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.

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.

Wasn't it a tiny shareholder who wanted to pass a resolution that would prevent Apple from doing anything that isn't directly profit-oriented (ie. don't work on discrimination, worker conditions, the environment, etc)? No wonder it made Cook angry, as I'm sure it would make Buffett or Munger the same. Now of course everybody tried to spin it into a big thing that it wasn't... I've never known Buffett or Munger to temper their response by the size of anyone's holdings in the company. And they have the class that one should have by the time one is running a multi billion dollar company to be able to respond to questions about how their decisions will be in the best interest of a shareholder. And things like discrimination, worker conditions, etc. should be able to be explained how they are positives to the company, whether through good P.R. better productivity etc.

What exactly does management telling shareholder to sell the stock (for any reason) actually mean? My translation: "You are no longer welcome to own the company which you've hired me to run for you." Sadly, he is just bluntly saying what most CEO's think of shareholders. They may have different motives than Apples' CEO, but still they don't view themselves as caretakers of someones investment, and certainly not their employee.

But the benefits far outweigh the negative impacts, I have no guilt for how the standard of living has been raised exponentially by it. And on the scale of toxins that man is putting into the environment, I see carbon dioxide as far, far up the list of things to tackle first. Are the environmental costs of rare earth mineral extraction and processing in other countries factored in. Somehow I doubt it, but it makes the green people feel smug.

Interesting article by Crichton. You don't have to have a degree in climatology or have spent your entire life studying it to realize that a lot of settled science has turned out to be false or misunderstood before. And sorry the whole point of demanding it be settled seems to revolve around, let us have complete control over the way you live your life and open your wallet for us. Whether it is warming or cooling or if CO2 has anything to do with it or not. I'm still wondering what is the ideal temp and either way there will be winners and losers as there always has been. If there is more droughts in NA and fewer in Africa who gets to decide which is better. Crops will grow were they haven't before and crops won't grow were they used to. But if all that can be put out is "the sky is falling" hand over your freedom and money. Is it any wonder more and more people are becoming skeptical.

Is it really tons of inventory, if no one wants it. Isn't that considered a landfill then.:>) How many genders are there that most aren't interested. :>)

I would think this would have to weigh heavy on dissolving pulp prices and demand.

"What do you mean by that. My take away is two fold. One, the poll is not meaningful without knowing who formerly held FFH and no longer does." I've been in and out of it 4 times over the years. At one point close to 50% of my holdings, but at present I have no holdings of FFH in any accounts that I have.

Haha. On a less dramatic note, it is totally within Sanjeev's rights to say as much or as little as he wants. There are a number of fantastic posters here. No need to pressure anyone to do anything - that's not what we're all about. Sanjeev created this ecosystem. That's more than enough for me. Sadly, seems like the life cycle of most investor boards though.

I'm not sure simply being an Internet forum explains the over abundance of engineers. It might have 10 years ago, and certainly would have 21 years ago (when I first had Internet access). But Now? Hell everyone I know from age 8 to 80 has internet access, this is everyone from any background and any profession. Look at Facebook, most people are not engineers. If non-engineers wanted to be here, they would be. rkbabang, I should have been more specific. I meant the Internet beyond Facebook/social media/news websites. My completely-based-on-just-my-gut-feeling opinion is that engineering/tech types are less afraid of exploring and engaging in the outskirts of the Internet, which I'd consider CoB&F to be. Given, I do think there's a natural overlap between the people who like engineering and the people who like investing. However, I still think we have some additional skew here due to the population we're getting our data points from. It also could be as simple as there is a tight supply of engineers and they are commanding high wages. Being the cheap "er frugal" type they are, they need to find investment ideas. ;) Heard of an engineer at a mine site planned to go back to family farm. They convinced him to stay by paying full salary for working half the year, rather than recruit and bring someone else up to speed.