- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Murkiness in the NYMEX pits as the banks hoard oil
Posted on 1/19/09 at 8:14 pm
Posted on 1/19/09 at 8:14 pm
Anyone out there interested in going long oil? This might be an opportunity...or more games within games. Never trust anything GS says but watch what they do.
'"Morgan Stanley hired an oil tanker to store crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico, joining Citigroup Inc. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc in trying to profit from the contango, two shipbrokers said in reports earlier today."
There is a sharp contango in the near months in the NYMEX oil pit, and it will get sharper as the attempts to suppress the price near term, most likely to punish Russia, Venezuela and Iran, falter. Then it will flatten as market adjusts prices to normalcy.
Let's see if Bloomberg gives us a more coherent update. But its funny that Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and probably other banks are buying oil now to store in tankers and deliver later when the paper chase falters. Nice use of the bailout money. Why lend when you can speculate on market inefficiency which you help to create?'
LINK /
and from Bloomberg...
Bloomberg
Goldman Sees ‘Swift, Violent’ Oil Rally Later in Year
By Grant Smith
Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. commodity analyst Jeffrey Currie said he expects a “swift and violent rebound” in energy prices in the second half of the year.
Oil prices may have reached their lowest point already, after falling to $32.40 in mid-December, and are expected to rise to $65 by the end of this year, the analyst said. There is scope for a “new bull market” in oil, Currie said. (The December '09 futures are trading around there already - Jesse)
World oil demand is likely to fall by about 1.6 million barrels a day this year, the Goldman analyst said today at a conference in London. That’s bigger than the reduction expected by the International Energy Agency, which last week forecast a decrease of about 500,000 barrels a day, or 0.6 percent, this year.
A recent tactic of using supertankers to store crude oil to take advantage of higher prices later this year is “difficult” to profit from and is “near the end of this process” anyway, the Goldman analyst said. (We can only use the NYMEX 'front month' to punish Iran, Venezuela, and Russia for so long - Jesse)'...snip...
LINK /
'"Morgan Stanley hired an oil tanker to store crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico, joining Citigroup Inc. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc in trying to profit from the contango, two shipbrokers said in reports earlier today."
There is a sharp contango in the near months in the NYMEX oil pit, and it will get sharper as the attempts to suppress the price near term, most likely to punish Russia, Venezuela and Iran, falter. Then it will flatten as market adjusts prices to normalcy.
Let's see if Bloomberg gives us a more coherent update. But its funny that Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and probably other banks are buying oil now to store in tankers and deliver later when the paper chase falters. Nice use of the bailout money. Why lend when you can speculate on market inefficiency which you help to create?'
LINK /
and from Bloomberg...
Bloomberg
Goldman Sees ‘Swift, Violent’ Oil Rally Later in Year
By Grant Smith
Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. commodity analyst Jeffrey Currie said he expects a “swift and violent rebound” in energy prices in the second half of the year.
Oil prices may have reached their lowest point already, after falling to $32.40 in mid-December, and are expected to rise to $65 by the end of this year, the analyst said. There is scope for a “new bull market” in oil, Currie said. (The December '09 futures are trading around there already - Jesse)
World oil demand is likely to fall by about 1.6 million barrels a day this year, the Goldman analyst said today at a conference in London. That’s bigger than the reduction expected by the International Energy Agency, which last week forecast a decrease of about 500,000 barrels a day, or 0.6 percent, this year.
A recent tactic of using supertankers to store crude oil to take advantage of higher prices later this year is “difficult” to profit from and is “near the end of this process” anyway, the Goldman analyst said. (We can only use the NYMEX 'front month' to punish Iran, Venezuela, and Russia for so long - Jesse)'...snip...
LINK /
5
Posted on 1/19/09 at 8:25 pm to Rivers
Rivers,
I know it is not a direct play on long oil, but do you think that it would be a "good" gamble to put some money in Exxon or BP right now?
I know it is not a direct play on long oil, but do you think that it would be a "good" gamble to put some money in Exxon or BP right now?
Posted on 1/19/09 at 9:10 pm to footballislife
I'm sorry but just can't offer up investment advice. I would feel awful if you lost money and you would feel worse.
