Better late than never I guess: U.S. Stock Futures Rise on AIG, Oil-Service Recommendations
Schlumberger Ltd., Transocean Inc. and Halliburton Co. climbed after Goldman Sachs Group Inc. raised oil service companies to ``attractive'' from ``neutral'' on prospects for higher earnings.Ahead of the Bell: Goldman upgrades oil services
NEW YORK (AP) -- A Goldman Sachs analyst upgraded the oilfield services sector to "Attractive" from "Neutral" Thursday, predicting strong profit growth due to greater drilling activity and high oil prices.
Analyst Charles Minervino expects earnings to grow in the double digits through 2011 as high oil prices lead to more rapid rig construction, and both drilling activity and the rates oil companies pay for drilling will increase.
Minervino raised price targets throughout the sector, and said deep water drillers Transocean Inc., Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. and Pride International Inc. will be paid higher rates. He also favors land services that do a significant amount of business in North America, including Halliburton Co., Nabors Industries Ltd. and Helmerich & Payne Inc.
He added that Schlumberger Ltd. will also benefit from higher spending and increased rig counts.
Oil prices ticked down Thursday morning, but reports indicated that a militant group attacked an oil installation in Nigeria.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
6 comments:
OIL SERVICES COMPANIES LOOK TO CASH IN AS DEMOCRATS CAVE-IN ON BAN OF OFFSHORE DRILLING
President Bush and Sen. John McCain have publically laid down the gauntlet to the Democrats on their politically brain-dead ban on offshore drilling.
Over 70% of voters support lifting the ban and drilling in America's offshore waters for oil.
Make no mistake about it, average American citizens are up-in-arms over the high cost of gas at the pumps.
The torches and pitchforks are coming out of the closet -- Americans want action and they're storming toward Washington.
Democrats are directly to blame.
Voters remember who causes them "pain at the pumps" on election day (voters are reminded of the pain every time they fill their gas tanks).
Democratic policies against offshore drilling are reducing average American's standard of living.
Democrats will get flattened like they got hit by a Mack truck if they don't see the light and change their self-destructive policies.
Only the Democrats' far-left wing political base supports the ban.
Average Americans decidedly want access to American petroleum resources.
For that reason, this writer sees the Democrats cave-in before election day on lifting the ban on offshore exploration and production of oil.
This will result in a boon to the oil services companies. And the oil industry in general.
That's a good thing.
But if Democrats bray like a jack-ass and hunker down in this brain-dead policy, look to see vulnerable Democrats defeated in the Fall elections and the Democrats thirst for unlimited power get checked by the voters.
Democrats should wear a button pin that reads: "Ask me about my lobotomy!"
And oil field services companies should expect to see boom times.
Those are some pretty strong words about democrats there [anaconda]. What would John McCain think of that?
8 years ago, McCain was only voting 65% along Republican party lines, and even at that Republicans had the majority of the senate....so why the transition to 95% now!? I think he wants to give the 'impression' that he's a republican, but I think he actually could have run either way with having all those friends on both sides. Anyhow, it goes without saying that Democrats have some legitimate concerns of their own related to the environment, and they are looking to the funding of alternative energy sources R&D.
Although, if abiotic oil theory is correct, then we're all pumping from the same oil well and it makes no difference whether it is pumped in the Middle East or in Alaska or in the Gulf of Mexico, save for the fault lines of the ever changing Earth. However, the rate of carbon emissions into the atmosphere has nearly increased about 8 times in the last 100 years since crude oil has started being consumed, and the actual atmospheric concentrations have been increasing significantly ever since they've started being measured. Even worse is the fact that we've been clearing rainforests and replacing them with farmland, which means the rate of photosynthesis is actually decreasing. If you've ever been to China, like I have, you'd know that the extremely dense populations there (I'd guess it's 1 person per 2 foot radius in the crowded cities), most of whom are riding bikes, are demanding means of personal transportation. So anyhow, this environmental movement is legitimate, and observations from orbiting NASA satelites are making them much more relevant.
TAKING NAMES AND KICKING "ASS": ALAN von ALTENDORF
Editorial note: It is not the preference to point out individuals, as "fossil" theory nonsense is a "group-think" problem in the overall oil geological community.
