Showing posts with label natural gas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label natural gas. Show all posts

Monday, November 09, 2015

Financial Sarcasm Roundup for 11/09/15

More Americans might be tuned in to my sarcasm if they weren't watching Monday Night Football or some cable TV movie. I might get more traffic if I convert my periodic sarcasm blast into a Netflix series.

One asset management firm thinks Chinese debt benefits from China's recession. The tortured logic right there just baffles me. Devaluing the yuan means a yuan-denominated bond's payment stream to Western investors will be worth less, not more. Buying notes issued by Chinese real estate developers means investors are hurt more by further crashes in a very inflated sector. Some money managers just can't let go of a thesis that no longer matches reality. The next bullish bet could be on wax paper rather than yuan paper, because it easily wraps fish from the live fish market. See, this investment thesis stuff is really easy.

China and the Middle East have an insatiable appetite for natural gas. The West is converting to locally available renewable energy while the developing world becomes even more dependent on hydrocarbons from beyond their borders. Addictions typically end badly. Going cold turkey in a couple of decades won't be an option for developing countries facing bad demographics.

Many European bankers are about to be jobless. Think of the fun they can have becoming tour guides for rich Chinese and Russian expatriates. The fired bankers didn't move fast enough to raise capital cushions. Now they can raise money for the Middle Eastern refugees flooding Europe. Grab those tin cups and hit the street corners in Munich and Prague. Bank CEOs can only fake the ECB's stress tests for so long. The money they save on compensation goes into the rainy day crisis buffer.

My sarcasm is way more entertaining than whatever is on television right now. Tune in again next time for another blast from Alfidi Capital.

Friday, March 13, 2015

Stranded Assets Of The Carbon Bubble

I attended a Climate One talk at the Commonwealth Club this week about how an alleged carbon bubble in the valuation of oil and gas companies will eventually lead to stranded assets remaining unextracted.  I am no stranger to this subject since I blogged about another Commonwealth Club session on natural resources in June 2014.  It's a complicated argument with more than one side.

The Carbon Tracker Initiative's Carbon Bubble report is one renowned reference for the pro-bubble case.  Here's the theory in a nutshell.  The argument contends that burning hydrocarbons raises the earth's carbon budget beyond a threshold that human civilization can tolerate.  Avoiding this threshold and the climate catastrophe it will cause requires sequestering discovered hydrocarbon energy reserves in the ground forever.  These reserves thus become stranded assets that cannot contribute economic value to an energy company's balance sheet.  The financial markets' expectation that these unavailable assets will still become available implies that energy companies' stocks trade at an unsustainable "carbon bubble" valuation.

A contrary analysis in the Wall Street Journal from January 2015 argues that the world economy will still need significant hydrocarbon energy for the foreseeable future.  I have enough financial expertise to see wisdom in realistically calculating economically recoverable energy reserves.  Energy and mining companies are always engaged in a complex pursuit of exploration, discovery, and write-down of reserves that has more to do with local geography and logistics than with global carbon regulation.  Carbon bubble proponents should remember that when they estimate large amounts of uneconomical reserves.  They should also remember than even the IPCC caveats its climate warnings with probabilities, not certainties.

Some of the carbon bubble logic falls apart in the face of project economics.  If energy company executives are truly incentivized to replace depleted reserves as the driver of share price, and if difficult projects are indeed only profitable at higher energy prices, then it follows that stringent carbon controls that drive up oil prices will revive those abandoned projects that have unfavorable break-even points.

Carbon bubble proponents and critics need to revisit the US DOE EIA's Annual Energy Outlook.  Consider that population growth, energy use per capita, and energy use per dollar of GDP are all very relevant in forecasting the amount of reserves the energy sector must discover and develop.  Tighter carbon rules will make less energy available in the short term before any dramatic supply increase from renewables comes on line to save us.

The financial sector has begun pricing securities that make lower contributions to the world's carbon budget.  Fossil Free Indexes has made a stab at finding benchmarks for portfolio managers.  Clean Energy Victory Bonds are a proposed category of US Treasury Bonds that individual investors could buy.  The victory bonds' emphasis on funding widely available technology distinguishes them from the Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) that public utilities have issued to develop specific commercial-scale projects.

The movement encouraging divestiture from energy companies should not concern long-term value investors.  It is music to the ears of bargain hunters who seek undervalued securities with reduced demand.  Thank institutional investors for making energy stocks cheaper.  We can also thank the water-energy-food security nexus for making those three inputs more expensive, and thus more profitable for natural resource companies developing new projects.

