Business & Investing
Sponsored by

Stock Markets

24,640,483 Views | 233293 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by Heineken-Ashi
FTAG 2000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FTAG 2000 said:

I think the biggest question for me right now on BOIL and natural gas is... why the drop in the last week?

US and Europe both facing significant cold snaps, Freeport still shut down, what's the catalyst for the drop?
Answered my own question -

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-natgas-drops-9-less-130543762.html

Quote:


U.S. natural gas futures dropped about 9% to a seven-week low on Tuesday on forecasts for the weather to turn warmer than normal in late December and early January.

Bird Poo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FTAG 2000 said:

I think the biggest question for me right now on BOIL and natural gas is... why the drop in the last week?

US and Europe both facing significant cold snaps, Freeport still shut down, what's the catalyst for the drop?
/Farmer Grass bat signal
FTAG 2000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Anyone know if there is a ticker in Fidelity ATP that corresponds to natural gas?

Yeah I know it's ATP but it's where I have my trading account right now.
wanderer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UNG
Farmer @ Johnsongrass, TX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bird Poo said:

FTAG 2000 said:

I think the biggest question for me right now on BOIL and natural gas is... why the drop in the last week?

US and Europe both facing significant cold snaps, Freeport still shut down, what's the catalyst for the drop?
/Farmer Grass bat signal
IMO, biggest impact from the U.S. side is Freeport. Open it up in winter, NatGas to the moon. Appears the Administration will succeed in keeping Freeport shut down a long time.

As for EU, I am being told that Price Caps make it prohibitive for EU to buy NatGas. That would mean their alternative is crude. This is odd, but it's what I am reading.
>
>
>
The text below is borrowed from another site, this is 24 hours old.
Quote:

For those on the MB following European NG prices, ICE is upset by the EU gas cap price that passed today and is considering relocating the Dutch trading hub.....Texas might work. After all, the US is the leading LNG exporter in the world and growth is expected to soar in coming years.
  • The Intercontinental Exchange has warned that it will consider relocating its gas trading hub to outside of the European Union if the European Commission agrees to a plan to cap gas prices.
  • What's the thinking here? ICE is concerned that the cap, in its way, could drive up prices and contribute to a loss of liquidity in that market and believes that as a result it would have to consider moving the Dutch benchmark elsewhere. "It is the responsibility of ICE as the market operator to consider all options if this mechanism is agreed, up to and including whether an effective market in the Netherlands is still viable," ICE said.
  • The TTF is the most liquid gas futures market in Europe, and Dutch network operator Gasunie, which set up the TTF in 2003, has said that hosting the platform helps stabilize fuel supply because trading activity attracts gas development.

Many moving parts in NatGas and energy as a whole. My eyes stay focused on Freeport - that's 20% of America's export capacity. They don't operate, production gets backed up into storage/inventory, price goes down. Progressive Liberals do not like Free Markets. Republicans are not fighting back.

MasonRamsay
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Robag09 said:

MasonRamsay said:

Looking at a weekly chart I am not sure what strong support at $0.50 that you're talking about....

$080ish is the last bit of VERY SMALL support with nothing below until once again VERY SMALL support at $0.25.

At this point WWR is simply getting shorted to oblivion by MM and there has not been any sort of catalyst or news to bring new buyers in. I did some DD and it turns out the initial massive spike from $1.30 to $12 was a zack morris pump. Then the following $5 to $10.50 during the winter freeze (where my dumbass didn't go net free because the greed was too much) was also a zack morris pump. Have a feeling professional short sellers are continuing to hammer this simply bc it was one of the atlas pumps. If you check the other atlas pumps like CEI or WISH it is clear as day that shorts are ripping those to shreds. Just my 2 cents.

In other news I have a call scheduled with Steve Cates, CFO of WWR, on Monday at 1:30pm. I have a few questions regarding funding that they have been vague about as well as delays. I am a stupid, idiot who diamond handed this after being apart of MGNI and seeing the possibilities. If there are any questions y'all would like me to ask Steve I am all ears.


Let us know how your call went, I am sure many on here are eager to hear your report!
I apologize to all those who do not want to hear about the garbage stock anymore but I will follow up on what I learned from Steve.

Thundergon replied to one of my posts asking if I get the same story and the answer is yes. They've applied for the grant funding and are exploring every way possible to get this sucker funded into phase 2.