But from time to time, individuals must be pointed out to make an example.
Alan von Altendorf is president and managing director of CWSX, L.L.C., based out of Houston, Texas.
Apparently, von Altendorf does business as an oil geologist.
Mr. von Altendorf was author of an opinion piece entitled, "Petrobras: Extremely Overvalued" June 2, 2008 at the online Seeking Alpha business opinion website.
This piece was nothing but a "hit job" on Petrobras. Based on von Altendorf's geological opinion of the recent Tupi and Carioca oil finds off the coast of Brazil, made by Petrobras.
von Altendorf's main point was that the oil deposits violated the "oil window," so would be mostly natural gas.
The central quote is as follows:
"Tupi and Carioca are geologically unrelated to oil producing Campos reservoirs in a younger formation, and in contrast they are primarily gas plays because of the burial age and maturation in high temperature-high pressure environment."
Mind you, von Altendorf had no personal knowledge, and even implied Petrobras was lying about the Carioca oil find. His opinion was based entirely on theory -- "fossil" theory.
This writer challenged Mr. von Altendorf's assessment, asking if this was based on the "oil window" corollary to "fossil" theory.
von Altendorf would not respond to the challenge, initially, but when confronted with the direct question:
"Do you subscribe to the 'oil window' theory?"
He responded: "Abiotic oil is impossible. There are no hydrocarbons in the mantle, bubling up through basement blocks. Peak oil is a reality."
Subsequently, von Altendorf placed comments after other oil opinion pieces.
In one comment, he stated: "Tar sands, deepwater, artic 'reserves' should be discounted if not entirely ignored. Abiotic sourcing is absolute hooey."
Of course, von Altendorf is entitled to his opinion, but he's not entitled to make up the facts.
This website has documented many oil plays deeper than the "oil window" in various oil regions around the world. Ultra-deepwater has already provided results off the West African coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, along with onshore deep wells in Alaska and Russia, which was brought to von Altendorf's attention.
von Altendorf ignored all examples, but the Gulf of Mexico finds, which is when the "burial age and maturation" distinction was made.
Mr. von Altendorf's services are less than worthless, they are destructive to his clients because the advice he gives loses the client's money and time.
And his "advice" flys in the face of the scientific evidence.
This kind of geologist, most likely somebody's lackey, hurts investors and small oil companies alike.
The need for his "services" need to end in a 'dry-hole', before his "advice" costs too much money to unbeware investors.
The phone should not ring in Mr. von Altendorf's office.
His silence would be 'golden'.
To Quantum_Flux:
Yes, the words are 'tough', but reflect the coming political debate over the Democratic Parties offshore oil exploration and production policies.
The Democrats can change the tone to the debate overnight -- change their policies, and show compromise on the issue.
This writer hopes they do moderate their position.
This writer also wants 'alternative' energy solutions. But a healthy economy will provide more investment money for research and development than an ailing and inflation saddled economy.
Hurting the economy is not the proper way to induce investment, research, and development in 'alternative' energy.
This writer supports the market approach, and believes viable 'alternative' energy will help reduce the cost of petroleum as competition generally lowers the price.
Certainly, this has always been the fear of Saudi Arabia and other OPEC oil producers, that too high a price for oil will spur the search for alternative fuels.
This writer doesn't mind putting a flame under the Saudi princes' butts. But is not willing to see the American economy ruined in the process.
Perversely, Democrats' policies are putting more money in the Saudi pocket and the oil companies' pocket -- taking it right out of the American people's pocket.
That kind of policy is wrong and this writer makes no apology for calling it out -- and spelling out the only consequences the Democrats seem to understand:
Losing power.
Yeah, I entirely agree that the democrats need to compromise. Drilling our own oil is very good for our economy.
Oil Economy + Properly Educated Masses -> Good for Economy + The American Way + $$$ for R&D -> Good for America + Good for Environment...etc.
I'm voting McCain because I think I see where he's at. Bigger ecconomy, smaller government, and bigger military defense.... he want's to get of out of the silly Iraq war if he can, but he's not going to withdraw and leave us defensless.
Post a Comment