RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Condensate remains at a premium to WTIBadgering?! Ha! That's rich coming from the most abusive poster on this board and any of the other multiple boards you post on. You have no problem hectoring other posters over their posts and repeatedly attacking them with your toxic diatribes.
Isn't it time you changed your alias again? It's been over a year since your last identity change.
Again you were frothing over 35 miillion in additional earnings that were not real. Pointing that out is not an argument for the sake of arguing. Current capital plans are based on those hedged prices which account for a significant % of our current production. It was not net new revenue based on the uptick in condensate and gas prices.
Don2018 wrote: skiptoggle wrote: I never said you could go from 1500 to 15000 without borrowing. I think you need to chill out, triple check your facts, and count to 10 before posting.
I like how you blithely ignore your errors while attacking someone and refuse to answer questions about your original statements. e.g. From your original post where did you get the $35,000,000 of extra money to spend? Just deflect and obfuscate is your typical M.O instead of admitting you made a mistake in your calculations because you didn't check your facts
I think maybe you should take your own advice.
I made no error.
Guidance is for $55 WTI and a condensate price of 95% of WTI, which would result is a condensate price of $69.67.
C5+ was $77.48 yesterday
You obviously just want to argue for no reason, so this is my last response to your badgering