Energy Investors for Obama

[oudivesherpa]

Most people on this board bash Obama for his energy policy. But look at this way, no one has done more to support the price of oil than President Obama, no one has cut supply more and thereby raised prices more than our president. My energy portfolio is doing just fine, now if I just afford $4.00 gasoline everything will be just great.

[cccasooner2]

Just part of the ongoing conspiracy to nationalize all energy when least expected. :D

[diverdog]

Most people on this board bash Obama for his energy policy. But look at this way, no one has done more to support the price of oil than President Obama, no one has cut supply more and thereby raised prices more than our president. My energy portfolio is doing just fine, now if I just afford $4.00 gasoline everything will be just great.

Just exactly how has he done this?

[soonercruiser]

Obama appointed his own Energy Secretary, and his Energy Secretary told Congress that his "job is not to hold down the price of gasoline", but....."!!!!!!!!

The Energy Dept should be abolished so this moron doesn't have a job!!!

[oudivesherpa]

Just exactly how has he done this?

It has been the Adminstrations stated energy policy to raise prices on fossils fules in order to promote the switch to alternative fules. In the short term, this means reduced supply and higher prices. As a short term play, energy prices will rise, if in the long term we find economically viaible substitute fuels, then energy prices could go down.

[SCOUT]

It has been the Adminstrations stated energy policy to raise prices on fossils fules in order to promote the switch to alternative fules. In the short term, this means reduced supply and higher prices. As a short term play, energy prices will rise, if in the long term we find economically viaible substitute fuels, then energy prices could go down.
And if we don't, we have damaged our economy to the point it may be irreparable.

[Ton Loc]

And if we don't, we have damaged our economy to the point it may be irreparable.

That's quite a large leap.

However, to the the original point. If your portfolio contains energy companies that carry a higher oil to gas ration then you're doing just fine, but if you're carrying high risk gas over oil companies (Chesapeake) you're probably not doing so well.

Anyone read the rolling stone article about Aubrey McClendon? Good stuff. Click here. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-big-fracking-bubble-the-scam-behind-the-gas-boom-20120301)

And Chesapeake's weak response. (http://www.chk.com/News/Articles/Pages/release_20120302.aspx)

[okie52]

That's quite a large leap.

However, to the the original point. If your portfolio contains energy companies that carry a higher oil to gas ration then you're doing just fine, but if you're carrying high risk gas over oil companies (Chesapeake) you're probably not doing so well.

Anyone read the rolling stone article about Aubrey McClendon? Good stuff. Click here. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-big-fracking-bubble-the-scam-behind-the-gas-boom-20120301)

And Chesapeake's weak response. (http://www.chk.com/News/Articles/Pages/release_20120302.aspx)


So you found the article enlightening and chesapeakes response weak...how surprising.

Even though this article was largely debunked just like gasland before it, you will choose to find it an indispensable source of energy enlightenment.

Old Aubrey's even fooled the president and the ng market into believing that the US has a 100 year supply of ng....pay no attention to that $2.40 per MCF....it's all an illusion.

Did you ever live in OK? How have 60 years of fracking been here?

[Skysooner]

The article itself wasn't great, but Chesapeake has some big issues. They have vast land holdings most of which they have had to joint venture to get the capital to drill and make it HBP (held by production). They have cashed in all their hedges, and their cash flow is nowhere near enough to support the drilling necessary to hold the land. Aubrey may pull a rabbit out of a hat (certainly has before), but even a mild drop in liquids prices along with the current low gas price isn't going to help them much.

[okie52]

The article itself wasn't great, but Chesapeake has some big issues. They have vast land holdings most of which they have had to joint venture to get the capital to drill and make it HBP (held by production). They have cashed in all their hedges, and their cash flow is nowhere near enough to support the drilling necessary to hold the land. Aubrey may pull a rabbit out of a hat (certainly has before), but even a mild drop in liquids prices along with the current low gas price isn't going to help them much.

That article was a real hatchet job. I can't tell whether the author was more concerned about his $400 glass of wine or the fact that one of his sources says there is only 23 years left of NG reserves.

Chesapeake has had issues the last 3-4 years but Aubrey has always turned the deals and actually enhanced Chesapeake's positions by getting carried on much of the drilling costs in the plays where he has sold portions to investors like China. And it looks like he will still need to be working his magic and sell some more. I have admired his work and its hard to question a guy that built a company the size of Chesapeake from close to scratch, but he does play the gambler too often for my money.

[Ton Loc]

So you found the article enlightening and chesapeakes response weak...how surprising.

Even though this article was largely debunked just like gasland before it, you will choose to find it an indispensable source of energy enlightenment.

