It appears to me that they acquired 1,275,112 shares of stock (i.e., exercised warrants) on 23 January 2015, and subsequently sold the lot on 31 December 2015.
Well, Chesapeake certainly has had better days, although they categorically denied the bankruptcy rumor.
It seems to me, though, that even of they did pursue a bankruptcy,k they'd likely move into Chapter 11. which would probably leave them with most (if not all) of their production assets intact. They'd emerge with reduced debt, and, consequently, lower operating cost. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see how that helps to resolve the supply-side issue. In fact, it would seem to exacerbate it; you eventually end up with these bankrupt producers emerging in a position to better survive lower commodity prices.
The definitive document in this regard will be their 13th Five Year Plan for Energy, which should be unveiled to the public next month.
As an example, in the 12th Five Year Plan, released in March of 2011, they set forth a tentative goal of reducing coal-fired electricity generating capacity to 64.43% of total (by the end of 2015) from 68.04% as of the end of 2010. Assuming they follow their usual procedure, which typically includes a recapitulation of the previous plan, and an assessment of goals achieved, we should learn how well they succeeded.
One thing to bear in mind, of course, is that their total installed generating capacity at the end of 2010 was given as 970,000MW. The goal of the 12th Five Year Plan was to increase that to 1,490,000MW. Simultaneously, at the end of 2010, they claimed to have 660,000MW of coal-firing capacity, with a 5-year goal of increasing to 960,000MW. So, while the 12th Five Year Plan did, in fact, reduce coal firing as a proportion of their overall power generating mix, the reality was a nearly 46% increase in coal firing capacity, IF they hewed strictly to the Plan.
Here's what they had to say on the subject in November of 2015 (from the 10Q for the quarter ended 30 September 2015):
"As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the accumulated distributable earnings under the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP”) of PRC are $259,398,916 and $242,440,917, respectively. Since the Company intends to reinvest its earnings to further expand its businesses in mainland China, its foreign invested enterprises do not intend to declare dividends to their immediate foreign holding companies in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, as of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the Company has not recorded any WHT on the cumulative amount of distributable retained earnings of its foreign invested enterprises in China. As of September 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the unrecognized WHT are $11,899,270 and $11,008,938, respectively."
(Last paragraph on Page 13 of the referenced document.)
"Since the Company intends to reinvest its earnings to further expand its businesses in mainland China, its foreign invested enterprises do not intend to declare dividends to their immediate foreign holding companies in the foreseeable future."
doesn't appear to offer much prospect for a dividend.
I suppose the question is, which is the more credible assertion-the language of the press release, or the filing certified under Sarbanes-Oxley?
On a slightly more serious note, let me add that my own portfolio has always had a considerable weight (though a bit less than 50%) in wholly-owned residential property. That has been a godsend, always contributing positive cash flow. and never losing value. At this point, however, I'm liquidating that, in part because I don't want to mess with it any longer, but also because we're probably at about the top of the market in my bailiwick, and it intuitively makes sense to me to get it done now.
I'm pretty much there, but my wife still has 7 years or so to go. As to this question:
"How much money (%) could be made on your retirement funds with minimal risk?", I think I'd have to answer "practically none". I expect it depends just how much time you wish to devote to managing your assets; I'm not a "set and forget" type of fellow, but, as theblueridgetrader has noted on occasion, sometimes it gets to be a whole lot like work, and I am, after all, trying to get retired.
This year it starts on 8 February. The Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges will be shut for the entire week , 8 through 12 February (the HKE will reopen on 11 & 12 February). I don't know that absolutely all Chinese companies shut down during the holiday, but quite a number of them do, and some have been known to cite this as a reason for lesser fiscal performance on a quarter-over-quarter basis comparing 1st quarter current calendar year with last quarter of the prior.
According to their 8k, they received the NASDAQ's notice letter on 29 September 2015. Unnder the NASDAQ rule, they have 180 days thereafter to regain compliance; by my count, that puts them at 28 March 2016 (it would be 27 March, but as that falls on a Sunday, the following day should be the deadline).
Should the NASDAQ issue a delisting at that time, CETC has a right of appeal, but I don't see anything in the rule that grants a stay of delisting pending outcome of the appeal.
For those interested, Pennsylvania released their November production figures this week. Here are some relevant statistics:
Period TOTAL NOPRO SHUTIN NGONLY Bcf/d
Jan-15 8,514 2,534 878 5,980 12.586
Feb-15 8,457 2,487 952 5,970 12.668
Mar-15 8,299 2,376 876 5,923 12.526
Apr-15 8,654 2,518 981 6,136 12.515
May-15 8,714 2,492 973 6,220 12.034
Jun-15 8,745 2,583 1,094 6,156 11.978
Jul-15 7,962 2,291 843 5,671 10.640
Aug-15 8,822 2,514 1,038 6,308 12.464
Sep-15 8,619 2,532 1,080 6,085 11.790
Oct-15 8,461 2,464 1,015 5,991 10.846
Nov-15 9,045 2,482 1,014 6,559 13.070
The first four columns following the date are number of wells-Total wells, all non-producers, shut-ins, and, finally, those producing natural gas. The last column is tot production for the entire state in Bcf/d. Note that this represents unconventional wells only, and, as noted before, there are literally tens of thousands of conventional wells in PA, but the shale wells typically represent the vast majority of gas production. That said, November saw a considerable increase in production over October.