I will say this about the worlds independent oil companies. They own only about 8% of the worlds proven crude reserves. State owned oil companies own the remainder.
Another problem that I have with the independent oil companies is that when they were reaping huge profits while crude oil prices were very high, the independents were doing very large stock repurchases. iow, money that could have been distributed as dividends to share holders was being used to repurchase their own company stock. By repurchase the oil companies drove up the price of their stocks and increased the bonuses of oil company execs. Of course the arguement could be made that the repurchase of stock also drove up the value of investors stock...but, there is nothing to stop the oil company execs from issuing more stock after their bonuses are paid, thus diluting existing stock.
I will stick with commodities. :)
Sorry I couldn't be of more help.
I will say this about the worlds independent oil companies. They own only about 8% of the worlds proven crude reserves. State owned oil companies own the remainder.
Another problem that I have with the independent oil companies is that when they were reaping huge profits while crude oil prices were very high, the independents were doing very large stock repurchases. iow, money that could have been distributed as dividends to share holders was being used to repurchase their own company stock. By repurchase the oil companies drove up the price of their stocks and increased the bonuses of oil company execs. Of course the arguement could be made that the repurchase of stock also drove up the value of investors stock...but, there is nothing to stop the oil company execs from issuing more stock after their bonuses are paid, thus diluting existing stock.
I will stick with commodities. :)
Sorry I couldn't be of more help.
Posted on 1/19/09 at 9:34 pm to Rivers
There is a lot going on in the oil patch these days. The big storage faciltiy at Cushing Ok has again become the focus for speculation about manipulation in the oil futures markets.
This is a very dicey market now but if someone is lucky and smart they might make a buck. If you are going to take a flyer in this one keep in mind that demand has not increased worldwide (unless governments are lying more than usual about consumption). Also keep in mind we don't know how many tankers have been loaded and held at anchor somewhere...and Cushing has a capacity of about 20million bbls. That ain't a lot of oil when you consider that normal US consumption was about 17.5million bbls @ day before the recession started and we were importing two thirds of that. It has long been suspected that some manipulation of contracts was going on and it has not be proven or disproven.
Here is another link to some dislocation of prices between WTI and Brent prices. Hey, even Louisiana benchmark is mentioned.
'Sunday, January 18, 2009
WTI Crude Index Losing Favor Due to Worries About Distortion
If you has only a passing interest in oil prices, it was not hard to notice the gaping price disparity between the two most widely quoted indexes, the current month Brent crude futures versus WTI (West Texas Intermediate), In the days prior to contract expiration in December, WTI traded as much as $9 below Brent. Right now, with January expiration near, the disparity is a flat $10, with Brent at $46.20 versus $36.20 for WTI.
That, of course, makes no sense. The culprit is limited storage in Cushing, Oklahoma. As Eugen Weinberg, a commodities specialist with Commerzbank, pointed out last May:
The West Texas Intermediate oil contract, based on delivery in Cushing, Oklahoma, is good for 300,000-400,000 barrels per day. The storage capacity in Cushing is about 20.5m barrels. The trading volume on which that is based is between 500m and 600m barrels per day. If you are going to manipulate the price, you would think about doing that in Cushing.
Now it may be that the oil glut is showing up even worse in Cushing than elsewhere because above ground storage is maxed out (even ships are full), or it may also be the evil specs. But the initial reaction among traders is to treat WTI warily.
From the Financial Times:
The surge in oil inventories in Cushing, Oklahoma, where WTI is delivered into America’s pipeline system, has depressed its value not only against other global benchmarks, such as Brent, but also against other domestic US crudes.
Julius Walker, an oil market analyst at the International Energy Agency in Paris, said there was “anecdotal evidence” of traders moving away from WTI and “doing deals based on other US oil benchmarks”.
The IEA monthly report said Brent was now “arguably more reflective of global oil market sentiment”. However, Bob Levin, managing director of market research at Nymex said that the WTI contract was performing “transparently”, reflecting a “loss in oil demand and sharply rising inventories”.
