Recent

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

LDK Solar Co., Ltd. Message Board

china_s2 80 posts  |  Last Activity: 2 hours 37 minutes ago Member since: Nov 7, 2007
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    THE LAST OIL BULL RALLY

    by billythart Mar 18, 2015 4:09 PM
    china_s2 china_s2 Mar 18, 2015 5:03 PM Flag

    The only thing I see that changed materially today is the notional value of the dollar, and that largely due to the Fed's statement.

    I may have the wrong end of the stick, but I suspect that is the reason for today's rise, and agree with you that this may not have any real "legs". (As an aside, given today's EIA figures, Cushing is now at near 77% of working capacity, up from about 73% last week. If they maintain this rate, they'll hit their working "tank tops" in six or so weeks.)

  • The SEC today issued a suspension order embracing altogether 128 issuers (see SEC Release 34-74398). Note that this evidently is a "stand alone" suspension order, and is not thus far accompanied by a OIP for any of the issuers suspended.

  • I posted this earlier over on the ABAT board:

    Sino Clean Energy, Inc. (SCEI) was the subject of an OIP issued yesterday by the SEC threatening revocation for filing delinquencies. In this instance, the SEC apparently elected not to suspend trading. (See SEC release 34-74574)

    Other Chinese issuers included in the same the OIP are Bama Biotech, Inc., China inSure Holdings, Inc., and China Nutrifruit Group, Inc. (CNGL).

    Note that during 2014, the average time elapsed from OIP issuance to revocation was 81 days. The average so far this year is 20 days, but the sample size is so small that I doubt its validity. Using the 2014 figure as a guide, there would seem to be a high probability that SCEI will be revoked in the next 90 days.

  • Two actions of interest at the SEC today:

    1) In the matter of China Valves Technology, Inc. (CVVT), the SEC issued an order revocation the issuer's registration. You'll recall that this matter was the subject of a stay whilst negotiations between the SEC's Enforcement Division and the issuer were proceeding; according to the Order, whatever settlement was reached included a consent on CVVT's part that their registration be forfeit (See SEC Release 34-74425).

    2) China Infrastructure Investment Corporation (CIIC) was the subject of a civil injunctive action filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (See Securities and Exchange Commission v. China Infrastructure Investment Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00307). The complaint alleges fraud, inter alia, that the corporate secretary forged the signature of the CFO (who had previously resigned) on certain of the company's periodic financial reports during a period when the company was appealing a delisting decision by the NASDAQ. An OIP and suspension order were filed today (See SEC Release 34-74427).

  • Reply to

    Waddling to 10k

    by gocoltslionssuck Feb 27, 2015 2:32 PM
    china_s2 china_s2 Mar 2, 2015 6:30 PM Flag

    I was looking into this question of natural gas pricing in the PRC a couple of months ago, and found a very instructive white paper on the subject:

    "The Development of Chinese Gas Pricing: Drivers, Challenges and Implications for Demand", by Michael Chen, Visiting Fellow of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. The paper was published in July of 2014; the document number is NG 89 (file name is NG-89.pdf).

    The producer price for natural gas in the PRC is set by the central government, thus there is no "market" for gas there in the sense that we understand it (i.e., pricing set by supply / demand). Chen provides the current mathematical formula the PRC uses to set the price per energetic unit, which can then be used to calculate price per physical delivery unit depending on the assumptions one makes about the HHV of the fuel.

    The short version is that the PRC sets the "City Gate" price, and the producer essentially gets City Gate less VAT (rate for NG is 13%). One of the salient points in Chen's paper is that this pricing mechanism often places producers (he cites Petro China, amongst others) in the impossible position of having to sell gas at less than production cost.

  • From the Baker-Hughes detail data, the basin-wise count of gas rigs:

    Basin 03-06-15 02-27-15 02-20-15 02-13-15 02-06-15 01-30-15
    Ardmore Woodford 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Arkoma Woodford 5 5 5 6 6 6
    Barnett 6 7 7 7 9 8
    Cana Woodford 0 1 1 2 3 3
    DJ-Niobrara 11 14 14 17 18 17
    Eagle Ford 20 21 19 19 17 17
    Fayetteville 9 9 9 9 9 9
    Granite Wash 7 7 8 14 19 20
    Haynesville 37 38 39 40 42 42
    Marcellus 62 68 69 69 71 75
    Mississippian 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Permian 4 3 3 3 4 4
    Utica 24 25 22 22 23 22
    Williston 0 0 1 1 2 2
    Others 83 82 92 91 91 94
    Total 268 280 289 300 314 319

    The counts are organized from most recent to least, with this week's being the leftmost column of figures; dates in the top row are the publication dates.

