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: marc chatman who wrote (18237)	4/6/1998 9:47:00 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

I doubt it. If Cramer were discovered to be influencing the writers, he would be in serious legal trouble. Tom

To: marc chatman who wrote (18237)	4/6/1998 10:03:00 PM
From: Teddy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 95453

Rig count now, last week and last year: Mavis does "New Math?" offshore-data.com

To: marc chatman who wrote (18237)	4/6/1998 11:10:00 PM
From: Teddy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

well, i guess i figured out Mavis' mistake: Yes, less rigs drilling from BakerHuges bakerhughes.com but less rigs in fleet from Offshore Data offshore-data.com Net result: higher ultilization rate both in GOM and Worldwide. Just found this: What is an `active rig'? To be counted as active a rig must be on the rig site and be drilling or `turning to the right'. A rig is considered actively drilling from the moment that the well is started or `spudded' until drilling reaches the target depth or `TD.' Rigs that are in transit from one location to another, rigging up or are being used in non-drilling activities such as workovers, completions or production testing are NOT counted as active. Why does the Baker Hughes rig count differ from other companies rig counts? Other companies define activity differently than Baker Hughes. Their counts may include rigs that are on-site or contracted but not actively drilling. Other counts differ in that they are a census of rigs that are available for work rather than the actual number working. Comments from Mavis or anyone?

To: marc chatman who wrote (18237)	4/6/1998 11:47:00 PM
From: Ken Robbins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Mavis misread the Baker Hughes table. There are 43 less total rigs working in the US now than a year ago. However there are 12 more rigs working in the GOM. Ref.: bakerhughes.com

To: marc chatman who wrote (18237)	4/7/1998 12:41:00 AM
From: Czechsinthemail	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

marc, I think the Mavis story is a non-event. It has the appearance of a dramatic story, but I suspect no real substance. If Coastal decides not to pick up its options, ESV will simply market the rig to someone else. What may be more significant is that a rumor that ESV will be losing two of its contracts may have contributed to its recent price weakness. But I don't see any real substance to the story as far as ESV is concerned. Companies from time to time decide not to pick up options on contracts. It's pretty routine and may be more of an indication of Coastal's uncertainty about its prospects than an indication of softness in the Gulf market. I've seen no indications of problems placing jackup rigs -- utilization and rates remain high. Though I think there is greater likelihood of a rally from here, if the stocks do go down further, I will be looking to do more bargain hunting buying. good luck to all, Baird