[dirtyharry]

Harry - I hoped you and others would catch the somewhat sarcastic tease in that post. I'm expecting even a more confused response from Doc...I baffle him from time to time. LOL. But as far as folks stuck with the CHK stock I doubt many of the current shareholders have had their position very long. There are days now when as many as 15 million shares are bought by new players. In fact I know a number of cohorts who have been buying small position. And those buys have nothing to do with a presumed value of CHK but expectations of higher prices. At $3.36/share it only takes just a $0.40/share move to generate a nice ROR. And if I were a serious speculator I would take a serious position anticipating an corporate takeover. Between the current price and reducing debt via asset sales I think the possibility is more likely now then ever before. As I've explained before a company lie CHK would never be liquidated in bankruptcy. They either transfer most/all of the stock to the creditors or they aare ought out by another company.

Well explained RM . Thanks .

[rockdoc123]

. Are you saying that CHK does not pay I (Interest) it pays no T(taxes),it^s assets do not D( Depreciate) and they do not have to A(Amortise).I don^t know from where you learnt your accounting but if you were running a company you would run it to the ground

If you read what I posted you wouldn't be asking. Once again what governs a companies day to day business is cash items on the accounting ledger. Non cash items such as DD&A and reserve writedowns do not determine how much capital they have each year to conduct business. These items are important for reporting as they determine the value at any given time of equipment and reserve base which is useful if someone wants to buy the company, they are also important as they allow for a lower tax base. The example I keep pointing to is that when you do your own home budgeting do you add in the depreciation on your home or car? Of course not, it has nothing to do with your ability to fund your activities. This is the same for oil and gas companies what determines whether they are a going concern is cash revenues minus cash expenses (capital for E&P, Operating costs, G&A etc). That number is how much money there is left to redeploy each year.

Another point I have made previously is that publicly traded O&G companies do not generally carry much year to year profit. The reason for this is they are mostly seen as a growth stock and in order to grow generated cash must be redeployed in buying more leases, production, drilling etc. Large companies such as Exxon are dividend generators and shareholders want to see yearly profits beyond redeployed capital distributed through dividend increases. CHK, as an example is seen as a company with growth potential and it redeploys all of its cash into drilling.

You also make some random comment about comparing CHK with Apple, Google etc. The tech business and the oil business are about as far away from each other as can be in terms of what the market is looking for in terms of performance measures. Metrics such as reserve life, recycle ratio, reserve/share, 1P/PUD ratios etc. would not be something you use to evaluate the tech companies but are the main drivers of what determines the intrinsic value for the E&P companies. Currently, tech stocks are seen as being overvalued and energy stocks as being undervalued...the shoe has been on the other foot many times in the past.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Adam is talking about resources that the Hill's Group sees as low to zero net energy resources that won't deliver any energy to the economy.

Such as coal? Natural gas? Low or zero net energy resources to the economy? And these low or zero net energy resources, claims of this are coming from the same non-reservoir petroleum engineers that have all these 84% recovery factor fields that Short can't give us the names of? That the USGS can't find after a 5 year research project? You know...real live scientists, with real live petroleum engineers that shorty didn't ask before proving...again...that he has no experience in the field of engineering in question?

How about solar, wind, geothermal, etc?

Because it's one thing to say that it requires some oil/FF energy to build the contraptions that allow that energy to be produced for decades. But it's a completely NONSENSICAL thing to claim that those things will deliver NO energy to the economy. And they are making more economic sense, with faster payback times on average, as the underlying technology gets cheaper and more efficient.

If that's the kind of arguments the ETPers are making, then their case is even less credible than claiming that it takes 50% (and rising rapidly) of the energy produced from a barrel of oil to produce it (even while they pretend like the energy efficiency of the global economy isn't becoming much more efficient over time).

[Outcast_Searcher]

Economics is a banksters magic trick, a slight of hand to justify and then extract the planet's natural capital. It serves to make the wealthy wealthier and the poor poorer.

