I have seen some quotes that suggest to me that the deep-water drilling requires so long to bring on line, that they can't concern themselves with short term blips in the price of oil. Shale oil production can be cranked up or down quickly...offshore drilling, not so easy. Has anyone seen deep-water drillers backing off drilling plans?
It would be interesting to know the details of this agreement. It might reveal what the Russians expectations are about how long they intend to drag out this impass with the West. It seems likely to me that Putin is only going to become more difficult if sanctions are renewed this summer. But that he might be agreeable to substantial concessions if Europe could be seen to lose their resolve and first allow the sanctions to expire. Unless, of course, a settlement in Europe is contingent upon the Russians giving up on any ideas they have for expanding into Europe. I'm thinking Putin would prefer to let this situation drag on awhile longer. June is too soon for Putin to decide which way he wants to go.
"Remember, HE rigs can drill anywhere, but not just any rig can drill in the arctic....makes NADL's rigs more valuable.
But if HE rigs are significantly more expensive, no one would consider using the two rig types interchangeably.:
" NADL was profitable with oil at $100 and a 30% dividend... wouldent that be the same as oil being $70 and no dividend? What if $100 and no dividend?"
I think your mathematical instinct is a bit shaky there, my friend. That 100 dollars does not come to NADL. Any oil price that has Oil drillers leasing rigs at the same feverish pace will restore NADL's profits. It could be $90, even $80. It would be interesting to hear an expert opinion on this. Maybe only $100 will suffice.
Why does CHK sell a partial interest to the Chinese and others. It just means they have to manage more properties to employ all the capital they have. Are they , in effect, being paid to manage the field by their partners...reducing their cost per barrel by having their partners shoulder a higher cost per barrel in management fees? That is the only way it makes sense to me. Or that the cash they recieve from partners allow them to leverage the entire investment in a field with no up front investment by themselves. All the money to develope a field comes from partners and the banks.
"So what you are saying is that the CEO held onto his bullet because he was scared?"
No, because he saw no point in expending his resources while the the price of CHK was orderly, not proceeding below its true value. No company can afford to buy all the shares necessary to prevent declines that are justified by the companies performance and prospects. The would have to buy up all the shares offered on the exchange...and that is impossible.
The fact that management has not expended their "share buy-back" cash suggests to me that management does not believe the share value has yet gotten out of bounds. I don't doubt for a minute that management would jump in buying share if they truely thought the company had become undervalued. The problem here is that management has a clearer picture of what the company is worth. And I would also say the shorts have had a better assessment of the companies value. The longs have been proven to be wrong all the way down from $28 on this stock. The shorts have been punishing the longs for their unrealistic valuation on CHK . Surely people can see that now . If the shorts had been wrong, it would have been them taking the losses. But they have been more correct in anticipating where CHK's share price was headed. The role of the shorts has just been to speed up the decline as the longs irrationally held to their wrongheaded view of what CHK was worth
Curious that a post appealing for common decency on this board would draw 5 thumbs down. Is someone perhaps hitting thie thumbs down under more than one name?
Russia masses more forces near Ukraine border
A new build-up is under way with Russia deploying air defence units inside Ukraine and massing more troops on the border, says US State Department
23 Apr 2015
Russia is carrying out a new military build-up in eastern Ukraine, massing troops on the border and deploying advanced air defences inside its neighbour, according to the US State Department.
More units are being deployed near Ukraine’s eastern frontier, giving Russia a stronger military presence than at any time since October.
Marie Harf, a State Department spokesman, accused Russia and its rebel allies in Ukraine of breaking the second Minsk ceasefire agreement signed in February.
More than 6,100 people have been killed in eastern Ukraine since the onset of the war in the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk last year.
The fighting has diminished since the last Minsk accord, but the situation appears to be escalating once again after a two-month lull.
“Combined Russian-separatist forces maintain a sizeable number of artillery pieces and multiple rocket launchers within areas prohibited under the Minsk accords,” said Ms Harf. “The Russian military has deployed additional air defence systems into eastern Ukraine and moved several of these nearer the front lines.”
This is Russia’s strongest deployment of air defence missiles in Ukraine for eight months. The main purpose of these units is to protect troops and tanks, suggesting that Russia is preparing for a renewed incursion into its neighbour.
Russian forces have also been training alongside their rebel allies inside Ukraine. These “complex” exercises have included the use of drones, amounting to an “unmistakable sign of Russia’s presence,” added the State Department.
One focus of the build-up appears to be the port of Mariupol, the second biggest city in Donetsk region with a population of 500,000. Mariupol was under separatist control until last August when it was retaken by Ukrainian forces. (More on drudge)
"Russia does not have the resources to win or even fight
a full EU war. Japan lost. badly."
Comment: That is not to say that Russia will still not try. In WW2 neither of the beligerants that started the war had the resources to prevail. We know Japan was fully aware that they would would run out of oil in the first year of fighting.even if they seized the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies.
The recent history of the major wars is that those who start the wars ultimatly lose.
" Europe has seen 50 years of how Russian dominated
countries end up, not well. Either economically or socially.
Unless Germany joined Russia."
Comment: The countries the Soviets absorbed after WW2 knew the nature of the Soviets. They had held the Baltic countries since WW!. Stalin had vast numbers of his citizens in concentration camps before WWII. But what would ultimatly become the Warsaw Pact countries, meekly accepted their fates because the US would not assist them and Europe couldn't even help themselves.
