He's all over StockTwits just talking about converting the preferred and bonds into equity. Guess what happens to the common shares when he doubles the shares outstanding - NAV goes down drastically, and common shareholders suffer huge dilution. Why would the preferred shareholders want to convert when they are higher up the capital structure right now? The dividends are cumulative, and MHR hasnt missed a payment yet, so why force the issue now?
MHR hasn't responded to him posting things on Twitter and on his website because he hasn't suggested anything credible or concrete.
I'd be more concerned with the Williston Basin Properties that contain 65k acres and 174 active wells, rather than 154 inactive wells that I'm not even sure MHR still owns an interest in.
"Can likely" makes me think they can't. The preferred can be redeemed at face, I'm not positive the company can buy them on the open market.
Musk will have to prove that technology works - its easy to say the gigafactory will lower costs 50%, but I'll believe it when I see it. New economies should be bypassing building coal plants if they can afford it - most cannot. I agree that for large parts of the developing world distibuted solar makes the most sense, since it is easier and faster to construct and doesn't require fuel costs. But you cannot run heavy industry on unreliable electricity, so you need dispatachable generation.
And I'd argue that may in the 3rd world arent driving motorcycles because they're making a choice to, they're driving motorcycles because they are cheapers and fuel costs in those counties are much higher.
In any event, none of this has anything to do with MHR, so I'll end the conversation here.
Technologies that work on islands that have to import everything doesnt mean that technology is competative in the PJM or MISO or ERCOT. Residential electricity prices in Hawaii are 2x what they are where I live in the northeast and 3x more expensive than places like the midwest or Texas.
Its all about avoided costs and rate of return. If you spend $say $1000/year on electricity, how much sense does it make to spend $8000 on solar panels, another $5000 on batteries, still not be 100% off the grid, and have to replace the batteries in 10 years and the solar panels likely in 15 - 20.
In the US in 2014, coal generated 39% of electricity, nat gas 27%, nuke 19%, solar 0.4%, wind 4.4%.
In the EU in 2013 (only data I can find) 26.8% from nukes, 49.8% from coal, gas, or oil, 12% hydro, 7% wind, 2.7% solar. Germany has insane solar subsidies.
In China in 2013, 78% of electricity was generated with coal.
US coal exports have been at record highs. The death of the fossil fuel business has been largely exaggerated.
143 GW of renewables that run at a capacity factor of ~20% vs 141 GW of conventional power that runs at 75+%. Headline number only tells part of the story in power generation, capacity factors are key to understanding the actual amount of energy produced. And thats something the authors of articles like that do not understand.
The weather channel is calling for below average temps in the major cities in the north east, but above average temps in the midwest. Also the temperatures on the east coast are suppose to be above average through December, and then cold in Jan and Feb, which likely explains the sell off in natural gas recently.
Interesting that they're also calling for very cold temperatures in Texas. Could lead to freeze offs, which would disrupt supply for a little bit. Something to consider.
A crack pipe dream lol. We'd need nat gas at $5 to see the stock price at $7, and natural gas isnt going to stay above $4 for more than a month anytime soon
Good to see them picking up on the EIA data, but a 1 BCF/d decline is only 1.2% of daily production, not enough to make a dent. CHK and COG combined have that amount of gas shut in in Appalachia and prices for nat gas have not moved. We'd need a decline of closer to 3 or 4 Bcf/d to start moving the market, imo.