Sez the educumated clown who doesn't know "slight of hand" isn't "sleight of hand".

Hint: you would use "slight" if you want to insult Trump's hands' size.

Good far left nonsense pushing, worthy of camping out on private property and trashing a park. Worthy of a discussion by adults with a CLUE about economics -- nay.

[onlooker]

Let us be optimistic and allow that Outcast and others are right that Renewable can eventually replace FF. Okay for discussion purposes we concede that. But, you are NOT seeing that it is too little and too late. We have to build out a huge infrastructure and simultaneously keep our Economy relatively healthy to foot the huge costs of the Renewable transition. Well, you do not have a healthy Economy RIGHT NOW. You have a deeply indebted one. You have one with major ingrained systemic flaws ie. inequality, corruption etc. And most importantly you have a FF industry that by your own admission is needed to power this transition. Well a principal FF, Oil is not in good shape at all. Even if the Etp is wrong, many signs point to the demise of the Oil industry not the least of which is a voluntary withdrawal due to climate change motivations. So, I would look twice if I were you optimists, start here. http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017- ... ttle-late/

[asg70]

you do not have a healthy Economy RIGHT NOW.

Depends on your metrics. The stock market is flying high and unemployment is super low.

If and when the much-vaunted debt-bomb goes off, then we can resume this discussion.

As for too-little-too-late, I think that's true, but a world with renewable buildout probably extends BAU longer than one without. So it really should not be seen as a binary yes/no issue if you want to actually tease out the near to mid-term future.

[asg70]

We can't have this discussion unless the economy has already tanked?

Have as much of a discussion as you want but the fearmongering over the debt-bomb has been going on for many years. Continuing to link to Zerohedge or the ilk for "proof" that it's about to pop doesn't move the needle.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Sorry searcher,you are so wrong .Below is Net Profit of CHK for the last 10 years:

If, like short, you keep beating the same dead horse because you don't know what you're talking about, that doesn't make you right. But thanks for playing.

I'm sure your games are fun for the lovers of doomer porn.

I never said CHK was a great company, or one I want to invest in.

All I did was point out that unlike the chart which pstarr posted which doesn't show a realistic picture, including a roughly flat past two years, the chart of CHK doesn't look like total doom, even though, of course, short jumped on that without knowing what he's talking about. (Consistent with ETP).

My Guru said ^ When in doubt look for the math ^ . 2+2 =4 is true from the time of Jesus Christ to the time of Donald Trump . I just posted plain simple arithmetic . Take it or leave it . I think you are a balanced commentator and it is not my intention to put you down ,just an effort to show that your assessment on CHK is let us put it like this ^overoptimistic^. No offense intended .

I never said 2 + 2 = 4 isn't true. That doesn't have a THING to do with the nonsense you are spouting, BTW. Again, thanks for playing, but I'm pretty sure that the people who understand a wee bit about economics (vs. doom porn for fun) know how to look at economic arguments.

[AdamB]

Secondly, have never linked to Zerohedge, and if I had.....

Dude, you really need to find a hobby other than that you learned too well at the Stoner Complex.

Either you remember...or you don't.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Let us be optimistic and allow that Outcast and others are right that Renewable can eventually replace FF. Okay for discussion purposes we concede that. But, you are NOT seeing that it is too little and too late. We have to build out a huge infrastructure and simultaneously keep our Economy relatively healthy to foot the huge costs of the Renewable transition. Well, you do not have a healthy Economy RIGHT NOW. You have a deeply indebted one. You have one with major ingrained systemic flaws ie. inequality, corruption etc. And most importantly you have a FF industry that by your own admission is needed to power this transition. Well a principal FF, Oil is not in good shape at all. Even if the Etp is wrong, many signs point to the demise of the Oil industry not the least of which is a voluntary withdrawal due to climate change motivations. So, I would look twice if I were you optimists, start here. http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017- ... ttle-late/

I didn't say renewable can replace FF. I said that the idea that all renewable is net energy negative is nonsense. Please read and comprehend, before claiming you know what people are saying.

