tyska

All the headlines keep screaming glut, then you have the facts. Who is right. http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/EIA-Oil-Production-Numbers-Show-Global-Slowdown.html The North Sea and the US are just about a wash.

Not quite sure what you are saying here. That buying back shares now is a bad decision by management? They omitted the fact that insiders and the company were buying back shares. They would have known those things when they issued their press release. Bad form. Insiders were front running the NCIB. That strikes me as unethical. Not able to comment on what they did or didn't know at the time of the press release. But my understanding is that a third party is responsible for buybacks, but have no idea what requirements would be as far as frequency of reporting buys to company.

don't they buy at the same time they are issued via dividend reinvestment? does that make a lot of sense? I don't know. Does a DRIP program ever make sense or does it only make sense under certain criteria? I'm thinking the same thought process could be applied to options. Another way to word the question is, should companies ever have a DRIP program. You should add a DRIP program if you are getting tight on cash and you think this might scare the market less than cutting the dividend. And of course if misleading people in this way doesn't bother your conscience. I wasn't necessarily talking about how LTS did it, not exactly sure when they instituted their DRIP, as the comment of buying back shares while you have a drip in place can apply to other stocks. The Canadian banks come to mind as to other shares that I have in DRIP, who also have normal course issuer bids.

don't they buy at the same time they are issued via dividend reinvestment? does that make a lot of sense? I don't know. Does a DRIP program ever make sense or does it only make sense under certain criteria? I'm thinking the same thought process could be applied to options. Another way to word the question is, should companies ever have a DRIP program.

Not quite sure what you are saying here. That buying back shares now is a bad decision by management?

I see LTS has started to buy back shares. They're buying back as Petrobakken not sure why that is. 3 mil cancelled as of Dec. 5

I see LTS has done another asset sale to lower debt. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/lightstream-announces-378-million-asset-202645916.html "CALGARY, ALBERTA--(Marketwired - Sep 2, 2014) - Lightstream Resources Ltd. (the "Company" or "Lightstream") (LTS.TO) is pleased to announce that we have entered into an agreement with Crescent Point Energy Ltd. to sell the remaining assets in our southeast Saskatchewan Conventional business unit for gross proceeds of $378.4 million, including $375 million in cash proceeds plus certain Bakken lands within our Creelman enhanced oil recovery (EOR) project area valued at $3.4 million (the Transaction). "

If I wasn't holding both PWT and LTS it would be funnier. But the buzz was always that not having their debt under control was holding them back in the market. Both have been making significant gains in getting their debt under control, but now there are smaller, almost insignificant things that are the focus.

Wow quite the reaction on PWT. I'm no accountant, but from reading what they are saying (assuming it isn't smoke). It doesn't affect cash or debt numbers, so they were just allocating expenses wrong to make things look better in the past than they were. If numbers are changed to make the past look worse, that hardly changes were the company is headed now. They sure have made some spectacular gains in the time to drill wells.

The perfect seven words to sum up humanity and something we should all teach our kids.

Couldn't help but take liberties when someone uses the term "little people". ;)

He's friends with the CEO and various board members. It's easy for us to say he should've rebuked them... Isn't that a conflict of interest though? Yeah, one reads all the blah, blah,blah in annual reports about how independent the directors are and all. Then someone, who is a vocal opponent of all the largess, won't even fulfill his fiduciary duty to look out for the best interests of the common shareholder. Some days it's hard to spot the difference between the Russian oligarchs and corporate executives. Once again, easy for little people to say. If only Buffett would cast aside all of his relationships in pursuit of some greater ideal, then all of his followers would be happy knowing that he's making a sacrifice that they'll never have to. It's always easier to put aside pragmatism for theoretical obligations when you're not the person who has to do it. You're right there are countless little people throughout history who put the pursuit of a greater ideal ahead of pragmatism. I don't now if I would react that way until put in the position they were. But I have the utmost respect for them in their anonymity.

He's friends with the CEO and various board members. It's easy for us to say he should've rebuked them... Isn't that a conflict of interest though? Yeah, one reads all the blah, blah,blah in annual reports about how independent the directors are and all. Then someone, who is a vocal opponent of all the largess, won't even fulfill his fiduciary duty to look out for the best interests of the common shareholder. Some days it's hard to spot the difference between the Russian oligarchs and corporate executives.

Probably a lot cheaper than 100 grand a plane to stream flight data. Unless you get a military contractor to do it. ;)

It appears a company has been trying to sell a real-time streaming flight data recorder to the airlines for $100,000 per plane: http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/21/technology/flyht-flight-data-streaming-black-box/index.html?iid=HP_Highlight Of course, the airlines won't go for that because they aren't responsible for paying for the massive search for this missing plane. Isn't this a multinational government bailout of Malaysian Airlines? Could the airline be asked to reimburse all of the nations involved for the hunt for it's own damn company's plane, especially since they could have prevented the cost for $100,000? Seeing it seems some evidence is pointing to multiple tracking devices being shutoff/disabled. How would have an $100,000 dollar device have worked any better if shutoff or disabled. I think that's obvious. You put the shutoff/disable switch in an area of the aircraft so that only a ground-crew can access it. Perhaps it is behind a panel that can only be accessed from the external belly of the aircraft. Let me ask you a question? Can the pilot shutoff the existing flight data recorder? This is no different -- it's just streaming it live to a database. I don't know if they can shutoff the existing flight data recorder, my guess would be no, but then that goes against a few things I've read that the flight crew has to be able to isolate all electrical systems in case of a short. Not sure how the flight data recorder is wired to make it special, but it must be. But I did a poor job of wording what my initial thought was. The problem isn't really the flight data recorder, as I think they have all been able to be retrieved, when they know were the plane is. So I would think that for a whole lot less than $100,000 dollars some sort of tracker could be attached to the plane. They may want to look at a cockpit voice recorder that doesn't overwrite itself after two hours though, if this plane actually flew for the length of time after, that they suspect.