Natural gas is going to blow off

    by joelm_shapiro May 28, 2014 5:03 PM
    brawn412 brawn412 May 28, 2014 5:47 PM Flag

    May and early June always have the highest natural gas injections. Last year there was an injection of 111 in May and several injections slightly less than 100.

    After June injections plummet until September when for a few weeks injections are close to 100 again. Last year there was one injection of 101 in September

    This year does not seem to be much different. We have had one injection of 106 in May. We will have other injections slightly above or slightly below 100 this May and June.

    The idea that we are going to have record natural gas injections this injection season is magical thinking.

  • Reply to

    Coal versus Natural Gas Power Plants

    by mcflyjmu May 27, 2014 11:28 PM
    brawn412 brawn412 May 28, 2014 3:12 AM Flag

    Well said Ben

    There is no energy source waiting to replace coal. Natural gas production is stagnant and has been since the beginning of 2012. The idea that ng gas production can be ramped up is nonsense.

    The idea that ANR has lost billions in the last few years is also nonsense. ANR has more cash now than they had 2 years ago. The billions in losses were paper losses due to writedowns.

    This last quarter was the worst for ANR. Yet they had negative cash flow of only 50 million and 30 million of that was a non-recurring expense.

  • brawn412 brawn412 May 15, 2014 12:22 PM Flag

    There are several reasons we should be having higher ng injections

    1) coal now accounts for 43% of power production up from 32% 2 years ago. Less ng is being used for power production so more ng should be available for storage injections

    2) according to the EIA ng gas production is creeping up - very, very slowly. This should provide more ng gas for storage injections.

    Surprise surprise, last week the ng gas injection was 14 below the same week a year ago and this week the ng gas injection was 1 below the same week last year. The injection this week was 97 not 105. The 105 number was after reclassifying some gas from working stocks to storage.

    Why are these ng injections so anemic. The EIA is calculating on a 20% increase in weekly storage injections this year over last year to replenish storage. Not happening and not going to happen.

    The reason that ng injections are so anemic is because natural gas production is declining. Even though we are using less ng for power production which increases ng storage injections - we are producing a whole lot less natural gas the the Obama progoganda machine would like us to believe

  • brawn412 brawn412 May 8, 2014 2:51 AM Flag

    Wrecking ball

    I think you should demand a refund from that accounting school you went to. ANR had negative cash flow of about $50 million last quarter and a lot of that was one-time non-recurring items.

  • Apparently Boone predicted, several months ago, that NG would be at $5 this summer. About 24 hours ago on CNBC Boone predicted that NG would be over $5 this summer. How much over is anyones guess.

35.01+0.03(+0.09%)Jul 31 4:00 PMEDT