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 : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GREENLAW4-7 who wrote (18733)	2/22/2003 4:18:38 PM
From: quehubo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206118

Greenie, the 12 month strip is sitting at $5.80. I expect next Winters prices to climb higher during the fill season. Assume we start out at 600 bcf in USA storage and very low levels in Canada, with 6 bcf less production in the USA than last year and less another 2-3 bcf in NA production by the start of next Winter, NA will start next Winter with 6-8 bcf less production and 2,300+/- 300 bcf in US storage. When we cross 700 bcf in storage panic will set in and the very weak rise in the storage levels every week will intensify this panic. What if we have another hot Summer, what if instead of a slightly warmer than normal Winter such as 2002/2003 we have a slightly colder than normal Winter? Shorts will realize that energy stocks are not tech stocks. But I am glad they have been emboldened with success in techland. The shorts will help accellerate the rise in NA NG directed energy stocks.

To: GREENLAW4-7 who wrote (18733)	2/22/2003 4:24:33 PM
From: russwinter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206118

<Demand according to GSF is not there in the gulf, but obviously we have NG land drillers taking up the slack.. Are you discussing supply of or demand for energy? Sounds like you're back to supply? You're jumping around on me, not very linear. Land drilling typically produces small outputs relative to offshore. It's cheaper, and quicker, but will hardly reverse the severe erosion of supply underway. It may stabilize it some if enough land rigs get working. It's a temporary steroid at best. <give contrarian view many just skip the message.. Not me, I'm engaging you, but still not sure what you are serving me? Seems a little bland and I like seasoning. <why NG will stay above 6, or even 5 once stocks begin to replenish?. I think I'm relatively bright, but don't have a clue what this means? Does anybody? You haven't answered how stocks replenish, and I think you said the same thing a month ago. Right now the new energy "replenishment" is like a sinking ship with a torpedo in it's side, no let up whatsover. <DOUBT Shrub will attack until we get some stability in the storage area of the products.> Oh, so you're now admitting there is a crisis so severe that Bush lets it dictate his Iraq policy? That's a strong admission for an energy bear. < so makes much more sense to watch for any replenishing of inventories over next 1-2 months.> From where? The "drilling boom" or the economic (demand) collapse? Maybe they get new fuel cells cars on the road this spring? <OSX has never started a bull run in the midst of 36+ crude., or for that matter 6+ NG.> Actually when I look at my account, I see we are somewhere along the bull run in E&P, and getting out of the gates in OSX. But you're just doing the "Time Warp Extrapolation Dance" again. Still the stocks have been somewhat disconnected, it happens sometimes (as an investor I seek these situations out) in market history, and the results can be massive catchup moves when and after participants realize how far off reality has been from their pre-conceived notions (I've called it Trust of Hope over Experience)and reruns of the last PG War. That's what is happening right in front of you.

To: GREENLAW4-7 who wrote (18733)	2/22/2003 4:30:54 PM
From: Tommaso	Respond to of 206118

>>>Good luck all, and remember historically OSX has never started a bull run in the midst of 36+ crude., or for that matter 6+ NG. NG historically falls much faster then crude. <<< If the dollar were tied to anything solid, what you say might make more sense. But dollars have been manufactured on a large scale, while energy gets harder and harder to come by. research.stlouisfed.org In the last five years alone, the US money supply has gone from 3.5 TRILLION dollars to over 6 TRILLION dollars, a 76% increase. Meanwhile, in most parts of the world energy supplies have peaked and are declining--especaially within the United States. Even currency itself has seen a huge increase--the actual spendable paper money: research.stlouisfed.org I once heard a physicist call economics "a firm grasp of the obvious." More dollars and less energy means more dollars per unit of energy.