Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (57628)	12/30/1999 3:34:00 PM
From: BigBull	Respond to of 95453

Slider, the stuff I want to post on deep water is scattered all over the web. One of the reasons I'm putting together a links page along the lines of a New/Analyses central clearing house for the patch. I'll do it sometime in the next few days, it'll take a while to gather all the material. Unlke you, I am exhausted - largely work related burn out. The central thesis that I wish to critique is that the 96-97 newbuild deepwater boom was merely a never to be repeated blip. It will be an attempt to ascertain truth, I may even enlist your help in that regard. Won't that be something? <g> For the record: the language of that piece to which you refer was clear. All available yard space in the industry would used up by the first half of the year. Surely you are not suggesting that FGH will not demonstrably benefit from such tight capacity? Are you saying that the only available work will be for jackets and platforms following jackups? Of course this remains to be seen, this is a developing story, and IMO needs to be followed closely as it strongly supports Big Dogs contention that FGH will be getting lots of work - sooner rather than later.