The World Bank's World Development Report (WDR) from 2010 is a good reference for analysts pursuing insights into how the energy sector will change, with or without carbon bubbles.  Analysts must also compare the competing market valuations of the sectors for oil/gas, coal, nuclear, and renewables both inside and outside the US.  The ongoing WDR series reveals opportunities for direct investment and portfolio rebalancing.  The energy sector's component valuations will reveal opportunities for arbitrage.  Count on Alfidi Capital for continuing insights into companies that deliver ROI, with or without carbon limitations.

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Lynden Energy Caught My Eye and Confused Me

Lynden Energy (LVL.V, LVLEF) is a Canadian company drilling for oil and gas in Texas.  It is very uncommon for a low-priced stock to have a positive P/E ratio.  I wonder what's going on with this company.  The management page does not list detailed bios at this time, so it's hard for me to judge their skill.

The company's projects page mentions two projects.  The Mitchell Ranch 50% working interest has little detail describing the project's status.  I find their Wolfberry project to be similarly confusing.  I honestly cannot tell what these land holdings are doing at this stage from reading these few paragraphs.

I had to check out their financial statements.  Their unaudited statements from March 31, 2014 show US$12.8M in cash on hand and positive net income, although their income is much lower than what they earned one year prior.  This continued profitability enables them to work down their accumulated retained earnings deficit, which is always good in any company.  They do admit in that document that access to capital impacts their future as a going concern and that they once took an impairment charge from writing off a bad investment in natural gas transmission operations.  I find it odd that they noted a disposal sale of some Wolfberry wells and leases for a one-time gain, in the same area they tout in their website's project listings.

The numbers look alright but I can't figure out from their publicly available material just how they're making this work.  Lynden should publish their properties' 51-101 reports on their website if they have competed versions.  They also need continued access to capital and to stay away from non-core operations like gas transmission.  I just don't know enough about their operations to figure out their chances for success, and that's why I can't expose my portfolio to this company.

Full disclosure:  No position in Lynden Energy at this time.  

Monday, March 24, 2014

Financial Sarcasm Roundup for 03/24/14

I'm typing this roundup while listening to a web conference on some opportunity.  Further analysis will tell whether that opportunity is worth my time.  Sarcasm is always worth my time.

Exporting US energy is becoming a hot issue once again.  The oil shocks of the 1970s scared America into keeping its dwindling petroleum supplies onshore.  Now technology lets us tap huge shale deposits and America has plenty of hydrocarbons.  Everyone ignores the steep decline rates of shale oil and gas wells.  The push for exports will probably succeed just in time to see shale production flatten out.  Shale wells will produce tiny amounts of product for decades after their decline cliffs.  That means we can expect to sell a couple of barrels per day to Europe just after these multi-billion dollar LNG terminals on the Gulf Coast are ready.

China doesn't want the Fed to raise interest rates.  Beijing's rationale is simple.  Rising US interest rates would cause the value of the US Treasuries in China's foreign reserves to fall.  China needs that financial reserve to backstop the wealth management products that are starting to blow up its shadow banking system.  I don't think the Fed is geopolitically savvy enough to use its interest rate power as a bargaining chip.  They're supposed to be politically independent while the Treasury Department handles the heavy lifting with other countries.

Mme. Lagarde wants the US to show more support for the IMF's reforms.  I interpret this as a veiled request for the US to stay engaged with the IMF's efforts in Europe while Ukraine is in play.  The IMF's funding of the European troika's bailouts would mean little without US backing (and presumably the Fed's extension of dollar swap lines to the ECB).  The troika cannot afford any distractions while its shock therapy for the PIIGS is under attack from civil unrest and its rescue of Ukraine has just begun.  BTW, I'll bet Mme. Lagarde was really hot when she was younger.

The web conference is over and so is this blog article.

Sunday, March 02, 2014

The Limerick of Finance for 03/02/14

Shock conflict emerged overnight
Global markets are due for a fright
Gas supply is at stake
Leaders should step on brake
Suddenly our future's not so bright

Monday, February 03, 2014

Painted Pony Petroleum . . . Has Paintings Of Ponies

Painted Pony Petroleum (PDPYF / PPY.V / PPY.TO) is a natural gas producer in western Canada.  That country has low political risk and supports new LNG infrastructure for Asian exports.  It's nice that the CEO is a geologist with lots of exploration experience.  The only relevant result for me is whether this company can produce at a profit.