Old Aubrey's even fooled the president and the ng market into believing that the US has a 100 year supply of ng....pay no attention to that $2.40 per MCF....it's all an illusion.

Did you ever live in OK? How have 60 years of fracking been here?

Hey, its a good article and my company depends on fracking for a large majority of its new and existing ventures. But Chesepeake has some real problems. The biggest problem I have is not with the fracking, it is the fact that they are drilling at such a quick rate that accidents are bound to happen. With the amount of people (not always the most skilled, careful, educated bunch) it takes to drill, frack, complete, and produce (hopefully) and the speed with which it is done there are bound to be mistakes. Not to mention the way in which the fluid is disposed. It can be done the right way, but its much more expensive and timely. And there are countless examples throughout history that we didn't always dispose of it properly.

The biggest problem is Chesapeake. The way they acquire land, the backdoors they use, the risky investments, their land department (good god), and the way they run their business it what most concerns me. They will employ between 5,000 - 10,000 people within the next five years. I'm afraid what could or will happen.

[okie52]

Hey, its a good article and my company depends on fracking for a large majority of its new and existing ventures. But Chesepeake has some real problems. The biggest problem I have is not with the fracking, it is the fact that they are drilling at such a quick rate that accidents are bound to happen. With the amount of people (not always the most skilled, careful, educated bunch) it takes to drill, frack, complete, and produce (hopefully) and the speed with which it is done there are bound to be mistakes. Not to mention the way in which the fluid is disposed. It can be done the right way, but its much more expensive and timely. And there are countless examples throughout history that we didn't always dispose of it properly.

The biggest problem is Chesapeake. The way they acquire land, the backdoors they use, the risky investments, their land department (good god), and the way they run their business it what most concerns me. They will employ between 5,000 - 10,000 people within the next five years. I'm afraid what could or will happen.

The article wasn't objective at all. The author had an agenda and would use any negative source he could find regardless of how baseless the premise or findings. Yeah, the author was warning all parties that Aubrey was out to get their pocketbook but failed to note that Chesapeake was getting carried on most of the plays it had sold an interest. For Chesapeake investors that is a he11 of a deal.

And, as most of the state regulatory agencies and studies have found, fracking itself has not been the issue. If there are waste water issues then they should be addressed but that is not even a short term problem for fracking as long as reputable contractors are handling the disposal.

And Aubrey's business model is really pure genius regarding his land plays. As he stated in an article regarding the Eagleford play where he was paying $2,000 an acre for leases. His geologists and engineers had determined that there were 5,000 barrels of oil per net acre and it was costing him $0.40 a barrel for his leasehold costs. He wasn't waiting around for lease prices to gradually rise and potentially lose valuable acreage as has been the norm when lease plays were directed by engineers and geologists. He gets in early and crushes any opposition in the play and gets substantial acreage positions.

Are there risks involved with that approach? Sure, the price could change like it has on NG and he is obligated to some degree to drill just to save acreage. And that is about all he is doing now with NG but he did have the good fortune for oil to still be solid on price.

You don't have to worry about the rush on the Marcellus and most other NG fields in the US. Chesapeake and most others aren't drilling NG plays now at $2.40 an MCF. They have all moved to oil.

[Ton Loc]

I don't disagree with most of what you said. The article wasn't that bad. Just depends on the color of your glasses.

Are you a landman? It would explain so.much. And not a bad thing either.

[okie52]

I don't disagree with most of what you said. The article wasn't that bad. Just depends on the color of your glasses.

Are you a landman? It would explain so.much. And not a bad thing either.



Yes, Landman among other things. And you?

[Skysooner]

The whole fracking debate is stupid. All of these issues are caused either by bad casing/cement design (in the case of the Chesapeake well in the Marcellus) or bad drilling to begin with. This is easily rectified by having better casing standards. You would think Pennsylvania would have had better regulations in place considering that it was the birthplace of the modern oil industry.

Fracking can cause earthquakes in the same way that water disposal wells can if located in a tectonically active area where the fault plane is in a specific direction to the primary stress field. However this is EXTREMELY rare. Water disposal wells are more dangerous as they affect larger areas over a much longer time frame. This was what caused the Youngstown earthquakes recently, the Irving TX earthquakes a few years ago and the Arkansas earthquakes within the last couple of years as well.

[Ton Loc]

Yes, Landman among other things. And you?

I have the pleasure of working with them in the exciting world of division orders.

[okie52]

I have the pleasure of working with them in the exciting world of division orders.

Division orders are always exciting to me...as long as they are mine.

[soonercruiser]

And if we don't, we have damaged our economy to the point it may be irreparable.

And, we have compromised our national soverignty and independance.
No problem for Obery!