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

LDK Solar Co., Ltd. Message Board

china_s2 78 posts  |  Last Activity: Aug 28, 2015 5:29 PM Member since: Nov 7, 2007
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • china_s2 china_s2 Jun 9, 2015 1:17 PM Flag

    For my own part, I'd vote for the fellow who a) has consistently demonstrated an ability to articulate his thoughts in complete sentences, and b) has never descended into the puerile, playground practice of personal attacks and disparagement.

  • Reply to

    Chinese Stock Market Crashing

    by lbcb321 Jul 7, 2015 11:38 AM
    china_s2 china_s2 Jul 8, 2015 2:56 PM Flag

    "Plunge protection team. Now that is a new group, never heard of it."

    Take a look at Executive Order 12631, "Working Group on Financial markets", 53 FR 9421, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp., p. 559.

    Very shortly following its inception (March of 1988), this group was nicknamed the "Plunge Protection Team", and that name has stuck in the financial press ever since.

  • Reply to

    Chinese Stock Market Crashing

    by lbcb321 Jul 7, 2015 11:38 AM
    china_s2 china_s2 Jul 8, 2015 3:36 PM Flag

    "Because it may exist does not change the fact that I never heard of it."

    In that case, please accept my apologies. I hadn't realized that you intended to raise willful ignorance as a defense.

  • Reply to


    by etott89 Jun 24, 2015 11:39 AM
    china_s2 china_s2 Jun 24, 2015 1:13 PM Flag

    I hereby nominate this for designation as "Most Sensible Post" of 2015.

  • It would appear that the U.S. Supreme Court today shot down the EPA's MATS rule. Personally, I don't think this will have much impact on coal-fired power station retirements this year, or perhaps even next, but probably does change the picture starting in 2017.

  • According to MarketWatch, the API is calling for a crude oil storage build of 2.3 MMbbl during the week ended 17 July. Also according to MarketWatch, the weekly Platt's survey came in at a draw of 1.9 MMbbl. Obviously, somebody has the wrong end of the stick. Stay tuned for the EIA's figures.

  • Reply to

    Who sold the 55,000 shares between 10pm and 11pm

    by sletner50 Jul 27, 2015 9:37 PM
    china_s2 china_s2 Jul 31, 2015 5:41 PM Flag

    "The only reason it isn't sub-penny is the shorts are afraid the suspension/revocation is imminent and they will get stuck."

    I hadn't bothered to look at the ABAT short interest in weeks until I saw this. Currently (as of 15 July) FINRA shows just 5,818 shares short.

    Forgive me saying so, but anyone holding that puny short position in this stock, after all the opportunities to cover, deserves to get stuck.

  • From today's press release:

    "Mr. Lv continued, 'The Facility, located just approximately 78 kilometers from the Company’s coking facility, will also allow us to consume up to 75% of our coke output internally, significantly reducing the margin squeeze on our coke products by steel manufacturers who have been struggling due to industry-wide supply-demand imbalance and plunging steel prices in recent years. The expansion plans for our syngas facilities in Shilong District, Pingdingshan City have been delayed because the current gas pipeline network extends only 10 kilometers from our existing syngas facilities. The Yingqing Facility, with its ability to liquefy and compress syngas for ease of storage and transportation, will allow us to break this geographical barrier, paving the way for a replicable business model for future growth.'”

    One would reasonably draw the inference that the government-subsidized pipeline plan has been abandoned. The processing mechanism suggested in the last sentence adds a layer or two of end user cost (compression and/or liquefaction, plus truck or rail transport) that was avoided in the business plan as originally announced.

    Until they can be more specific (i.e., whether liquefaction is chosen as a regular feature of their process) it will be difficult to evaluate potential costs.

  • Reply to


    by billythart Jun 26, 2015 11:27 AM
    china_s2 china_s2 Jun 26, 2015 1:09 PM Flag

    I tested three different scenarios:

    Using the average of drawdown this year from the week ended 2 May through Wednesday's report, I get commercial stores at around 414 MMbbl as of the last week of September.