Sadly, I did not learn anything worthwhile that changes what I think about the company. It is time for us all to realize the stock we are holding- and that is a pre-revenue growth stock during a very long winter for speculative small caps of any size. Technically, the bubble popped in Feb 2021 for anything speculative in nature and the $WWR group has had to deal with that. Along with being apart of the speculative nature they have had intense delays due to supply chains etc.. which I cannot fault them for. This has been the most bleak macro conditions that I can remember, especially for anything remotely speculative.

Steve struck me as an honest, hard working man who is doing what he can for the shareholders. We are in no mans land in technicals, and no mans land in knowing what the future macro conditions could look like.

OA has said that he thinks production needs to come online in 2023 otherwise it will fail. I tend to agree. I was personally more worried about a RS bagging everyone but Steve confirmed that is not being looked at whatsoever.

This is either gonna 20x or fall flat on its face. Is what it is. Not sure what else to say at this point besides "know what you hold and why you hold it". Or if you wanna take a tax loss I highly doubt any sort of catalyst happens in the next 30 days. Good luck everyone
BaylorSpineGuy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's an RDR if I've ever seen one, FJ! Closed not even $0.40 above yesterday close lol. May have been a hook close tho with what looks like a late afternoon selloff.

Been too busy to trade last 5 days but gonna try to get after it in next 2 days!
Boy Named Sue
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Word is they've started receiving natural gas at the plant. Maybe the feds really won't stop them
Farmer @ Johnsongrass, TX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Open the valve!
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Boy Named Sue said:

Word is they've started receiving natural gas at the plant. Maybe the feds really won't stop them
Outstanding if true.
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MasonRamsay said:

Robag09 said:

MasonRamsay said:

Looking at a weekly chart I am not sure what strong support at $0.50 that you're talking about....

$080ish is the last bit of VERY SMALL support with nothing below until once again VERY SMALL support at $0.25.

At this point WWR is simply getting shorted to oblivion by MM and there has not been any sort of catalyst or news to bring new buyers in. I did some DD and it turns out the initial massive spike from $1.30 to $12 was a zack morris pump. Then the following $5 to $10.50 during the winter freeze (where my dumbass didn't go net free because the greed was too much) was also a zack morris pump. Have a feeling professional short sellers are continuing to hammer this simply bc it was one of the atlas pumps. If you check the other atlas pumps like CEI or WISH it is clear as day that shorts are ripping those to shreds. Just my 2 cents.

In other news I have a call scheduled with Steve Cates, CFO of WWR, on Monday at 1:30pm. I have a few questions regarding funding that they have been vague about as well as delays. I am a stupid, idiot who diamond handed this after being apart of MGNI and seeing the possibilities. If there are any questions y'all would like me to ask Steve I am all ears.


Let us know how your call went, I am sure many on here are eager to hear your report!
I apologize to all those who do not want to hear about the garbage stock anymore but I will follow up on what I learned from Steve.

Thundergon replied to one of my posts asking if I get the same story and the answer is yes. They've applied for the grant funding and are exploring every way possible to get this sucker funded into phase 2.

Sadly, I did not learn anything worthwhile that changes what I think about the company. It is time for us all to realize the stock we are holding- and that is a pre-revenue growth stock during a very long winter for speculative small caps of any size. Technically, the bubble popped in Feb 2021 for anything speculative in nature and the $WWR group has had to deal with that. Along with being apart of the speculative nature they have had intense delays due to supply chains etc.. which I cannot fault them for. This has been the most bleak macro conditions that I can remember, especially for anything remotely speculative.

Steve struck me as an honest, hard working man who is doing what he can for the shareholders. We are in no mans land in technicals, and no mans land in knowing what the future macro conditions could look like.

OA has said that he thinks production needs to come online in 2023 otherwise it will fail. I tend to agree. I was personally more worried about a RS bagging everyone but Steve confirmed that is not being looked at whatsoever.

This is either gonna 20x or fall flat on its face. Is what it is. Not sure what else to say at this point besides "know what you hold and why you hold it". Or if you wanna take a tax loss I highly doubt any sort of catalyst happens in the next 30 days. Good luck everyone
Thanks for following up. I don't own it but it closed at 80 cents. Surely they'll do something to keep it from being delisted, one would hope.
txaggie_08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Isn't the only option, outside of some big news hitting, to do a reverse split?
Farmer @ Johnsongrass, TX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good read. Looks like some financial institutions are having a change of mind.