" I don't think the strongest economic nation with the largest
military is facing exhaustion."
Comment: Call it moral exhaustion. The US has never had the the unconditional support of the voting public. We let our presidents have their little wars as long as they don't go on to long. Korea and Vietnam are good examples of what the American public does when a war runs on too long. Some would say we are also facing bankruptcy. We have a nice military, we just cant afford to fight these long wars when the politicians back home are ruining the economy.
I don't say it makes sense for Russia to invade Europe. I say they will likely see it as their only option.
"Does Putin possess the resources to carry out a pan-European campaign to
beat & control Europe?"
The current sanctions are working against Russian ambitions, I concede. But wars are often launched on a shoestring. Japan was broke when it launched its war against the US, it fact they felt they needed to go to war to survive. They would need to seize the resources to continue the war. Germany in WW2 depended on seized fuel supplies to continue the drive into France. And it was stated this way in the Germans original planning documents. Putin, like Hitler before him, would likely be envisioning such a war as of the lightening sort. A long war would favor the Europeans.
"Alternatively, will Germany, Poland, Italy, France, the Nordics and maybe Turkey allow Russia to control their continent…?"
The independence of the European continent has not been something arising form these countries unaided efforts. If you go back far enough, it required the aid of England in successive wars against Spain, France and Germany. Since WW! it has required the considerable efforts of the US. If the US were to signal that it is too engaged in the Middle-East, The Europeans would be at risk of negotiating their own surrender. Russia would be offering subsidized oil and gas pricing and an end in the need to provide for their own defense. Why fight?
"Is not the emerging US, Egypt, Israel, Jordan & Saudi military combine in the
MidEast, which now appears more willing to fight, pose as a larger threat to
enterprising sects or rogue dictators(Putin) than in years…back as far as when
the UK controlled the MidEast in the late 19th century…? "
Seeing the Arabs pulling together for the first time is a sign that they recognize the US is nearing exhaustion. This has really been the purpose of the 911 attacks on the US and the ISIS attacks...to draw the US into a gureilla style combat that would exhaust US will to defend the Middle-East.
But if Putin believes domination of Europe is essential to the survival of Russia...and we agree that is likely the case...there does not seem much room for accomplishing peace by changing beliefs. We are already in agreement. We just disagree that it is in Europe's best interest to be under the thumb of the Russians. There are any number of newly liberated former "allies" of the Soviet Union that can testify to the one-sided nature of being a Soviet ally. It is not a road to prosperity and freedom for Russia's allies.
The question is not put to me, but I'll take a stab at it. There is only one reason for the Russians to delay a resolution...but it's a big one. Some might suppose the current seemingly irrational behavior by ISIS (The beheadings of Westerners and the rape gangs) is in fact an effort financed by the Russians to lure the US into a full engagement in the Middle-East before the Russians strike in Europe. A long term geopolitical objective of the Russians has been to take control of Europe. If they were to succeed in this, the economic/military combination created would surpass the power of the US, leaving Russia as the worlds leading superpower. And once Russia made its move on Europe, China would not be far behind taking over in Asia for the simple reason that China would need to gain critical mass to survive while sharing a border with this new Russian superpower. The Russians are motivated by more than blind ambition. Some believe that Russia, unless they can take Europe is in danger of becoming a failed state. They are too weak to survive in their present state. They must grow or die.
We live in a dangerous world today. All the critical regions of the world (Europe, Asia & the Mid-East) have one or more acters trying to take over and vastly increase their power. The Middle -East actually has competing acters vying for power: The Iranians and the other Fundamentalists. And these two parties are currently at odds in Sudan, complicating the timetable in Europe.for the Russians.) Oddly enough, for the moment, Iran and the US have a shared interest in the Middle-East: Preventing the rise of ISIS to the point that the US is obliged to intervene and entangle itself there.
So to answer the question, Russia will delay as necessary for the situation in the Mid-East to "ripen" and allow them the opportunity they desire. Remember, you heard it here first.
I've been away awhile, but whats with the personal attacks here. This has never been a feature of this board before. I don't like it because it has a way of driving away the better posters. Since I don't hear Trubulator responding tit-for-tat, I have to assume he is not the source of this rancor.
Drilling cuts are in response to price declines that have already occured in gas and oil. But exports could raise gas prices or incourage more production. But I'm more inclined to believe that prices for gas are goiing to remain low for the forseeable future.
But nat gas is about to get some help in the form of export facilities. The only question is can the export capacity hope to outpace the gas production capacity of that industry. I tend to think the export capacity will be a drop in the bucket compared to the potential production of the US nat gas industry
This may sound like enough extra demand to move the price up, but producers are going to anticipate that change in the market. I'm thinking they could readily meet that new level of demand without budging the price for nat gas. And to the extent that wells yield both gas and oil, extra demand for nat gas could drive down the price for oil as procucers increase their output for that commodity too as a an unintended consequence of their drilling for gas.
It's absurd to suppose that enough of the world is going to move away from coal without a competitive alternative and that is the situation we have today. Assuming global warming is real, and I doubt it is, the more logical plan is to fund a crash program to develope fusion power...as we move ahead with coal, conventional nuclear and gas.
The only benefit would be for producers in Canada, Austraila, etc. As US producers stopped shipping coal, they would soon be bankrupt. Coal is an international market. You will accomplish nothing trying to muscle the market.
If it does so, it will be the most extraordinary period in history. I'm guessing there has not been a similar period of stagnation in post-war history.