They have been in production for some time.  I would prefer to evaluate their most recent financial statements and NI statements of reserves but I don't see very many year 2013 documents on their investor relations page at this time.  I searched SEC's EDGAR and I found no 10-Q or 10-K financial statements, so I went to SEDAR to find their recent information.  Their interim financial statement for November 12, 2013 shows comprehensive net losses for much of 2013 and 2012.  You know something . . . I'll stop right there.

I'm not going to invest in a company that shows such persistent losses.  I only have so much time in the day to analyze market action, corporate results, and general business ideas.  I won't waste one more second trying to understand how a company in production can keep losing money in a region primed for export with natural gas prices rising.  They do have pictures of painted ponies on their website.  I hope their shareholders like those ponies.

Full disclosure:  No position in Painted Pony Petroleum at this time.  

Pricing and Exporting North American Natural Gas For Asia

The investor relations community works hard to convince analysts like Yours Truly that junior exploration companies in North America have good prospects.  One premise for making this case is the Asian energy market's willingness to pay for cheap North American natural gas.  The IEA's 2013 report "Developing a Natural Gas Trading Hub in Asia" notes that the Asian gas market is not fully responsive to supply and demand fundamentals.  That will change as more producers move to meet demand.  The USDOE's EIA natural gas page shows how the price of gas has recovered nicely from its drop two years ago, and that demand from exports is projected to remain strong.

Gas exports from the US and Canada must travel via liquified natural gas (LNG) ocean carriers.  There are no gas or oil pipelines under the Pacific Ocean; subsea transport of petrochemicals via pipeline over anything other than short distances presents insurmountable technical obstacles.  Canada has taken an aggressive approach to building LNG infrastructure that can serve Pacific Ocean carriers.  The US lags behind, with fuss over the Keystone XL oil pipeline demonstrating the anti-infrastructure mentality of very ignorant pressure groups.  The National Energy Board of Canada still requires export approval but I fully expect that to be reduced to a formality once more Pacific coast LNG infrastructure is complete.   The "pick and shovel" plays for pipeline operators and construction firms operating in Western Canada will be compelling for years.

Forecasting the future price of natural gas is more difficult than forecasting either demand or supply.  Demand can be derived from population growth and energy use per capita.  Supply is a function of capex spent to counter decline rates in well-known geology.  Pricing is different due to all sorts of random factors, including political news, accidents, and weather conditions.  I do not typically pay attention to price forecasts from private firms like PIRA or IHS CERA.  They are valuable in the market because preppie investment bankers hire them to do work they are not smart enough to do themselves.  A more intellectually honest approach would use the NG market price and figure its probability of mean reversion.  This admits the ambiguity of commodity prices, and justifies the hedging strategies all producers use.  EIA reports the NYMEX prices and CME Group prices Henry Hub natural gas futures with this reality in mind.

I do not know the specifics of import requirements that Asian governments set for natural gas.  The US federal coordinator for Alaska natural gas states that Asian market favor wet gas, with more ethane and other liquids to raise the gas' heat content.  A Google search of other Asian content requirements reveals a preference for "sweet" gas with a lower hydrogen sulfide content.  The booming Bakken shale fields are notorious for producers who flare off NG because they have no pipelines or storage tanks to capture it.  That will change as Asian demand moves the NG price far enough to drive such investment.

There's big demand in Asia for natural gas.  The US and Canada have big supply.  Together the twain shall meet.  It's only a question of transport cost, terminal liquefaction (and regasification) services, and content regulation.  Actually, that's several questions, with multiple sub-questions in each one.  The shale drilling boom in North America marches on.  

Wednesday, October 09, 2013

Alfidi Capital Attends IPAA OGIS San Francisco 2013

I'm not a member of the Independent Petroleum Association of America but their events have great value for me as a market analyst and commentator.  I attender their annual Oil and Gas Investment Symposium (OGIS) San Francisco last week.  I'll address each of the presenting companies in future blog articles.  This particular article is about concepts that apply to the entire energy sector.  The OGIS participants use these ideas frequently.  Understanding these ideas enables understanding of a company's value.

First of all, IPAA has some phenomenal statistics available for free.  I had previously relied on the Energy Information Administration's data but the IPAA data sets are excellent companion pieces.  IPAA also advocates maintaining tax breaks for oil and gas exploration on its Energy Tax Facts site.  I'd prefer to eliminate any and all tax breaks for energy exploration because the market needs to price the all-in cost of energy production.  I would also eliminate breaks for renewable energy because its costs have pretty much reached grid parity.  Eliminating both severance taxes and depletion allowances would make the non-renewable energy sector's project economics more transparent.