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/reality-bites-finance-firms-row-back-their-climate-pledges-2022-12-20/

Quote:

Reality bites as finance firms row back on their climate pledges

By Mike Scott

December 15 - In the run-up to last year's United Nations climate conference in Glasgow, there was huge optimism that the financial sector was finally stepping up to its responsibilities on tackling climate change. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), set up by former Bank of England and Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney and encompassing net zero alliances of asset owners, asset managers, insurers and pension funds, promised to accelerate the transition to a green economy.

In the aftermath of COP27, the most recent U.N. climate summit, that optimism has been tempered, with a feeling that the sector has yet to address its biggest issues.
Progress has been too slow in areas ranging from climate to biodiversity to deforestation and there is a recognition that it will be extremely difficult to transform the system thanks to systemic inertia, political hostility and a bias towards incumbent providers.

According to BloombergNEF's New Energy Outlook, we must spend almost $200 trillion to achieve net zero by 2050 most of it private capital and yet across the sector, there is a lack of transparency and mixed messages on how committed firms are to meeting the target.
A couple of years ago, JP Morgan chief executive Jamie Dimon was claiming his bank would align its investments in fossil fuels with the Paris Agreement. Yet this year, he told the U.S. Congress that the bank "absolutely does not" have a policy against funding new oil and gas projects and the idea of doing so "would be the road to hell for America".

Vanguard, the world's second largest asset manager, has just resigned from the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative in the wake of attacks from Republican politicians in the U.S., who have spoken out against investors that they say are hostile to fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, in China, which hosts the world's fastest-growing green bonds market, analysis suggests "it's almost impossible to know how the money is being spent or whether it's having the intended impact" because of "important gaps in disclosure and transparency".

There has been consternation that members of the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), which had agreed to use a methodology set out by the U.N.'s Race to Zero initiative, abandoned it after the methodology was made more stringent last summer, for the first time explicitly requiring members to "phase down and out of all unabated fossil fuels".
"Race to Zero has a very robust approach to target-setting," says Dr Adriana Kocornik-Mina, senior research and metrics manager at the Global Alliance for Banking on Values (GABV). "The NZBA has recently dropped this and allowed members to use alternative approaches, leading to a potential weakening of how organisations carry out net zero analysis and planning."
Some alliance members are worried about legal repercussions if they rule out financing fossil fuels, but Kocornik-Mina says: "If you're still financing fossil fuels and have net-zero targets for other parts of your portfolio, you're not walking the talk." There is a reluctance to be the first to act, she adds, because for now fossil fuels remain very profitable.
Following the NZBA's first progress report, Jeanne Martin, head of ShareAction's banking programme, says that there are crucial gaps and flaws in NZBA members' targets.
"Most fail to capture the full range of greenhouse gas and financing activities, exclude heavy-emitting sectors such as chemicals, or use emissions-intensity targets, which can mask the fact that absolute emissions continue to rise."
It doesn't help that investors are not getting the full picture from the companies they invest in. According to Jane Thostrup Jagd, deputy director of net zero finance at the We Mean Business Coalition, almost none of the most polluting companies provide enough evidence that their financial statements consider climate impacts. In the words of a recent report from climate finance NGO Carbon Tracker, investors are "still flying blind
Carbon Tracker analysed 134 multinational companies, responsible for up to 80% of corporate industrial greenhouse gas emissions. Although they are all subject to engagement from Climate Action 100+ (CA100+), the investor-led initiative launched in 2017 to hold the biggest greenhouse gas emitters' feet to the fire, 98% did not provide sufficient evidence that their financial statements include the impacts to their business from climate change.

Companies exposed to climate risks, such as the possibility of assets being stranded or overvalued, should highlight these in financial reports so that investors have the full picture.
In addition, the financial statements of companies with net-zero or emissions-reduction targets should explain how they will achieve this goal. But Carbon Tracker found that, even though a significant majority of the companies it examined had such targets, just 2% had aligned the information in their financial statements with achieving them.
This is the approach called for by the Taskforce for Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), whose recommendations are the basis for forthcoming rules from the European Union, the UK, the U.S. and the new International Sustainability Standards Board. These TCFD rules and regulations should bring the clarity and comparability that "the market has been begging for", says Alexandra Mihailescu Cichon, executive vice-president at ESG data provider RepRisk.
RepRisk analyses a range of sources to get a true picture of a company's approach to ESG factors, she says. "External sources hold up a mirror to what the company says it is doing, to give banks and investors a full picture. Report disclosures can be somewhat biased."
Indeed, despite some improvements in disclosure, no CA100+ focus company provided all of the information required by the relevant standards or requested by investors, despite operating in high-emitting sectors such as oil and gas, mining, transportation and industrials, says Barbara Davidson, Carbon Tracker's head of accounting, audit and disclosure and lead author.
"When companies don't take climate-related matters into account, their financial statements may include overstated assets, understated liabilities and overstated profits," she said.
Yet financial companies themselves have similar issues. A systemic transformation is essential, says Andrea Webster, finance system transformation lead at the World Benchmarking Alliance. "The financial system is one of the last pieces in the puzzle it's an amplifier for where we need to move at scale. But we are still a long way from our expectations."
The alliance's new Financial System Benchmark assessed 400 global financial institutions on their progress to supporting a just and sustainable economy. It found that just a fifth of institutions from banks to asset owners and managers, insurers to development banks, pension funds and sovereign wealth funds acknowledge their impact on people and the planet.