Your assumption that it is "too little too late" hinges on the idea of imminent financial doom. Your ilk has been wrong wrong wrong about that for over a decade. Can you not concede that you might be wrong this time?

Of course not.

[AdamB]

Sorry searcher,you are so wrong .Below is Net Profit of CHK for the last 10 years:

If, like short, you keep beating the same dead horse because you don't know what you're talking about, that doesn't make you right. But thanks for playing.

I'm sure your games are fun for the lovers of doomer porn.

I never said CHK was a great company, or one I want to invest in.

All I did was point out that unlike the chart which pstarr posted which doesn't show a realistic picture, including a roughly flat past two years, the chart of CHK doesn't look like total doom, even though, of course, short jumped on that without knowing what he's talking about. (Consistent with ETP).

My Guru said ^ When in doubt look for the math ^ . 2+2 =4 is true from the time of Jesus Christ to the time of Donald Trump . I just posted plain simple arithmetic . Take it or leave it . I think you are a balanced commentator and it is not my intention to put you down ,just an effort to show that your assessment on CHK is let us put it like this ^overoptimistic^. No offense intended .

I never said 2 + 2 = 4 isn't true. That doesn't have a THING to do with the nonsense you are spouting, BTW.

DirtyH is a sock puppet for short. And he is apparently poorly recycling my often used comment that 2+2=5 isn't true regardless of the volume you shout it at, nor if you begin a conditional probability based upon it, what Short does with the etp.

The quote is something like this, "If you begin your claim with the conditional that 2+2=5, all else that follows must be true.." being representative of shorts logic.

I throw this graphic out as well, it being a good example of the caliber of the logic in his "model". It is a technical reviewers joke. We do try and be polite, after all, the mistake might be an honest one, they just forgot something.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Secondly, have never linked to Zerohedge, and if I had.....

Dude, you really need to find a hobby other than that you learned too well at the Stoner Complex.

Either you remember...or you don't.

I'm not going through thousands of posts to check, but given the way pstarr links to babblespeak doomer porn to try to prove a point, I'd be rather surprised if he never linked to zerohedge.

An unfortunate side effect of approaching 60 (at least in my case) is the past gets a bit muddled when lots of events over time come into play so I can't remember for SURE whether he has or hasn't linked to zerohedge, or it was several of his like-minded lovers of doomer porn (who haven't a clue about real world economics).

[Outcast_Searcher]

I just decided to make the effort to search pstarrs's posts for "zerohedge", since he claims he never linked to zerhohedge, just to see if my memory or his credibility is more shaky.

I got 36 hits. The FIRST ONE I CHECKED shows (drum roll): a link to zerohedge.

So when I claim he's not credible, it's not only the nonsense he posts re economics, it's the way he lies.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Oh good for you outcaste, you bothered to actually do your own research rather than following the herds. But those links were merely quotes.

I challenge you uncover my original supposed links to zerohedge. Or are you too lazy to research your posts. Beyond staring at your own failed conclusions?

Just like you insistence that Etp is a failed model, in spite of its reliable consistency and constant veracity. Lazy lazy lazy

So semantics plus your lies equals truth? Not in my book.

[AdamB]

I just decided to make the effort to search pstarrs's posts for "zerohedge", since he claims he never linked to zerhohedge, just to see if my memory or his credibility is more shaky.

I got 36 hits. The FIRST ONE I CHECKED shows (drum roll): a link to zerohedge.

So when I claim he's not credible, it's not only the nonsense he posts re economics, it's the way he lies.

I caught him doing the same thing, several times in like no more than 2 or 3 pages of a thread. When challenged, he claimed it wasn't lying, but getting "carried away". So for awhile I asked after every statement he made if this was one where he was getting "carried away". I almost had to, he just says things that someone 2 posts prior had already demonstrated was a crock, and you can't tell if he just can't learn in real time, can't read for some reason, can't think or is just trolling endlessly. Or...there is that other thing, which would explain the first 3 of 4 I listed in the prior sentence.