“WTI is better reflecting global oil fundamentals than Brent,” Mr Levin said. “The oil industry has not abandoned the WTI contract and it has confidence in it.”
Nevertheless, traders in London, New York and Houston confirmed a small number of transactions away from WTI after its price plunged last week to record discounts against other global and domestic benchmarks. The traders cautioned that the move could reverse if the WTI situation normalised. Lawrence Eagles, at JPMorgan, said any move away from WTI would face “strong resistance as none of the other US benchmarks have the price transparency of an exchange market”.
Highlighting the price disconnection with the global market, WTI, which usually trades at a premium of $1-$2 a barrel to Brent, last week plunged to an all-time discount of $11.73. The detachment hit the US market too, where Light Louisiana Sweet, jumped to a $9.50 premium, the highest in 18 years.'
This is a very dicey market now but if someone is lucky and smart they might make a buck. If you are going to take a flyer in this one keep in mind that demand has not increased worldwide (unless governments are lying more than usual about consumption). Also keep in mind we don't know how many tankers have been loaded and held at anchor somewhere...and Cushing has a capacity of about 20million bbls. That ain't a lot of oil when you consider that normal US consumption was about 17.5million bbls @ day before the recession started and we were importing two thirds of that. It has long been suspected that some manipulation of contracts was going on and it has not be proven or disproven.
Here is another link to some dislocation of prices between WTI and Brent prices. Hey, even Louisiana benchmark is mentioned.
'Sunday, January 18, 2009
WTI Crude Index Losing Favor Due to Worries About Distortion
If you has only a passing interest in oil prices, it was not hard to notice the gaping price disparity between the two most widely quoted indexes, the current month Brent crude futures versus WTI (West Texas Intermediate), In the days prior to contract expiration in December, WTI traded as much as $9 below Brent. Right now, with January expiration near, the disparity is a flat $10, with Brent at $46.20 versus $36.20 for WTI.
That, of course, makes no sense. The culprit is limited storage in Cushing, Oklahoma. As Eugen Weinberg, a commodities specialist with Commerzbank, pointed out last May:
The West Texas Intermediate oil contract, based on delivery in Cushing, Oklahoma, is good for 300,000-400,000 barrels per day. The storage capacity in Cushing is about 20.5m barrels. The trading volume on which that is based is between 500m and 600m barrels per day. If you are going to manipulate the price, you would think about doing that in Cushing.
Now it may be that the oil glut is showing up even worse in Cushing than elsewhere because above ground storage is maxed out (even ships are full), or it may also be the evil specs. But the initial reaction among traders is to treat WTI warily.
From the Financial Times:
The surge in oil inventories in Cushing, Oklahoma, where WTI is delivered into America’s pipeline system, has depressed its value not only against other global benchmarks, such as Brent, but also against other domestic US crudes.
Julius Walker, an oil market analyst at the International Energy Agency in Paris, said there was “anecdotal evidence” of traders moving away from WTI and “doing deals based on other US oil benchmarks”.
The IEA monthly report said Brent was now “arguably more reflective of global oil market sentiment”. However, Bob Levin, managing director of market research at Nymex said that the WTI contract was performing “transparently”, reflecting a “loss in oil demand and sharply rising inventories”.
“WTI is better reflecting global oil fundamentals than Brent,” Mr Levin said. “The oil industry has not abandoned the WTI contract and it has confidence in it.”
Nevertheless, traders in London, New York and Houston confirmed a small number of transactions away from WTI after its price plunged last week to record discounts against other global and domestic benchmarks. The traders cautioned that the move could reverse if the WTI situation normalised. Lawrence Eagles, at JPMorgan, said any move away from WTI would face “strong resistance as none of the other US benchmarks have the price transparency of an exchange market”.
Highlighting the price disconnection with the global market, WTI, which usually trades at a premium of $1-$2 a barrel to Brent, last week plunged to an all-time discount of $11.73. The detachment hit the US market too, where Light Louisiana Sweet, jumped to a $9.50 premium, the highest in 18 years.'
Posted on 1/19/09 at 11:11 pm to Rivers
quote:
Anyone out there interested in going long oil? This might be an opportunity...
getting harder to resist?