Let's talk about hedging for a moment.  Lots of hydrocarbon producers like to hedge the price of oil with futures contracts.  Exploration and production (E&P) companies in the upstream sector hedge against declines in the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude because a price drop will hurt their revenue.  I can see how operators who have committed free cash flow to a capex program would not want to see their drilling interrupted by commodity price swings.  Hedging makes a bit less sense for operators who have committed to a perpetually rising common stock dividend.  That kind of corporate policy can hamstring management and set investors up for disappointment if the hedging strategy cannot sufficiently protect earnings.  Most E&Ps hedge most of their projected production.  Swaps seem to be the most popular instrument but some companies use costless collars.  That's my anecdotal impression, anyway.

Energy REITs and MLPs also hedge prices (again, to support their expected dividend) and some of them even hedge interest rates because they borrow to acquire new producing properties.  They hedge prices to make their payouts more predictable.  Investors have to live with that predilection, but it makes less sense to me than producers who hedge prices.  Do E&Ps hedge interest rates as well as prices?  They certainly borrow for capex.

I'm agnostic on whether North American oil producers should hedge their production against WTI prices or Brent prices.  It may depend on where the companies market their crude.  Crude shipments to the Americas are often priced in WTI quotes while production in Asia and the Middle East is priced in Brent.  The Brent-WTI spread matters to investment banks, hedge funds, and energy traders whose arbitrageurs play the price differential.  Bloomberg has a decent rundown of common energy prices; arbitrage away, hedgies.  The CME Group has the most transparent energy derivative prices I could find, including contracts for both WTI and Brent.  Futures and other derivatives have enormous risks and I've never used them in my own portfolio.  I would rather leave them to energy supermajors who have complex value chains to hedge.

MLPs have it easier than E&Ps.  Older wells with long, slow decline curves fit MLPs very well because they need little additional capex other than basic maintenance.  That's why MLPs use debt to acquire existing wells rather than putting in capex.  I agree with the common MLP claim that low barrel per day (bpd) producing wells are ideal for their structures.  I've heard some MLPs describe their avoidance of incentive distribution rights (IDRs) as a selling point to the investing public.  I really think MLPs will have a field day buying low-producing shale wells at cheap prices once the Bakken boom fades away.

Some E&P companies tout their natural gas liquids (NGL) production.  Investors need to remember that NGLs are more difficult to hedge because they require longer futures contracts (about 12-18 months).  A web search for "NGL derivatives" did not reveal any central exchange for them that I could find, but some energy trading firms specialize in constructing private swaps for NGLs.  The lack of liquidity for these financial derivatives means NGL swap prices can easily affect real-world NGL prices.

Energy MLPs do have to worry about Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBTI) and they report this on the K-1 form they send to their investors.  I had previously thought that holding a high-yielding MLP in a tax-advantaged retirement account would be a smart move until I realized that UBTI may trigger a tax liability.  Index funds and ETFs that invest in MLPs do not have this UBTI drawback for an IRA.  An MLP that produces zero or negative UBTI poses no apparent problem for an IRA.  It pays to know the rules in IRS Pub 598 and it pays to read an MLP's documents.  I am not a tax advisor, so don't ask me what to do.

If you're sick of hearing about fracking and horizontal drilling, there's a new drilling technique called "down spacing" coming along.  Drillers down space by decreasing the space between wells in an area, which is slightly different from the "pad drilling" concept that erects more than one well on a given land plot.  These two approaches fly in the face of one of shale gas's selling points, namely that one drill rig per pad enables the minimum possible surface disturbance.  Increasing the rig count on a project also accelerates a field's decline rate.  Shale producers need to think hard about how much they can spend on additional engineering to expand recoverable deposits before they go hog wild into down spacing and pad drilling.  We're all going to hear a lot more about enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques and ways to minimize sub-surface non-productive time (NPT) as more shale plays hit their very steep decline curves.

I don't worry about whether producers have drill-to-earn, produce-to-earn, or shoot-to-earn clauses in their farm-out agreements.  Either they produce or they don't.  I'm interested in bottom-line results.  I don't worry about land value capture because the financing of infrastructure servicing oil/gas fields is less important than whether said fields are economically recoverable.  Held by production clauses are good to have if the producer doesn't know how long it will take to bring a greenfield project to maturity.

I'm agnostic as to whether a producer owns a working interest or the entire property; their job is to spend capex on production and someone has to pay the costs of owning wells.  I do care about MLPs that focus on royalty interests (especially overriding ones) because that limits their lifetime capex commitment.

