bindlepete

Comment Stream » CHK

Comment Stream
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:
  • Chesapeake Energy Unable to Rally Even After Positive News
    HeY Aubrey was a victim on his own hype although unquestionably he has brought in a lot of gas. I am sorry he was called out and hope that it doesn't affect his commitment to the Company.

    The problems are that oil has tumbled, that the gas industry is bordering on glut and most of all the expansion of growth in sales and use has been passive on the part of the industry itself. I

    It reminds me of the coal industry that was displaced by oil in the chemocal feedstock industry because the coal folk refused to put any money into research as to use of their product. They gave the chemical industry away.They got fat just saying you want coal? just back up to the tipple what you do with it is your business.

    Natural gas is doing little more with their compressed gas vehicles. Why are they not converting the gas to methano or dimethyl diesel ? for transportation use? Stupid I suppose. The Chinese are spending a fortune in the far more difficult conversion of coal to these two transportation fuels.

    Go with M-85 and the glut will dissappear and CHK will be back on track to develop and sell its resources.
    Dec 24 11:34 am |Rating: +1 -1 |Link to Comment |View article
  • The Pickens Plan Changes Its Strategy
    Jeff:

    The issue of natural gas as a feedstock for replacement of liquid fuels takes me to the direct use of methanol ( partially oxidized methane).

    The DISC engine championed by Texaco and UPS in the last energy crunch can handle nearly pure methanol as can the idiotically small gas turbines such as the Capystone model with very high efficiency.

    M-85 is my preferred fuel. Bank of America ran it's currier fleet on it for years with huge cuts in maintenance and emissions.

    For non weight sensitive power ( rail roads and tow boats ) methanol run through a fuel cell makes sense. We are not out of options and a barrier against OPEC meddling is simple from a legislative viewpoint.


    On Nov 17 10:22 AM Brahm wrote:

    > The cylinder or space issues for CNG is not a significant issue in
    > the case of CNG fired trucks.. The author's suggestions on liquid
    > fuels, also advocated by many others and Mr. Pickens himself, is
    > in my view a foolish intellectual contribution to the whole idea
    > of global warming or energy independence due to the following reasons
    > and others.
    >
    > Synthesis of liquid fuels (diesel) involves a thermal efficiency
    > of about 50%. That means it takes about 2 MM BTU of CNG to produce
    > one MM BTU of diesel! This chips off significantly the advasntage
    > for a tacit objective of putting out less carbon to contain global
    > warming. The author should not forget that rather than the volume
    > of the tank it is the weight of the fuel and its BTU density which
    > determines the overall performance (mpg) of the engine, if other
    > issues such as engine burn characteristics, etc remain equivalent
    > for the two fuels. BTU to BTU diesel is much more weighty than
    > CNG!
    >
    > There is an economic dimension to the issues I have raised. The
    > fuel material input costs, i.e. the cost of natural gas input for
    > diesel, is double that of CNG as a direct firing fuel (low synthesis
    > efficiency!). In other words, the present $6 per MM BTU CNG becomes
    > a $12 per MMBTU input cost for diesel. Add to this plant capital,
    > depreciation, interest on capital borrowed, ROR, etc, you have $16
    > per MM BTU cost. Quite a lot more than $6 CNG!!! A massive shift
    > to the use of this kind of diesel will roil gas markets, bring gas
    > supply concerns, etc, etc and etc. MY guess is there would be no
    > advantage vis-a-vis oil, especially if OPEC or other oil intersts
    > turn themselves as upsetters of the apple-cart. Competition!!!

    >
    >
    > There are other profound issues which I will leave you, MR. Pickens
    > and others to think and browse about. But there are there. Without
    > good thinking we may go down a sticky wcket again. Please! Us,
    > little people, and OBAMA does not need another mess on our hands
    > through shoddy thinking and slickness. Please continue the good
    > work with my blessings! And, if you have the energy to do it check
    > it out with me. I am "retired", though, but would not mind giving
    > my inputs
    Nov 17 12:16 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Loss of Clarity on Chesapeake's Peak
    Cooking the Books?

    I wonder if the Presidents Group on Markets - the so called Plunge Protection Team is again interfering in open markets like the NYMEX relative to the future price of oil and thus forcing oil or natural gas contracts down. No reason why they wouldn't as a dollar spent here will amplify in it's impact on the equities markets.

    I short cheaper than manipulating the equities markets as they have in the past. Furhter they could use SPR as a back up for sales.

    It seems all they want to do is get out of town on an up tick.

    Be well
    Jul 22 15:33 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article

bindlepete's Comments Stream Stats

  • 31 Comments, 12 , 8
  • Total Comment Stream rating - = 4