  • Against the possibility that the real story may be in oil rig count, particularly in the shale field, here are the basin-wise counts of oil rigs:

    Basin 03-13-15 03-06-15 02-27-15 02-20-15 02-13-15 02-06-15
    Ardmore Woodford 5 6 6 6 6 6
    Arkoma Woodford 0 0 0 0 0 1
    Barnett 3 3 2 4 6 10
    Cana Woodford 40 37 38 42 41 40
    DJ-Niobrara 23 23 25 25 25 30
    Eagle Ford 127 129 136 141 145 151
    Fayetteville 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Granite Wash 21 25 27 28 24 20
    Haynesville 1 1 2 2 1 1
    Marcellus 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Mississippian 42 44 47 48 54 53
    Permian 305 328 352 359 365 413
    Utica 9 13 13 17 17 18
    Williston 104 108 111 122 127 135
    Others 186 205 227 225 245 262
    Total 866 922 986 1019 1056 1140

  • Reply to

    Takes 10 pennies to sell...

    by lbcb321 Mar 26, 2015 3:11 PM
    china_s2 china_s2 Mar 26, 2015 5:05 PM Flag

    Here again, whether by design, or as is more likely, due to bureaucratic ineptitude / indifference, the SEC has afforded those who wish to do so with an opportunity to exit before the revocation occurs.

    While CBEH managed to drag the process out to 182 days (from OIP to revocation), I doubt whether Seiden would fare so well. In CBEH's case, they had an auditor engaged, had an articulable plan to regain compliance, had the Chinese management's cooperation with the auditors, etc., and it appears the SEC was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. While it may be coincidental, the proceeding against CBEH wasn't finalized until it was clear they wouldn't be able to execute their plan to get the delinquent filings up to date.

    In SCEI's case, I don't see even a pretense of cooperation from the Chinese side, which would seem a necessary pillar on which to found an argument for leniency with the SEC.

  • The Master's Post-Trial Report in Southpaw Credit Opportunity Master Fund LP vs Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. is now available from the State of Delaware courts site. Using the following:

    Southpaw-Credit-Opportunity.pdf

    as a search term should bring up the link as the first item on the search return page.

  • Reply to

    Other item: The missing dollar

    by justice_47 Apr 7, 2015 2:50 PM
    china_s2 china_s2 Apr 7, 2015 5:15 PM Flag

    Maybe Paritz is their auditor.

  • The SEC did a couple of things this week I found interesting.

    First, in the matter of Saba Software, Inc. (see SEC release 34-74300)-Back on 24 September, the SEC filed the usual OIP charging SABA with filing delinquency. In this case, however, the ALJ stayed enforcement on the condition that SABA would get at least some of its filings in order not later than 16 February 2015. SABA evidently failed to do so, and the SEC was prompt to move to revoke their registration, acting on 19 February.

    Today, the SEC issued four OIP's involving altogether eleven issuers threatening revocation for filing delinquencies. These are the first such OIP's to be issued this year. Also noteworthy, the SEC resumed its practice, with regard to these issuers, of contemporaneously suspending trading, effective this morning. It remains to be seen whether this portends a broader reinstitution of that particular policy.

  • Reply to

    SEC Activities of Interest

    by china_s2 Feb 20, 2015 5:01 PM
    china_s2 china_s2 Feb 20, 2015 6:08 PM Flag

    "That is a HUGE change from how they handled CBEH."

    Absolutely. The $64.00 question is "Why?". By my count, starting with CBEH through the end of last year, they issued OIP's involving 260 issuers WITHOUT suspending them, and they articulated a very cogent argument (as you'll recall, found in the CBEH material) in favor of not doing so. Can't wait to hear the reason for going back to business as usual.