Also of interest, they spud 49 new wells during the month (with an average of 29 rigs operating each week), bringing their year's total to 736. Oil production was again insignificant, coming to only 232 Bbl/d from 6 wells.
To understand why investors are reticent about becoming involved with micro-cap Chinese issuers, one merely look at this list:
ABAT, ABTH, ADVP, AEHZF, AFTV, AGVO, AKRK, AMCG, AMNN, APWR, ASDV, AUNI, AWSH, BCHM, BEER, BEIC, BFAR, BPMA, BRVO, BTXV, CABLF, CADQF, CAGC, CAGM, CAGTF, CAST, CBEH, CBIU, CBTT, CCDM, CCME, CDGT, CDYT, CEII, CELM, CESV, CFMI, CHBT, CHDA, CHGL, CHMO, CHPI, CHTL, CHVC, CHWM, CIIT, CILE, CJYF, CKGT, CLTT, CMAQ, CMED, CMKM, CNEP, CNGL, CNOA, CNPI, CNVP, CNWD, CPDV, CPIH, CRTP, CRUI, CSGJ, CSHZ, CSKI, CTE, CTHG, CVGC, CVVT, CWEY, CYIP, CYXI, CYXN, DRGG, DTAS, DUKS, DYER, DYNP, EVEH, FCPG, FEEDQ, FEPU, FLMS, FRTW, FUFW, FUQI, GCME, GHII, GIMC, GLDM, GOEG, GSPO, HELI, HFGB, HQS , IDCX, INAI, JGBO, LFT, LGHS, LNBO, LOGE, NANI, NDAC, NEWN, NIVS, PFGY, QXM, RCWR, RDBO, SCEI, SIBO, SIHI, SLVI, SMGH, SSHZ, UTRA, VNTI, WATG, WDSP, WKBT, WSYS, WTFS, WWBP, XING, YTI, ZDLA & ZYCI
There are altogether 129 tickers there; each and every one has been revoked by the SEC after going dark and failing to file periodic financial reports. Many were once well-regarded, some owned by folks who post here (myself included). I cannot fault anyone for being wary of Chinese issuers.
the API guesstimate for this week is a build of 11.4 MMBbl. Tge Platt's survey is a somewhat more modest build of 3.5 MMBbl.
Good thing; I was worried we'd run out.
True enough, but I read someplace back last fall that the ND government is trying to change that, simply because they currently are losing tax revenues on the flared (unmarketed) gas. My recollection is that they were considering some sort of wellhead tax on gas assessed on producers (effectively a sort of severance tax).
As a practical matter, I don't know whether that would ultimately result in a buildout of NG-collection infrastructure, as I don't know whether they actually produce enough gas to justify the cost. Perhaps theblueridgetrader can enlighten us in that regard.
A Note on Freeze-Offs
One problem that gas wells have is a phenomenon known as the Joule-Thomson Effect. This effect is a change in temperature of a gas as it is passes through a pressure-moderating orifice. The Joule-Thomson coefficient is different for each gas. In the case of natural gas, the coefficient is such that the gas drops about 0.6 degrees C for each 1 bar (1 bar is approx. 14.5 psi) drop in pressure as the gas passes through a pressure reduction orifice.
If the gas contains water vapor, and the pressure drop is sufficient, freezing can occur even with ambient air temperatures above freezing (although the risk is obviously greater as ambient temperatures drop).
I, for one, am most appreciative of your efforts. Thank you.
P.S. I've found corn liquor to be a most efficacious anti-freezing agent.
In the PR that Cheniere issued yesterday, they cited instrumentation problems. With a new facility, anything's possible, but it seems to me that they have a lot riding on getting this right, and quickly.
Right now, I'm glad I don't own a piece of LNG or the Energy Atlantic.
There was a [piece in our local paper today that, amongst other things, cited an analyst from IHS who suggested Brent pricing could go as low as $10.00 this year. Now, I don't Know that I'd see it going that low, but even splitting the difference, $20.,00 seems within the realm of probability. (The March contract for Brent already went below $29.00 intraday today.)
Well, it appears the demurrage question is off the table-as of about five minutes ago, Energy Atlantic was under way heading roughly SSE (out of the Gulf of Mexico) at nearly 8 kts. Her AIS status reported "Waiting for Orders".
I've no idea what their demurrage rate is, by I'd bet it ain't cheap to have that ship sit there for six weeks or more.
Considering that Energy Atlantic is a new vessel, I'd imagine the owners are more than a little anxious to have her start earning her keep, and the real money to be made of course, is in hauling the cargo for which she was built. I can't help but think they'd be pressuring Cheniere to release her, and try to pick up a cargo elsewhere ( maybe a re-export to Brazil or something similar to get her feet wet).
Well, I see today that Cheniere has postponed loading until late February or early March, citing problems discovered in their instrumentation. Obviously nothing there that will help lift the price on Henry Hub for at least six weeks or so.
Energy Atlantic (IMO 9649328) has been swinging at anchor off the Sabine River roadstead since late Sunday night / early Monday morning. She is to be the first vessel to fill at Cheniere's Sabine Pass LNG terminal. The last I heard, she was scheduled to fill on 16 January, but she's certainly costing someone a chunk of change just sitting there empty.
Obviously we'd expect some sort of learning curve with a brand new terminal and a brand new ship; I'll be curious to see how quickly they get her turned around.