Geologists analyze a project's porosity, resistivity, lithologytotal organic carbon (TOC), permeability, and isopach subsurface data.  I don't look at those things because I'm not a geologist.  I'm a finance guy and I need to see financial data.  All of the eyewash on soil engineering that energy companies put into their investor relations pitches means nothing if they don't have a budget to turn exploration into production.  Geological characteristics will determine the amount of stock tank original oil in place (STOOIP) and its estimated ultimate recovery (EUR).

The EUR of a project deserves a special.discussion.  EUR is a mix of oil, gas, and NGLs that is always measured in BOE.  Proven reserves includes several engineering terms that do not necessarily comport with financial terms allowed by US securities regulators.  Progressing from 1P (proven) to 2P (probable) to 3P (possible) reserves may impress some investors but it does not impress regulators.  The SEC has very definite rules for what can and cannot be included in reserves reported in financial statements.  This is why producers break down their 1P reserves into proved developed producing (PDP), proved developed non-producing (PDNP), and proved undeveloped (PUD).  Using estimates of proven reserves only is the most conservative way to calculate a project's valuation.  That's why I read the 43-101 reports of junior resource companies that are registered in Canada.  The 43-101 regime allows for "proven and probable" (2P) reserves that I can use to find a valuation.

It's good to know the Baker Hughes US rig count to track the energy sector's health.  Producers need to know the day rates of rigs in their region.  Analysts track the recycle ratio of an energy company, which the companies themselves often quote as the netback.  I have not yet used a recycle ratio in my analysis of energy companies but I will try to apply it in the future.  It may even apply to renewable energy companies if it can be measured in kilowatt hours.

I shake my head at shale oil producers who allow their natural gas production to flare off instead of trying to capture it.  That is literally money going up in smoke.  Producers who care about maximizing ROI on their projects should be willing to spend the capex needed to install temporary pipelines and storage systems that will enable them to capture gas that would otherwise flare off.  Orphan gas gets plenty of attention in the midstream sector.  Too many shale producers have their eye on the steeply declining production curve and want to get a cash return as quickly as possible.  They need to to think more about how capturing extra gas production from a shale play will increase a project's long-term value when it's ready to be sold to an MLP.  Don't ask me to figure the difference between wet gas and dry gas; that's a problem for petroleum engineers.

The great thing about reading my blog is that all of the knowledge I gain at conferences and investment seminars is here for free.  You people should be entertained by my discussions.  I'll take my bow, thank you very much.  The next set of IPAA events will give me more opportunities to show off my knowledge.  

Thursday, September 05, 2013

Americas Petrogas Plays For Shale In Argentina

I'm all about energy today.  Americas Petrogas (BOE.V / APEOF) wants to pull oil and gas out of shale formations in Argentina.  I believe they have a very competent and experienced management team.  I like the fact that they have deep-pocketed JV partners.  I like the fact that they've discovered light sweet crude deposits, which are easier to refine.  I like that maps of their project areas show good coverage by existing pipelines.

One concern I have is that this is in Argentina.  That country is #102 (out of 174) on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index and #160 (out of 177) on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom.  The political risk for any foreign investment in Argentina is enormous.

The company had just under C$26M in cash on hand as of June 30, 2013 according to their quarterly statement. Their net income has swung from a loss to a positive in about one year.  I'm less concerned with burn rate for a company at this stage provided their revenue is growing and their operating costs remain stable.

I'm adding Americas Petrogas to my watch list.  It deserves a more serious look once I can calculate its intrinsic value based on their proven (P90) and probable (P50) reserves.

Full disclosure:  No position in Americas Petrogas at this time.  

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Frac Sand Plays Getting Harder To Find

Frac sand is indispensable to natural gas producers using horizontal fracturing to reach deposits.  The frac sand sector will likely mirror the natural gas sector it supplies with proppant.  Natural gas prices crashed in 2012 as US exploration and production exploded.  Frac sand producers will probably follow the same path.  Only the lowest-cost producers will survive.

Stocks in this sector include Hi-Crush Partners (HCLP) and US Silica Holdings (SLCA), while other frac sand producers appear to be privately held.  The determinant of value for any mineral producer is the difference between the long-term average market price of its product and its cash cost of production.  I can't find any public source for the current market price of uncoated silica and other forms of frac sand.  The USGS page on silica has multi-year reports on the broad "sand and gravel" genre but nothing specific to frac sand.  Maybe the price in in the minerals yearbook; I'm not excited enough to look.  This is a very young sector that only recently attracted special attention.