I'm nibbling a little bit. I'm waiting for it to hit $28 or so.
Posted on 1/20/09 at 6:59 am to Rivers
They spread between WTI and Brent is remarkable. The question is which over a period of time will become most representative of supply and demand reality. If the tanker stories are accurate, coupled with the projected decrease in demand (and supply holding fairly well thanks in part to hedging)... it leans WTI in the short term.
Posted on 1/20/09 at 8:17 am to Rivers
quote:
They own only about 8% of the worlds proven crude reserves. State owned oil companies own the remainder.
heard a guy recently interviewed on Bloomberg saying that as the states become more knowledgeable they are creating more direct relationships with service companies and leaving the majors out of any agreements.
Posted on 1/20/09 at 8:17 am to Rivers
quote:
"Morgan Stanley hired an oil tanker to store crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico, joining Citigroup Inc. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc in trying to profit from the contango, two shipbrokers said in reports earlier today."
I work for a company that produces commodities that are shipped out by barge and we have always been able to justify building/expanding on site storage to avoid paying demurrage. I am talking about avoided cost of parking a few full barges in navigation canals leading to the intracoastal waterway. How much does it cost to park/rent an oil tanker in the Gulf of Mexico ?
Posted on 1/20/09 at 8:43 am to reverendotis
For a large (2 million barrel) tanker the break even point for renting the tanker is $25,000/day. But that assumes it is under way and fuel costs are around half of that. Say as a WAG you could rent the tanker for around $15,000/day now. From now until September the cost would be just over $4,000,000. If you buy 2,000,000 barrels now at $35/barrel and sell at $65 in September then the profit from the sale is around $60,000,000 so the rental is not that big a deal. Interesting. This assumes that you could rent the tanker for not much above cost which seems likely in today's climate. The source I used below was written when there was a much greater demand for tankers.
LINK
quote:
As a result of the shortage, the oil-shipping business has been exceedingly profitable. Rates on the big bruisers that haul 2 million barrels of oil from the Persian Gulf to Japan hit as much as $250,000 per day last fall and are not too far off that pace today. That's a rate said to be 10 times the break-even point for tanker owners.
LINK
Posted on 1/20/09 at 9:04 am to Rivers
quote:
Anyone out there interested in going long oil?
Oil is too volatile to take a definitive position in oil. I wouldn't touch it unless you are prepared to see your investment drop signficantly.
Oil could reach $20 a bbl again.
Posted on 1/20/09 at 9:10 am to Rivers
I am tempted to get in, although it's hard to say where we will bottom out. What are the best pure plays? I have been looking hard at USO and even UCO (double long).
Posted on 1/20/09 at 9:17 am to reverendotis
Reverendotis, have you noticed how bits of information seem to pop up in the least expected places?
Who would have thought that info regarding oil tanker leasing for off shore storage would turn up in a site titled 'Cattlenetwork: Cattle Trader Center'?...
Do you reckon that old saw; 'all hat and no cows' should be changed to 'all hat and no oil'? The entire article is short, factual and worth reading. Also, notice that a lot more tanker storage would probably be happening if more credit were available...and, our old pals, Philbro LLC, subsidiary of Citigroup, have popped up in this article. Odd, how that company always pops up when the topic of oil price manipulation is being discussed. :) Caution: there are definitely man eating sharks in these waters.
Here you go...
'1/9/2009 4:08:00 PM
Traders Turn To Offshore Tankers As Oil Stockpiles Brim
LONDON (Dow Jones)--With storage tanks filling up onshore as global oil inventories soar, traders are turning their sights to oil tankers, floating at sea, as an alternative.
At least four new deals to charter large oil tankers as storage facilities in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico were struck Thursday, according to shipping and trading sources. The deals were fixed at a rate of about $70,000 a day.
The prices were markedly higher than average December traded levels of around $56,000-$58,000 a day, although buyers were said to be paying more because they wanted prompt delivery of the vessels.