Without this acknowledgment they cannot put in place processes to identify and manage the impact they have, set targets and monitor progress, the alliance says.
More than a third (37%) of these institutions have made net zero and other pledges, but "despite global commitments, significant work is needed by financial institutions across all measurement areas to operationalise these commitments," Webster points out. Only 2% of those with long-term net-zero targets have interim targets and only 1% are backed by science-based targets.
"It's really important to have transparency on interim targets so investors can understand what progress is being made," she adds.
Reporting on human rights risk and impact is almost non-existent. And funding for low-income countries, small businesses and other excluded groups is still exceptionally low. There is also virtually no tracking of the impact of institutions' financing activities on nature and biodiversity, even though the U.N. Environment Programme says investment in nature-based solutions must triple by 2030, and private capital currently represents only 17% of investment in the sector.
The best performers in the WBA benchmark are European and Canadian banks, whose performance is lifted by the regulatory backdrop, along with development banks. "Those that do well have sustainability embedded into their mandate, C-suite commitment and clear policies in place," Webster says. "You need accountability at the highest level, including linking targets to executive remuneration."
The key to reaching climate targets is to go where the emissions are. For investors, that creates a challenge, says Daisy Streatfeild, sustainability director at asset manager Ninety One. "We could reduce the emissions of our portfolio very quickly by selling off the high-carbon assets, but it does nothing to achieve net zero. The ultimate test is how much emissions are reduced in the real economy, rather than in our portfolios."
A new wave of transition finance is needed, according to Ninety One. "We must finance the reduction of carbon by directing capital to high-emitting regions and sectors where real-world change is most needed," says the firm's chief executive, Hendrik du Toit. "The worst mistake would be to isolate carbon-heavy places and enterprises by starving them of capital. Stepping back simply exacerbates the problem. Divestment may feel virtuous. But it would be ruinous. Heavy emitters cannot decarbonise alone."
South Africa, for example, has the highest emissions intensity grid network in the world. "It's a very clear, easily identified issue that needs addressing," says Streatfeild. "In one sense, it's very simple, but at the same time it's very challenging because it's such a big issue and Eskom, the state utility, is such a large company. The grid is very coal-intensive and South Africa's mining industry is a significant employer, with more than 1 million people dependent on those salaries. We will see resistance to the shape and pace of change if the social impacts are ignored."
The Sustainable Markets Initiative Transition Finance Working Group says that investment of about $4 trillion annually is needed to reach net zero by 2050, about a quarter of it in emerging markets. But only 15% of the necessary finance has been made available.
As Catherine McKenna, chair of the U.N.'s High-level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities, says: "We know what we need to do: peak global emissions in just three years, by 2025, and cut emissions in half in less than eight years, by 2030. Money needs to move from funding fossil fuel infrastructure and instead be invested at scale in clean energy.
But this does not mean just selling out of problematic companies, she says. Investors must focus on their impacts in the real economy as a whole, not just in their own portfolios. And the need for a just transition must inform everything they do net zero will not happen without public support, so due care must be taken to address the concerns of workers in carbon-heavy industries and countries."
It's a huge and massively complex task. Transparency, accountability and global consistency in regulations will all be needed for the financial sector to have a fighting chance of achieving it.
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
txaggie_08 said:

Isn't the only option, outside of some big news hitting, to do a reverse split?
I think they've got some time. I know rules were suspended at least for a while during Covid. Dunno if they've gone back. Also that one percent tax goes into effect for buy backs.
MasonRamsay
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They're listed on AMEX not the nasdaq. I am not familiar of the listing requirements of the 2 but i do believe AMEX is able to avoid a RS longer than a stock listed on the nasdaq.