    Overlaying last years actual draws / builds, I get about 432 for the same date.

    Finally, recognizing that last years July-September average was around 160% of the May-June period, I applied the same factor to this year's May-June average to date, and came up with just 384 MMbbl.

    Frankly, I'm leaning toward that last scenario.

  • Receiver Robert Seiden has filed his brief opposing summary judgement in the SEC's revocation proceeding against Sino Clean Energy, Inc. (SCEI).

    He articulates two arguments therein; the first is the usual argument that current shareholders will be harmed.

    The second, on the other hand is a brand new approach-arguing that the ALJ constitutionally lacks the constitutional authority to grant the Division's requested relief. Seiden's argument is founded on Hill v. SEC, 15-cv-01801 (N.D. Ga. June 8, 2015).

    The electronic filing (of the brief) can be found as part of SEC administrative proceeding file number 3-16456.

    Need to read up on Hill; should prove most interesting.

  • Reply to


    by billythart Jun 26, 2015 11:27 AM
    china_s2 china_s2 Jun 26, 2015 1:43 PM Flag

    I tend to agree. I'm not so certain of the impact Iranian oil will have; as I've noted before, they are, even under the terms of the current sanctions, still allowed to sell to China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Turkey. So, there's always been a certain amount of Iranian oil in the market, sanctions notwithstanding.

    That question aside, though, I think it's pretty tough to make a bullish case for oil in the next year or two.

  • china_s2 by china_s2 Jun 26, 2015 9:30 AM Flag

    The Columbia River (WA) power reactor was restarted today, having been offline since 11 May. Summer capacity is 1,133MWe (licensed thermal capacity 3,486MWt); initial operating capacity is 2%. It will be interesting to see whether this affects the Northwest power burn going forward, given their suppressed hydroelectric capacity due to reduced snowmelt.

  • Reply to

    Power Burn note

    by china_s2 Jun 26, 2015 9:30 AM
    china_s2 china_s2 Jun 29, 2015 10:36 AM Flag

    The Columbia Generating Station (CGS) is up to 28% capacity as of today. Here are some data for the past week:

    Date Max TemperatureF Mean TemperatureF Min TemperatureF Northwest Sumas Mid-Columbia (SNL index) Cap % Gen (MWh)
    06-22-15 92 72 52 $2.430 $35.750 0 0
    06-23-15 90 74 58 $2.340 $43.380 0 0
    06-24-15 91 76 60 $2.400 $54.880 0 0
    06-25-15 96 77 58 $2.350 $64.160 0 0
    06-26-15 105 82 58 $2.270 $64.830 2 543.84
    06-27-15 111 88 64 na na 8 2175.36
    06-28-15 111 90 69 na na 14 3806.88
    06-29-15 90 85 80 $2.190 $54.500 28 7613.76

    The first three columns are Max, Mean, and Min temperatures for Station KPSC (Pasco Tri Cities airport), the nearest NWS station to CGS.

    The next two columns are day spot prices for natural gas and electricity, respectively, at NW Sumas Hub and Mid-Columbia RTO (no spot data for the week-end, unfortunately), and the last two columns are daily operating capacity of the power station (percent), and the calculated generation for each day (MWh).

    I'll be the first to note that correlation doesn't prove causation, but it is interesting, nonetheless.

  • Reply to

    Supreme Court Activity

    by china_s2 Jun 29, 2015 12:50 PM
    china_s2 china_s2 Jun 29, 2015 1:44 PM Flag

    "I'm wondering if any planned shut downs could come to a halt and more coal and less NG would be used for the remaining part of 2015."

    Perhaps, but I'm inclined to think not. The majority of the 2015 retirements have been in the works since 2012 or earlier, and there weren't many in 2016 that weren't scheduled long in advance.

    If you look at the details for the retiring coal power stations this year and next, it's fairly clear that many have been in service for 40-50 years (some as much as 70!), and are getting to the point that keeping them running-MATS or no MATS-is an expensive proposition. AEP, for example, started idling older generators years ago, and while they've made some noise about the effect of CO2 and MATS regulation, these units would never have been returned to service anyway.

