Huh? Splitting the units would allow them to grow processing volumes and grow the distribution faster?
Do you have any idea how silly that is?
tell me where are the hydrogen deposits on earth (not counting in compounds from which the hydrogen has to be extracted through application of energy).
I guess you never learned the meaning of the word 'source'.
If an article is negative it should carry more weight if the author were short. It shows he believes his thesis enough to risk his money. Just like you would question a positive article where the author did not believe it enough to own shares long, why would you believe any negative article unless the author believes it enough to be short. So, being short would add to his credibility not detract from it.
"the production decline assumptions make no sense."
as for that, you have to do a bit more justification than that. The author gave his reasons so for you to have as much credibility you'd have to give yours in as much details. Just saying it makes no sense makes you sound like you have no idea if he is correct or not.
Like I said, there are no LNG exports from the lower 48 states yet and won't be for a few more years. There are small amounts (but growing) of pipeline exports to Mexico and also some small LNG exports from Alaska. There is yet no operating LNG export infrastructure in the lower 48.
What is wierd is that there would be any NG imports at all. I can only assume they must be special cases (like parts of Alaska) where there is no pipeline connections.
I don't think any of this has any relevance to CHKR.
"This past week I sold the March 25 Puts on NTI against my long stock position for $2.20."
Not sure what you mean by "against your long position" if we are talking about puts rather than calls.
The puts you sold are independent of any holdings you may already have.
" the sale of closer dated Puts provides a higher time decay premium over a longer dated Put for a given period of time."
Yes, that is probably true, however I get more money upfront which is invested elsewhere for additional return. So there's pro's and con's. Understand your rationale though.
My put strategy is similar except that because I intend to roll forward indefinitely, I'm focussed on capturing the time decay premium and not so much trying to choose vehicles which will have the price appreciation. In fact I prefer securities which are volatile but with little up or down trend as then I can keep rolling to the same strike without having to consider whether to increase the strike if the price had gone up too much.
Well, they are the general partner now, so they could make structural changes if they want. However, I don't see it happening. It is a variable distribution MLP which will pass all the cash flow as distributions. I doubt they would buy the MLP just to change the structure, not in the near term anyway.
"As quoted in the Wall Street Journal on Saturday, Marcellus gas closed as low as $1.83/mcf at one Pennsylvania hub compared to the Henry Hub price at $3.78 for an astonishing $1.95/mcf price difference. The low prices in the Marcellus Northeast are rooted in enormous production from some of America's most prolific gas wells."
this will impact distributions...
The plant was shut down in an orderly fashion in response to the fire. An investigation into the cause of the incident is underway. At this time the facility is anticipated to be off-line for several weeks while damages are assessed and repairs are completed.
Yes, I was specifically referring to GOM and surrounding areas.
Understood that other regions will be able to sell their refined products for prices correlated with Brent.
For ALDW, I'm not completely sure. As I understand it, they don't export their refined products rather mostly sell it at their own brand convenience stores.
So what are the gasoline prices in that part of the country - that is the question.
If those prices are correlated with LLS because they are competing with imports being bought at LLS prices, then ALDW may have its refined products more correlated with LLS, in which case all the excitement about widening WTI-Brent may not be benefiting ALDW.
Again, I'm not saying for sure, I'm unsure whether ALDW refined products are more correlated with Brent or with LLS. We will probably find out at the time of the next distribution and earnings. There's no question Q4 should be better than Q3 (because there was a shutdown in Q3). But will it be much better even beyond the improvement due to lack of shutdown? If ALDW sells their gas at prices that track Brent then maybe Q4 will be much better. If they sell their gas at prices more correlated to LLS, then maybe Q4 will be only a bit better (again, excluding the shutdown component).
We do know that there is a major maintenance in Q1 so I think there is a high probability of zero distribution in Q1. Q4 is less clear at this stage. Probably CS will know better, so let's wait and see their next update.
Replying to yourself again? I guess it's the only person who will agree with you.
Anyone who was 'scared out of their shares' by me over the last years saved themselves huge losses. Some have thanked me for it on this board.
On the other hand you have been trying hard to trick people with false statements:
-on the EROC board saying their had been "huge insider buying". In fact, the SEC filings showed only insider sales. LIE
-on the ECT board stating that the trust could do further drilling, in fact trust press release from 2011 stated there would be no further drilling. LIE
I warned people a year or more ago, big losses were coming. TRUTH - it happened just as I warned.
People can decide for themselves who is the LIAR and who they should beware of - the one who has a record of lying and whose advice would have resulted in huge losses or the one who has every prediction turn out correct.
"but also off loaning shares out to the shorts at 300%."
The brokerage pockets that, rarely is any of it seen by the actual unitholder.
No, the WHZ hedges are collars with a fairly wide range. Unless oil price goes significantly higher or significantly lower, they are exposed to oil price changes. You can find the details in the S-1 filing.
Not sure about forward sales, that may be possible, but not sure if it's done or not.
Adding hedges, however, is forbidden to all US trusts after the trust is created (they can have some hedges in place at inception but none can be added subsequently). Those are regulations governing US royalty trusts.
I don't see anything negative about the comment.
Yes, assets will be dropped down to the LP over time. Same as with most GP-LP relationships.
It's good in that it gives pretty clear visibility into future growth at the LP level.
Not sure why you are trying to find negatives where they don't exist.
I think you misinterpreted my remark.
All my MLPs are in the taxable account. I am well aware of the reasons against putting MLPs in the IRA.
Al I meant was that IF you do have MLPs in your IRA for whatever reason, then the tax related cautions about selling and re-buying at a potentially lower price do not apply.
"This means distribution would only have to average $ .38 per year or less than $ .10 per quarter to break even. Does anyone think that will happen?"
Just getting your money back after 20 years can be considered a serious loss. Over that timeframe you need to get back much more than double your investment to make it worthwhile.
You seem to be implying that the ex-date is variable depending on your broker.
That's completely wrong (why am I not surprised?).
The record date is set by the company and the ex-date is set by the exchange based on that record date. As others said, ex-date is 2 business days before record date and you need to buy before ex-date to get the distribution. It does not vary from one broker to another and there is no "may not" involved.
As with most of what you have posted on the ECT and EROC boards, you are wrong on this also.