Take this with a grain of salt- I may be wrong.
Farmer @ Johnsongrass, TX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FedEx and Nike report beats! Let's go!
rsf0626
How long do you want to ignore this user?
**** you elon. TSLA in the ****ter ever since he started opening his mouth
rsf0626
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Boy Named Sue said:

Word is they've started receiving natural gas at the plant. Maybe the feds really won't stop them
https://marketnews.com/lng-tankers-head-to-freeport-terminal-signal-reopening
FTAG 2000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
wanderer said:

UNG
Thanks. That one looks like an ETF, but I don't see how it correlates.

It closed at 16.61 while /QG (Natural Gas futures) closed at 5.36.
FTAG 2000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
rsf0626 said:

**** you elon. TSLA in the ****ter ever since he started opening his mouth
Why did you hold onto it when started dropping?

Anyway, it's not his fault that he's decided to get involved in the fight for the future of humanity. Be pissed at the big investment firms who are colluding to hammer TSLA for his non-compliance.
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TBF everything tech related has dropped lately.
$30,000 Millionaire
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Decent cell signal for a minute.

Someone is selling the shiat out of TSLA and trying to get out in a hurry. Closed below -3 ATR. I think it has to bounce, but things can get stupid sometimes.

There is a volume divergence on it too. Increasing volume, rapidly decreasing stock. I see it's already up $2 AH.


You don’t trade for money, you trade for freedom.
$30,000 Millionaire
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BOIL is not stupidly sold off yet.

I think selling 25P could be OK. You can get wiped out though.

Probably goes to 30 from here, then 20.
You don’t trade for money, you trade for freedom.
$30,000 Millionaire
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
NQ has a large bear flag, but a lower trend line has held 3X and there was an RDR today. Good news is going below that trend like is an easy exit if long.

Inconsistent signals, therefore you go with the trend until proven otherwise (down) and recognize any longs right now are counter trend.


You don’t trade for money, you trade for freedom.
insulator_king
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
$BOIL closed down 13++%
$KOLD closed up 13+ %

Almost perfectly opposite.

Does that mean buy both??
$30,000 Millionaire
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
insulator_king said:

$BOIL closed down 13++%
$KOLD closed up 13+ %

Almost perfectly opposite.

Does that mean buy both??


And do what?
You don’t trade for money, you trade for freedom.
irish pete ag06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Your seller.

Philip J Fry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
$30,000 Millionaire said:

insulator_king said:

$BOIL closed down 13++%
$KOLD closed up 13+ %

Almost perfectly opposite.

Does that mean buy both??


And do what?


Sell for break even?
Charismatic Megafauna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Philip J Fry said:

$30,000 Millionaire said:

insulator_king said:

$BOIL closed down 13++%
$KOLD closed up 13+ %

Almost perfectly opposite.

Does that mean buy both??


And do what?


Sell for break even?

Sell calls on both, profit?
Philip J Fry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Denver is about to get hammered with a cold front. Going to be the coldest day on record in 30 years.
FJ43
How long do you want to ignore this user?
After reading todays posts….it went off the rails several times.

Glad to see we've resumed to some degree of normal banter for all us trading degenerates.
Wealth gained hastily will dwindle. but whoever gathers little by little will increase it.
Proverbs 13:11

Philip J Fry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
wanderer said:




So, wasn't Sept 19th near the bottom? Assume if he sold at the peak in December, that would have been a nice profit?
FJ43
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ProgN said:

Troy91 said:

Frequent posters have personalities that are easy to remember.




This should be my sig.
Prog with the thread save with a little humor….

Good job brother….
Wealth gained hastily will dwindle. but whoever gathers little by little will increase it.
Proverbs 13:11

lobwedgephil
How long do you want to ignore this user?
$30,000 Millionaire said:

Decent cell signal for a minute.

Someone is selling the shiat out of TSLA and trying to get out in a hurry. Closed below -3 ATR. I think it has to bounce, but things can get stupid sometimes.

There is a volume divergence on it too. Increasing volume, rapidly decreasing stock. I see it's already up $2 AH.



TSLA filled a gap from Nov 20 after hours and bounced.
Boy Named Sue
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BOIL has been up as much as 5.5% in pre-mkt trading and other ng stocks are up. I'm looking at MUR and SWN if anyone has thoughts
First Page Last Page
Page 5893 of 6666
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.