  • Reply to


    by billythart Jul 10, 2015 6:09 AM
    china_s2 china_s2 Jul 10, 2015 9:19 AM Flag

    Here's what I get, primarily from Cheniere's FERC filings:

    Original liquefaction capacity was around 2.76Bcf/d, but as of April the FERC approved additional lines which raise that to 4.14Bcf/d.

    Again as of April, they had firm contracts with Total Gas & Power NA for 101Bcf annually, and with Centrica PLC for 88.3Bcf annually. That works out to about 0.519Bcf/d.

  • china_s2 china_s2 Jul 24, 2015 5:43 PM Flag

    L9ongwei had their opportunity to air this in a legitimate forum back in 2013, They fiuled a Federal civil complaint in March of that year against GeoInvesting, including, inter alia, a civil RICO allegation. LPIH had dismissed this action inside of three months, and, until now, hasn't been heard from. Whatever credibility they might have salvaged was forfeit the instant they dismissed their complaint.

    If someone is now attempting to resurrect this via some social media campaign, I'd think that would (or should, at least) be prime fodder for an investigation by the SEC.

  • Reply to

    In @ $ 2.95 advice needed

    by leandronesi Aug 7, 2015 3:13 PM
    china_s2 china_s2 Aug 7, 2015 5:15 PM Flag

    Hey, Fritz. Hope you're not roasting alive, out there. I have a little side study going on the Columbia Generation Station, and have noted some incredible temperatures out your way. Wish I was invested in a cold beer concession out there.

    Your questions are, as usual, incisive. Here's what I think, in order:

    1) Probably not. Iran already is allowed to sell a certain amount of oil under the existing sanctions, and I have reason to believe that a considerable amount of additional "leakage" has occurred right along, so I'm doubtful that the end of sanctions translates into a significant increase in oil on the general market.

    2) Very probable, but not an absolute certainty. Notwithstanding, I see that oil drillers are moving back into some of the shale basins (at least, according to Baker-Hughes).

    3) Near-certainty. Those gold-plated Bentley grilles don't come cheap, and now it looks like they're going to need some little incidentals, such as Paveway munitions, F-16 spares, 105HE, etc..

  • Reply to

    The cost of one share of UWTI, 87 cents...

    by younghart4ever Aug 21, 2015 12:15 PM
    china_s2 china_s2 Aug 21, 2015 3:59 PM Flag

    Hey, Fritz.

    I don't have a dog in this hunt, but merely as an interested observer, I'd think that at some point the fund operator needs to give some thought to getting the PPS back up over a buck, or risk getting busted down to the OTC.

    Unless the entire Arabian peninsula suddenly slides off into the sea, I'd think a reverse split is in the near future, no

  • china_s2 by china_s2 Aug 25, 2015 5:02 PM Flag

    Once again, the API's storage guesstimate for the week and the Platt's survey are on opposite sides of the aisle. Te Platt's survey consensus came in with a build estimated at 1.9 MMBbl. The API, on the other hand, is calling for a massive draw of 7.3 MMBbl. I had to look twice at that number to be certain my eyes weren't deceiving me.

    The API's track record vis-a-vis correlation with the EIA crude oil storage reports isn't a terribly good one, but this week's guess seems to me simply incredible.

  • Reply to

    API Estimate, etc.

    by china_s2 Aug 25, 2015 5:02 PM
    china_s2 china_s2 Aug 25, 2015 5:41 PM Flag

    I don't even have a guess myself this week, given the wide range, here.

    I do, however, keep track of Alaska production (daily figures are available from their taxation department), and noted that last week (this week's EIA report) they were down under 400 MBBl/d for the first time this year. Not sure why.

    I suppose that, plus some reduction in the lower 48, plus a massive decrease in imports, might get to the API's number, but I'm skeptical, especially with close to half of BP-Whiting's capacity still offline.

    I reckon we'll see come 1030 tomorrow.