  • From today's Baker-Hughes Detail Data:

    Rigs Targeting Gas
    Basin 03-27-15 03-20-15 03-13-15 03-06-15 02-27-15 02-20-15
    Ardmore Woodford 1 1 0 0 0 0
    Arkoma Woodford 6 6 5 5 5 5
    Barnett 3 3 4 6 7 7
    Cana Woodford 0 0 0 0 1 1
    DJ-Niobrara 9 9 9 11 14 14
    Eagle Ford 13 16 19 20 21 19
    Fayetteville 7 7 9 9 9 9
    Granite Wash 3 3 5 7 7 8
    Haynesville 31 33 33 37 38 39
    Marcellus 69 69 63 62 68 69
    Mississippian 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Permian 6 6 5 4 3 3
    Utica 22 22 24 24 25 22
    Williston 0 0 0 0 0 1
    Others 63 67 81 83 82 92
    Total 233 242 257 268 280 289

    Rigs Targeting Oil
    Basin 03-27-15 03-20-15 03-13-15 03-06-15 02-27-15 02-20-15
    Ardmore Woodford 3 4 5 6 6 6
    Arkoma Woodford 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Barnett 3 3 3 3 2 4
    Cana Woodford 40 40 40 37 38 42
    DJ-Niobrara 21 24 23 23 25 25
    Eagle Ford 124 122 127 129 136 141
    Fayetteville 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Granite Wash 21 21 21 25 27 28
    Haynesville 1 1 1 1 2 2
    Marcellus 1 0 0 0 0 0
    Mississippian 43 44 42 44 47 48
    Permian 283 285 305 328 352 359
    Utica 8 8 9 13 13 17
    Williston 97 99 104 108 111 122
    Others 168 174 186 205 227 225
    Total 813 825 866 922 986 1019

  • Reply to

    Gas Rigs by Basin

    by china_s2 Mar 6, 2015 1:45 PM
    china_s2 china_s2 Mar 6, 2015 1:47 PM Flag

    As a matter of reference, counts from the same reporting week for prior years:

    Basin 03-06-15 03-07-14 03-08-13 03-09-12 03-04-11
    Ardmore Woodford 0 1 7 7 5
    Arkoma Woodford 5 5 2 13 17
    Barnett 6 15 24 43 59
    Cana Woodford 0 5 15 32 42
    DJ-Niobrara 11 18 17 20 24
    Eagle Ford 20 37 50 75 85
    Fayetteville 9 9 13 27 31
    Granite Wash 7 7 28 27 64
    Haynesville 37 43 40 83 158
    Marcellus 62 77 92 128 117
    Mississippian 0 5 3 0 12
    Permian 4 2 22 35 24
    Utica 24 22 5 1 8
    Williston 0 0 0 0 0
    Others 83 99 89 179 253
    Total 268 345 407 670 899

  • Reply to

    Oil Rigs by Basin, 13 March

    by china_s2 Mar 13, 2015 1:45 PM
    china_s2 china_s2 Mar 13, 2015 1:46 PM Flag

    Prior year oil rig counts:

    Basin 03-13-15 03-14-14 03-15-13 03-16-12 03-11-11
    Ardmore Woodford 5 8 5 0 2
    Arkoma Woodford 0 0 0 0 0
    Barnett 3 11 13 18 20
    Cana Woodford 40 30 17 23 17
    DJ-Niobrara 23 36 24 19 12
    Eagle Ford 127 191 169 167 53
    Fayetteville 0 0 0 0 0
    Granite Wash 21 43 43 58 25
    Haynesville 1 1 2 2 1
    Marcellus 0 0 0 0 0
    Mississippian 42 64 83 68 8
    Permian 305 511 452 449 351
    Utica 9 20 24 10 0
    Williston 104 184 190 215 162
    Others 186 362 319 288 176
    Total 866 1461 1341 1317 827

  • Sino Clean Energy, Inc. (SCEI) was the subject of an OIP issued yesterday by the SEC threatening revocation for filing delinquencies. In this instance, the SEC apparently elected not to suspend trading. (See SEC release 34-74574)

    Other Chinese issuers included in the same the OIP are Bama Biotech, Inc., China inSure Holdings, Inc., and China Nutrifruit Group, Inc. (CNGL).

  • china_s2 china_s2 Mar 30, 2015 1:49 PM Flag

    Additional note:

    Enter this:

    Operación Tamuja

    as a search term, and it will also guide you to the original Guardia Civil press release, as well as a two minute or so video (no audio) on you tube. The video evidently was produced by the Guardia Civil, and appears to have been taken during their raid of the Abat Connection offices.

