brheavy, how stupid of me. If anyone wants to see your replies to tabsomem and noquickgame but minus their questions, they can simply click on your handle, brheavy, and your replies are there for anyone to view. Sorry about the post I just wrote to you about posting your two replies to those two handles.
brheavy, this is Very interesting. I read two lengthy replies on this same thread last night that you gave to tabsomem and noquickgame. They are both gone now on Yahoo (but you can see them since they are your own posts), but I had kept them in another window on my pc to review this morning and respond to them. It appears tabsomem "removed" his post which was harmless and said, "Mannkind presenters addressed all questions and the committee was pleased with their presentation and answers. Not quite sure what you are talking about." tabsomem's removal of his post took out all the post replies in that hierarchy, which removed the two replies you gave to tabsomem and noquickgame (who just wanted you to explain in layman's terms what you meant, which you did in your reply to noquickgame). Perhaps tabsomem did not like your normal detailed reply.
This remove "feature" that Yahoo has included recently is insidious in that it removes all posts in that branch of the hierarchy tree, and no one else can see the rest of that branch of information or replies. I still have the entire branch of questions and replies, and if you do not have your replies available, I can post them, but only if you wish them to be posted. Just let me know, brheavy.
You can get the entire report for free if you can get to siliconinvestor and the Top Subject called Big Dog's Boom Boom Room. The post you need in that forum, which is oil and gas, is 182899. Inside that post is a link that gets you the entire 10 page Citi analyst report. You do not need to register, and I just now tried it. It does work without registering. If you want to read the entire report and you have trouble getting there, let me know and I will give you more detailed instructions. The Citi report has some nice data of production and storage in a matrix spreadsheet format. I can see from the matrices on page 2 of the report where the about 4.5 Bcf/day comes from, and it is, as you suspected, excess 2014 production (about 69.9 Bcf/day production each month) over 2013 production plus a tiny few tenths from a bit more LNG imports minus some from Canadian imports of ng. This would get the storage back to just 3600 Bcf by end of October 2014.
Prices should be moving up this Summer for ng, and demand will have to remain calm for this storage to get close.
If Yahoo allowed the posting of links, I would have no problem supplying it here. I am not trying to push SI by any means.
radgray68, anyone who bought MNKD since fairly early in 2011 continuously until about mid 2013 had a profit after the AdCom. That was a lot of volume of shares with memories of pain. A lot of those likely just did not want to see all those years of holding evaporate (sometimes again), and they sold. Sure a lot of them put in stops that got run. Sure a lot of the shorts covered and reshorted. So it is no wonder the action since the AdCom. Most if not all those volatility factors are gone or greatly attenuated. With decreasing volatility traders are going to move on -- eventually. The shorts know they likely don't have a lot of time left to figure out what they are going to do. Tick Tock.
From a Citi analyst report from March 4th it states the US will need excess ng for injection into storage of about 4.5 Bcf/d from April to October. Also Canada's very cold winter means the US won't be getting any help from their exports as Canada needs its excess ng to refill its storage.
The market may need more than hopeful signs of production growth and
precipitation on the West Coast to replenish depleted gas inventories. The end-
of-March storage is now expected to fall to ~875-Bcf, 950-Bcf lower than the 5-
year average and 800-Bcf lower than last year’s level. Eliminating these deficits
requires excess gas to be made available for injection from Apr to Oct: 4.5-bcf/d
vs. the 5-year average storage level and 3.7-Bcf/d vs. 2013’s level.
I believe I have read it here in the past few weeks, but I have been googling information today about a realistic ng injection rate per day into storage in the USA for the 2014/2015 Winter. I have forgotten the number I think I read here the other day, and my searches today are not getting me the information. Could someone knowledgeable give me a realistic estimate of the max ng injection per day that could be put into storage in the USA?
Needs a bump up, because many have not seen it. Also many may not comprehend what it means. For those who do not know what this means: Afrezza is Very good at preventing the large spikes in blood glucose (hyperglycemia) while Not causing very low blood sugar (hypoglycemia) the way today's slower acting bolus insulins do or could likely cause over time.
Translation: Afrezza gives diabetics a lot of desirable control of their blood sugar at meal times. It also means users can take hits of the Dreamboat before and after the meal to control too high a blood sugar from a big meal.
Translation for the FDA panel: This is really good.
williamszxz, I see all of those after hours trades. It was almost no volume, and some traded at 6.93. The bid/ask was at 6.83/6.88 for what looked like an hour. Then a few meaningless trades trickled in toward the end. You might want to upgrade your broker so you can watch what is going on AH instead of looking at a Yahoo summary page.
afrezzauser, I have a lot of MNKD, and I am concerned. That FDA collection of panelists, I thought, was either incompetent in its fundamental characterization/understanding of diabetes and the diabetes data, was playing dumb, or was corrupted. They were an embarrassment to themselves and to medical research.
str8ttp, was the woman sitting on the right side of the camera view (sitting at the table mostly with FDA speakers), who was a diabetic and spoke (sitting down) toward the end of discussion about the difficulty controlling her blood glucose each day and the difficulty of a1c measurements helping her, was she in the FDA or was she part of the invited Advisory Committee panel?
afrezzauser, were you not sick or horrified how poorly the FDA people understood the basic concept that the control of the range of blood sugar is key for diabetes. If the blood sugar is high out of range for too long, hyperglycemia, fingers/toes/feet get cut off/nerves die. If the blood sugar is low out of range for too long, hypoglycemia, death. The FDA people did not seem to understand this until the diabetic woman on the panel sort of explained it with her dancing with the devil comment and how hard she tried to keep her blood glucose in range and fails a lot with today's medicines and tools. The FDA panel appears to be so conditioned to the HbA1c figure of merit for blood glucose, they seem to have substituted hba1c, just an average over a pretty long time, for a clear understanding of what the diabetes problem really is and always has been for the diabetic patient.
If all you have is a hammer to work with, everything looks like a nail. The FDA panel seems to think hba1c is their hammer. Can they be educated in time about other, versatile tools in the drawer they can use in addition to their hammer. Sometimes the right tool for the job is not the hammer.
netkwork730, what is your mother language (mother tongue)? It is not English, but it would be good to know what your 1st language is.
jstokcton, other than the one out of four sensitivity analyses, what is not looking good about T1? To me that seems to be the only item that stat woman from the FDA could hang anything on. Then at the of her time she showed the slide again and said Afrezza met its primary endpoint in the T1 trial.
worldengine9, I am watching the AdCom video, and even though the panelist skewered the FDA guy about the trial the FDA helped design, what about the FDA woman who did not acknowledge the lower incidence of hypoglycemia with Afrezza? Another panelist put the better hypo Afrezza data to her, and I could not figure out what her answer was. Did you understand that? It did not make sense to me.
I think the FDA people are going to get a lot more incoming flack after lunch coming from the panel.
cedafuntennis, yes, the replies to the question about trial design were weak coming from the FDA people.
testy123444, brheavy detailed in an earlier post today that four different sensitivity analyses were done, and Afrezza was good for 3 of the 4. The FDA woman who is bird dogging this, acknowledges that Afrezza met the primary end point for T1. The whole thing about the sensitivity is she is trying to see what would happen if the dropout patients, with some assumptions that may or may not be true, were included in the analysis. She even said in her presentation there is no standard method of doing this kind of sensitivity analysis. So a lot of noise is being made over this subjective analysis. The noise is coming from the shorts of course.