Check out Hi-Crush Partners' 10-K from March 2013.  Calculating their cost of production means parsing Item 7 MDA.  Dividing their cost of production ($18.5M for 2012) by their annual production of 1.49M tons gives us a cost of $12.41/ton.  They reduced the amount of royalties they must pay so costs for 2013 will likely be lower.  Check out US Silica Holdings' 10-K from February 2013.  I honestly can't find their cash cost of production for frac sand from reading their Item 7 MDA.

My search for hard asset hedges against hyperinflation will not extend to frac sand.  The sector is too small and is a hostage to natural gas prices.  The production figures for the sector aren't readily available and neither is the market price for this commodity.  Someone with deep industry experience in specialty sand and gravel products might be able to make some money here.  It won't be me.

Full disclosure:  No positions in any companies mentioned at this time.

Friday, August 23, 2013

Alfidi Capital at MoneyShow San Francisco 2013

I had to attend the annual MoneyShow San Francisco last week.  This was more than just another conference for me.  I presented my first MoneyShow seminar ever.  This was something I've wanted to do ever since I attended my first MoneyShow in 2001 during my MBA program.  I spoke this year about my small-cap stock evaluation methodology on the first day of this year's show.  If you want to hear my thinking, you have to invite me to speak at your high-powered conference.  I paraphrase what a few other speakers said below.  My thinking in response to the presenters is noted in italics below, as per my usual style of commenting on major public events.

Thank you to Kim Githler and Charles Githler for allowing me time on your show's calendar.  Kim kicked off the conference in her usual way by covering her basic philosophies:  capital preservation, the big picture, and adapting to change.  She noted that strategies for handling inflation and deflation are different and that long-term stock market investors are rewarded.  Her take on an old adage was a classic:  "Finish your homework.  People in India and China are starving - for your job."  Charles spoke next; he thinks the US is at major risk of deflation (hence the Fed's QE goal of asset appreciation).  He interprets rising real 10-year yields as the result of investors demanding more reward for the risk they take.  Referring to the "2020 scenario" of energy independence for North America, Charles thinks materials and energy may outperform.  I appreciated his mention of GDX and GDXJ (the gold mining ETF tickers) as beaten-down value plays that may also be useful as inflation hedges.  There may be some life in my GDX holdings yet if other luminaries come around.

The first keynoter from TD Ameritrade covered his firm's Investor Movement Index (IMX), which I take to be a Big Data compilation of their clients' aggregate trade activity that measures market sentiment.  I don't use sentiment indicators because I consider most retail investors to be reactive rather than contemplative.  Some hedge fund somewhere can probably throw the IMX into one of their algorithms and measure its signal strength.

The keynoter from S+P Capital IQ said that bullish market action in January and February usually signals a positive twelve month total return, but I'm skeptical.  Ask anyone who was in the markets from late 2008 to early 2009 how the crisis impacted their annual returns.  He noted that the number of "all-time high days" in this bull market are below historical averages; once again, I'm skeptical that this is anything other than random noise.  He noted that narrow yield differentials between the S&P 500 and the 10-year Treasury are generally good for bull markets but I must caveat that with some kind of adjustment for risk.  Only in recent years have investors ignored risk and focused exclusively on total return, and that's only because QE has driven them out of cash and savings accounts.  IHS Global Insight believes that most developed countries have passed the troughs in their business cycles.  I'd like to see IHS's track record in forecasting economic turning points; it's not obvious from their product page.

Roger McNamee from Elevation Partners (and let's not forget his rock band, Moonalice, whom I've heard live) had ten hypotheses about tech that probably went over the heads of most MoneyShow attendees.  I think MoneyShow attendees are much more intelligent than the average American, but not all of them are the type of innovators who would launch or fund a tech startup.  He thinks there's no income overlap between mobile apps and the web, partly because apps are the search engines for mobile.  He thinks Apple should pivot to the cloud and the Google's Android has spawned incompatible systems that degrade app experiences.  He continued to pound Android, saying its OEMs often lose money on hardware.  I'd take a look at Samsung's sales before I count out Android makers.  Roger likes that HTML5 incorporates Flash, which gives it more design flexibility and makes monetization easier.  He predicts that "home cloud" architecture offering remote access to lifestyle devices is coming.  I see that as another manifestation of VCs going for IoT as the next funding trend, something I've blogged about this year.  He also predicts that content providers will have to move to broadband distribution to survive given the decline of cable and satellite channels.  His most alarming hypothesis is that the "sharing economy" allows consumers to imitate corporations' capital efficiency techniques (like outsourcing), his evidence being that Millennials are renting capital goods for short periods via Airbnb and Zipcar.  I hope he knows what's driving this phenomenon.  Millennials' income is constrained by student loan debt and lack of upward mobility.  They must rent cars because they can't afford to own them.  They must lease out their homes and apartments because they really need the extra income.  Check out Roger's slide show on Elevation Partners' mission page.