  • As noted by ngpermabull, Baker-Hughes issued their rig count a day early in light of the Good Friday holiday. Rig counts by basin are as follow:

    Rigs Targeting Gas
    Basin 04-02-15 03-27-15 03-20-15 03-13-15 03-06-15 02-27-15
    Ardmore Woodford 1 1 1 0 0 0
    Arkoma Woodford 5 6 6 5 5 5
    Barnett 3 3 3 4 6 7
    Cana Woodford 0 0 0 0 0 1
    DJ-Niobrara 9 9 9 9 11 14
    Eagle Ford 13 13 16 19 20 21
    Fayetteville 6 7 7 9 9 9
    Granite Wash 2 3 3 5 7 7
    Haynesville 28 31 33 33 37 38
    Marcellus 69 69 69 63 62 68
    Mississippian 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Permian 4 6 6 5 4 3
    Utica 22 22 22 24 24 25
    Williston 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Others 60 63 67 81 83 82
    Total 222 233 242 257 268 280

    Rigs Targeting Oil
    Basin 04-02-15 03-27-15 03-20-15 03-13-15 03-06-15 02-27-15
    Ardmore Woodford 7 3 4 5 6 6
    Arkoma Woodford 1 0 0 0 0 0
    Barnett 3 3 3 3 3 2
    Cana Woodford 40 40 40 40 37 38
    DJ-Niobrara 21 21 24 23 23 25
    Eagle Ford 124 124 122 127 129 136
    Fayetteville 0 0 0 0 0 0
    Granite Wash 21 21 21 21 25 27
    Haynesville 1 1 1 1 1 2
    Marcellus 1 1 0 0 0 0
    Mississippian 40 43 44 42 44 47
    Permian 280 283 285 305 328 352
    Utica 7 8 8 9 13 13
    Williston 91 97 99 104 108 111
    Others 165 168 174 186 205 227
    Total 802 813 825 866 922 986

  • Reply to

    Rig Counts by Basin 24 April

    by china_s2 Apr 24, 2015 1:55 PM
    china_s2 china_s2 Apr 24, 2015 2:01 PM Flag

    Merely as an observation, it appears that we have more or less reached a point of equilibrium in the gas rig counts. This suggests to me that the gas drillers remaining in the field have found a way to stay profitable even at this level of commodity pricing, or are simply too stubborn to quit (or, perhaps, can't afford to quit).

    Sooner or later, we're bound to reach that point with oil drillers, as well.

  • Reply to

    Rig Counts by Basin 17 April

    by china_s2 Apr 17, 2015 2:11 PM
    china_s2 china_s2 Apr 17, 2015 2:13 PM Flag

    For purposes of comparison, counts from today and the same reporting periods in prior years:

    Rigs Targeting Gas
    Basin 04-17-15 04-17-14 04-19-13 04-20-12 04-15-11
    Ardmore Woodford 1 0 5 9 5
    Arkoma Woodford 2 7 2 14 17
    Barnett 3 13 23 35 61
    Cana Woodford 0 5 18 35 42
    DJ-Niobrara 7 16 16 22 24
    Eagle Ford 16 10 26 76 86
    Fayetteville 7 10 13 24 31
    Granite Wash 1 10 31 21 68
    Haynesville 26 45 38 66 152
    Marcellus 68 80 81 120 114
    Mississippian 0 5 1 0 20
    Permian 3 5 15 39 27
    Utica 19 19 5 2 9
    Williston 0 0 0 0 1
    Others 64 91 105 168 228
    Total 217 316 379 631 885

    Rigs Targeting Oil
    Basin 04-17-15 04-17-14 04-19-13 04-20-12 04-15-11
    Ardmore Woodford 5 8 4 1 4
    Arkoma Woodford 4 0 0 1 0
    Barnett 3 10 16 15 22
    Cana Woodford 40 17 13 15 7
    DJ-Niobrara 21 38 28 21 16
    Eagle Ford 107 207 203 170 65
    Fayetteville 0 0 0 0 1
    Granite Wash 16 52 39 75 28
    Haynesville 1 0 1 0 2
    Marcellus 1 1 1 0 0
    Mississippian 31 69 77 63 6
    Permian 255 535 454 465 366
    Utica 7 18 28 13 0
    Williston 84 185 187 212 168
    Others 159 370 320 286 195
    Total 734 1510 1371 1337 880