As oil futures fall in line with sliding global demand, oil storage facilities in industrialized nations are bulging, widening the difference between the front-month and more expensive contracts for delivery further in the future. This opens up a profit-making opportunity for traders, who can buy crude oil on the physical market today while simultaneously selling it at a higher price in a forward contract. Holding oil in a tanker for a month would cost less than $2 a barrel, while it is possible to buy crude for about $40 a barrel for February delivery and sell it in June for $12 more.'...snip...
and...
'Rough Seas For Boarding
Estimates of the total number of VLCCs currently chartered for storage purposes worldwide range from 15 to 25. Part of the difficulty lies in identifying what vessels are being used solely for storage purposes, one shipbroker said. Some vessels are chartered exclusively for storage, others with options to store and, in some cases, vessels are being used for storage although they weren't chartered explicitly for that purpose, he added.
Despite the apparent profits on offer, barriers to entry are high.
"There are some major players who up until very recently had been absent, who historically would have been the first ones in," another shipbroker said. "They're only just sticking their nose in. It does suggest credit has been an issue."
Other difficulties include obtaining the crude itself, with a lot of Middle East crude committed to term contracts, he added. Meanwhile, securing a tanker in the right part of the world and finding a place to harbor it can be difficult, said Arjun Murti, an analyst with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS).
"It's not so much the ships themselves that are creating the bottleneck, but laws and other issues," Murti said in a conference call Thursday. "It becomes very expensive when you have to chug it around the world."'
LINK
Who would have thought that info regarding oil tanker leasing for off shore storage would turn up in a site titled 'Cattlenetwork: Cattle Trader Center'?...
Do you reckon that old saw; 'all hat and no cows' should be changed to 'all hat and no oil'? The entire article is short, factual and worth reading. Also, notice that a lot more tanker storage would probably be happening if more credit were available...and, our old pals, Philbro LLC, subsidiary of Citigroup, have popped up in this article. Odd, how that company always pops up when the topic of oil price manipulation is being discussed. :) Caution: there are definitely man eating sharks in these waters.
Here you go...
'1/9/2009 4:08:00 PM
Traders Turn To Offshore Tankers As Oil Stockpiles Brim
LONDON (Dow Jones)--With storage tanks filling up onshore as global oil inventories soar, traders are turning their sights to oil tankers, floating at sea, as an alternative.
At least four new deals to charter large oil tankers as storage facilities in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico were struck Thursday, according to shipping and trading sources. The deals were fixed at a rate of about $70,000 a day.
The prices were markedly higher than average December traded levels of around $56,000-$58,000 a day, although buyers were said to be paying more because they wanted prompt delivery of the vessels.
As oil futures fall in line with sliding global demand, oil storage facilities in industrialized nations are bulging, widening the difference between the front-month and more expensive contracts for delivery further in the future. This opens up a profit-making opportunity for traders, who can buy crude oil on the physical market today while simultaneously selling it at a higher price in a forward contract. Holding oil in a tanker for a month would cost less than $2 a barrel, while it is possible to buy crude for about $40 a barrel for February delivery and sell it in June for $12 more.'...snip...
and...
'Rough Seas For Boarding
Estimates of the total number of VLCCs currently chartered for storage purposes worldwide range from 15 to 25. Part of the difficulty lies in identifying what vessels are being used solely for storage purposes, one shipbroker said. Some vessels are chartered exclusively for storage, others with options to store and, in some cases, vessels are being used for storage although they weren't chartered explicitly for that purpose, he added.
Despite the apparent profits on offer, barriers to entry are high.
"There are some major players who up until very recently had been absent, who historically would have been the first ones in," another shipbroker said. "They're only just sticking their nose in. It does suggest credit has been an issue."
Other difficulties include obtaining the crude itself, with a lot of Middle East crude committed to term contracts, he added. Meanwhile, securing a tanker in the right part of the world and finding a place to harbor it can be difficult, said Arjun Murti, an analyst with Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS).
"It's not so much the ships themselves that are creating the bottleneck, but laws and other issues," Murti said in a conference call Thursday. "It becomes very expensive when you have to chug it around the world."'