Steve Forbes was the next keynoter.  He's still pretty sharp but sooner or late the next generation of handsome, intelligent keynoters will have to replace the old guard, and that's exactly why I'm appearing at these conferences.  Steve noted that middle class incomes are still declining after four years of so-called economic recovery, similar to a pattern in the 1930s.  The MoneyShow audience applauded his prediction that the Democratic Party would lose the US Senate due to the Affordable Care Act's implosion.  I'm sad to note that such a reversal is probably a pipe dream.  Americans are addicted to entitlements at all levels of our society.  These programs and their political sponsors will remain in place until a hyperinflationary depression eliminates their funding sources.  Steve thinks fixing federal spending to a percentage of GDP is a more effective budgeting tool than a legislated debt ceiling.  I don't think that is going to work.  Government statistics are already significantly altered, gamed, adjusted, and otherwise misused as to be unreliable, according to Shadow Government Statistics.  Targeting GDP will just incentivize the policy apparatus to artificially inflate GDP so the government can collect more revenue.  The best guide for targeting federal revenue collection and spending IMHO is Hauser's Law.  Steve went back to his advocacy for the gold standard, another impossibility because it's too inflexible as a rule.  The Rentenmark is a better example because it was backed by a broad range of hard assets.  

Jim Rogers was the final keynoter.  He's still pretty sharp but he was starting to show his age while wandering all over the stage.  He's proud of his young daughters for speaking Mandarin and showed off their videos from a speech exhibition.  The guy has been a relentless China bull for something like forever.  Someone needs to tell him that China's most important economic figures are falsified and that English is the international language of business.  I could beat the ground about how China will get old before it will get rich, its resource shortages and little arable land, its economy's fixation on the pork cycle, and the insolvency of its shadow banking system.  I do concur with the rest of his general advocacy of mining, energy, and agriculture.  Jim set up his family's bank accounts in Asia because he doesn't trust the US dollar.  I hope he calculated those banks' Basel capital adequacy ratios first.  He noted that simultaneous monetary stimulus in the largest developed economies is unprecedented and that we should prepare for that to end.  I've been saying that too but I don't think Jim reads my blog.  He's shorting junk bonds.  I'm not, because I don't want to pay the bonds' interest to a counterparty in addition to the margin interest I'd have to pay.  He's still bullish on agriculture because a dearth of farmers will make farming careers more lucrative.  Jim likes Canada's economy and currency but doesn't like US TIPS due to their tax consequences at maturity.  He then rolled into a rambling Q&A and was very friendly with Asian women in the audience.

The vendor booths on the expo floor had more representation from hard assets companies and investment projects than I've ever seen at a MoneyShow.  Big Oil (supermajors), Little Oil (prospectors), pipeline MLPs, timber, REITs, BDCs, and non-US agriculture were all there.  I'll cover these selectively, in pretty broad swaths, working backwards.

Let's consider farmland.  I can understand investing in agribusiness stocks with an international presence because they must publish detailed financial statements.  A pure-play deal in Latin America or the Baltics requires a different kind of due diligence.  Investors would have to physically travel to the country in question to see the land, meet the farmers, and examine the title document in the native language.  That's more effort than I can make just for one potential investment.  Please don't pitch me on the ability of coconut oil to treat Alzheimer's disease.  Please don't tell me that a bunch of neem trees are a miracle without explaining the plan to cultivate them outside their native habitat.  Plants have natural pests and predators.  I'd say investors have natural predators too.  I'd much rather invest in permaculture, which I can do right here at home.

Let's talk about business development companies (BDCs).  I picked up flyers for a couple of these at the MoneyShow.  In normal times BDCs are useful additions to a fixed income portfolio.  These are not normal times.  The likelihood of hyperinflation in the US means any security based on fixed income flows is the kiss of death.  Too many BDCs have portfolios structured as loan funds.  The companies owing those loans to the BDCs will pay them off with worthless dollars in hyperinflation.  Structuring the loans as secured with liens on assets won't matter; the indebted companies will end hyperinflation much healthier as their liabilities are inflated away.  BDCs that structure their investments as convertible debt or project equity might fare better in hyperinflation for a little while.

Let's mention REITs.  John T. Reed's anticipation of nationwide rent control laws puts the kibosh on whatever refuge I might have found in commercial REITs.  Residential REITs are similarly out of my consideration.  The remaining option would be storage REITs, and I found a suitable candidate for my own money in my blog article earlier this week.