[AdamB]

Oh good for you outcaste, you bothered to actually do your own research rather than following the herds.

Not quite. OS made the logical leap that based on the frequency with which you make things up, misrepresent reality, facts and history, and just outright bald faced lie...it was likely you were doing one or the other even when talking about your own posting history. And OS was right.

Such are the consequences of saying stuff that isn't true. Even children understand this. What is your malfunction?

I challenge you uncover my original supposed links to zerohedge. Or are you too lazy to research your posts. Beyond staring at your own failed conclusions?

Asked and answered. Do you know where you are right now pete?

[AdamB]

So semantics plus your lies equals truth? Not in my book.

Lies? You are calling me a liar? For what?

For...you know...lying?

Pointing out the truth.

No. For claiming you don't use a particular faux news reference when...you do. Lying. But don't you worry pstarr, we all know what might be at play here, interfering with your ability to get those few remaining neurons to fire properly.

Does that make me a liar? What lies. Did I lie? About what? When? You have no more evidence of my lies then you have an understanding of what Etp it about.

Yeah, see, you didn't go and have to PROVE it so fast. You okay pete? Do you know where you are?

[AdamB]

Just to denigrate my real ideas.

Not THOSE I'd like to talk about. Let me see if I can remember a few...Budweiser from a can is a micro-brewery item, peak oil happened more than a decade ago and it isn't your fault no one noticed, you won't use an EV because you would then be contributing to the solution rather than the problem when you ran down the street to collect your...medicine <bwwaahhaaa!!!!>...and hobby of photographing humans cheering and signing V for victory! over dead sea mammals. Did I miss any? Real ideas I mean, not the stuff you make up or lie about.

Certain people like to categorize folks so they can attack them with group think.

Sure, denier, cornucopian, troll, etc etc. When you say "certain people" why don't you come out and say "I" and be honest here?

I am an ecological doomer. I see over-population and under-earth. I could give a rat's behind about zerohedge.

See what I mean? "Ecological doomer"...but of course! When people like you keep driving your liquid fueled cars, spectating at forest clear cutting events and happily celebrating the destruction of beautiful sea mammals it is all good because misanthropy fits right into your self identifying category! You should strive for better pstarr. We all should. But we need to start with the likes of liars and "ecological doomers" who happily participate in the activities that just don't quite fit into the herdthink category you want it to.

You can do better pete! We know you can! You just have to..try!!! You can do it!! We're cheering you on!

[AdamB]

Let's get back to Etp, please.

Sure. I'll start at the beginning of his documentation on his website. We'll begin there, and I only have one condition. That each post where you respond to my critique you will put at the top of the post a statement certifying that you aren't stoned, inebriated, wasted, high, buzzed, drunk, baked, fried, sloshed, plastered, tanked or tripping. I will treat those responses as honest, and representative of your best <cough cough snicker snicker> intellectual effort. Any others, I will be forced to assume you are just posting as usual, and will ignore.

Start a new thread daring me to begin and accepting the single condition, and I'll get started. I'll move at a reasonable pace, that you might have time to refute anything I say along the way.

[shortonoil]

By focusing on net energy but, of course we can, and should, add to this picture the wider multidimensional ecological crisis (climate change impacts, soil depletion, water stress, biodiversity loss etc) which, among other things, means that an ever increasing proportion GDP growth takes the form of “compensatory and defensive costs” (See i.e Sarkar, The Crisis of Capitalism, p.267–275) to deal with past and expected future ecological damage.

There was an article at: http://www.theautomaticearth.com today that was saying that the temperatures in the arctic are increasing so fast that the computers put there to record it are rejecting it as anomalous. The true cost of burning 14 million tons a day of oil may be much more than what is set out by the Etp Model.