LINK
Posted on 1/20/09 at 9:45 am to reverendotis
Rev, also notice the comment in the article that I linked about the 'difficulty in obtaining oil due to forward contracts with some large oil consuming nations'...paraphrased...
China has long been insuring future oil/gas availability by using long contracts with oil producing countries. China also has an agreement (with Russia only I believe, so far) to pay for oil and gas with Yuan, vice dollars, and has agreed to accept Rubles for some purchases from Russia.
Russia has demanded and gotten similar future contracts from some Western European countries. Oil/gas producing countries are interested in stable prices so that they can plan future expenditures in their economies. The oil consumers are not keen on the contract concept.
I suspect that other countries will be making such currency arrangements in the future (back to topic of Russia/China using local currencies). Now we are getting out of the realm of 'Money Talk' and into the realm of political science, strategic posture, diplomacy, etc. I would as soon stick to 'Money Talk'. You might find it interesting to Wiki 'SCO' and read what this group of nations is all about. Oil is truly 'The Prize' and without it the world as we know it ceases to exist.
China has long been insuring future oil/gas availability by using long contracts with oil producing countries. China also has an agreement (with Russia only I believe, so far) to pay for oil and gas with Yuan, vice dollars, and has agreed to accept Rubles for some purchases from Russia.
Russia has demanded and gotten similar future contracts from some Western European countries. Oil/gas producing countries are interested in stable prices so that they can plan future expenditures in their economies. The oil consumers are not keen on the contract concept.
I suspect that other countries will be making such currency arrangements in the future (back to topic of Russia/China using local currencies). Now we are getting out of the realm of 'Money Talk' and into the realm of political science, strategic posture, diplomacy, etc. I would as soon stick to 'Money Talk'. You might find it interesting to Wiki 'SCO' and read what this group of nations is all about. Oil is truly 'The Prize' and without it the world as we know it ceases to exist.
Posted on 1/20/09 at 10:34 am to Rivers
I'm just waiting for Rivers to start an effort for us Money Talk folks to pony up and get a tanker or two. All we need is a few $million. Should be easy enough we all stop paying off those credit cards and buying new cars.
Posted on 1/20/09 at 10:48 am to clamdip
Clamdip, I have to play at the margins since I don't have a few $million to play with the big uns. I don't think we would like that sort of stress anyway, would we?
If we can make a couple hundred $K nibbling at the edges isn't it enough? Hey, we can buy a lotta red beans and rice for that sort of dough.
This post was edited on 1/20/09 at 10:52 am
Posted on 1/20/09 at 11:56 am to Rivers
I make a mean red beans and rice. I'll sell you a gallon in exchange for your oil.
Posted on 1/20/09 at 4:04 pm to Rivers
quote:
Oil is truly 'The Prize' and without it the world as we know it ceases to exist.
I gained some perspective after doing a few quick calculations. A VLCC holds a minimum of 2 million barrels = 84,000,000 US gallons = 11,200,000 cubic feet. Most of what our comapny produces is shipped as a solid and the rest is a liquid, but by normal densities 100% of our annual production of both in a record year would fill up only 40% of one of these vessels.
The scope of petroleum movement around the world really boggles my mind.
Posted on 1/20/09 at 6:28 pm to reverendotis
Saudia Arabia has pumped 12,000,000 bbls per day and regularly pumps 8 - 10 million bbls per day. SA claims that if need be it could pump 15,000,000 bbls per day...some doubt this claim. Ghawar is the prize field and over 70 Billion Bbls have been pumped from it so far and over 5 million bbls per day are still being pumped from Ghawar.
No oil field on earth yet discovered even comes close to Ghawar.
The above numbers are why I laugh when I hear people say we can open up off shore fields and replace foreign oil. Most folks don't have a clue how much oil comes from Saudia Arabia and how much could be extracted from Alaska's North Slope and lower 48 offshore deposits.
No oil field on earth yet discovered even comes close to Ghawar.
The above numbers are why I laugh when I hear people say we can open up off shore fields and replace foreign oil. Most folks don't have a clue how much oil comes from Saudia Arabia and how much could be extracted from Alaska's North Slope and lower 48 offshore deposits.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News