Let's check out timber.  I sat through one timber pitch recently.  It was (of course) for a project outside the US.  No thanks.  Timber is a hard asset and thus a potential inflation hedge but it must be structured correctly if it wants my respect.  I suspect that much of the infatuation with timber in recent years is the result of timber's correlation with the housing market.  Housing booms drive demand for lumber and pulp.  The financial sector started to take timber seriously when the Harvard Management Company hired a lumberjack to evaluate timber farms all over the world.  The strikes me as analytical overkill.  There are simpler and cheaper tools around for evaluating timber.  The NCREIF Timberland Index shows the return history for timber investments.  The index's declines since the housing bust are a contraindicator to contemporary claims that the housing sector is strong, but those declines may also indicate that the timber sector is underpriced.  Institutional investors hire timber investment management organizations (TIMOs) to care for their trees but those structures aren't available to ordinary retail investors.  The best the rest of us can do is evaluate timber REITs like Rayonier (RYN), Potlatch Corp. (PCH), and Plum Creek Timber (PCL).  Compare them to the timber REIT ETFs with the adorable tickers CUT and WOOD.

Let's look at pipeline MLPs.  The only thing preventing me from going long one of these babies (aside from finding one at a decent bargain) is the unresolved question of whether they can raise their rates at will or are limited by FERC to rate increases at set intervals.  Pricing power counts for everything in hyperinflation.  I'm still digging for the answer.

Let's wrap up my digression by mentioning oil and gas.  You've heard me talk about energy many times already on this blog.  I've discovered that there's a specialized part of the finance sector called "oil and gas lease banks" that provide capital specifically to drillers.  Even oil and gas royalty trusts need access to capital because wells will mechanically fail over time.  They must spend capex on maintenance and restoration of production.  I don't invest in these tiny little well plays or their lease banks but some people just love the tax advantages.  The IRS has an entire handbook devoted oil and gas, and there's a cottage industry of accountants and attorneys devoted to figuring it out.  There's also a cottage industry of community banks with internal offices devoted to helping oil and gas royalty owners manage their income streams.

Okay, enough of my fixation with oddball asset plays.  I'm switching back to the MoneyShow speakers.  There were so many talks that I couldn't possibly cover them all, so I only attended those that mattered for my own portfolio or professional development.

Serial entrepreneur Bill Harris of Personal Capital explained how money meets tech in financial services.  His three requirements for a money management service are that it should be virtual, secure, and personal.  Virtualization should be a disruptive force in a sector that has four times as many bank branches now as it did before the ATM, especially now that digitization has transformed financial projects into intangibles. The security of vaults and access can now be delivered with smartphone 3-factor authentication (password / phone activation / voiceprint).  Technology now allows for mass personalization that obliterates the old crasftsperson model of wealth advisory.  Much of his talk hit the strengths of his finance startup, Personal Capital, without being a blatant sales pitch.  Great presentation, Bill!

The MoneyShow promoters displayed their own proprietary investment sentiment indicator, collated from attendee responses.  Attendees still expect a rising S&P 500 in 2013 and a steady unemployment rate at 7%.  They plan on buying more stocks.  Okay folks, but your due diligence needs to be as robust as mine.  My own seminar presented a detailed due diligence checklist that I've spent years developing.

The Everbank folks think we're paused at a crossroads.  They presented a FRED chart of nominal GDP growing, but to me that's more an indicator of inflation than economic growth.  Their stats on just how little money most Americans have were depressing, like the median figure for financial holdings at $6000.  I'm not in the top 1% but I feel like I should be compared to people at that level.  Everbank noted that the only real job growth in the 2000s was defense-related.  Manufacturing is no longer a job creating sector because it isn't labor intensive.

Legendary stock analyst Laszlo Birinyi spoke on inefficiency in the stock market.  He had a couple of truisms, like "don't sell into strength," which I didn't quite grok.  Maybe this WSJ data set is what he meant.  He thinks money flows are the best tools for understanding the stock market but he didn't mention any sources.  Maybe he means data like this money flows report in the WSJ's Market Data Center.  It seems like a pretty raw supply/demand technique but I'll have more to say about it after I've studied Birinyi's own money flow methodology.  He also uses a cyclically adjusted P/E to make buy/sell decisions and call market turning points.  I've been wrong when I've tried to call market turning points so I'll check out his system.  I agree with him that technical analysis doesn't work, but some speakers here will swear by it.  Laszlo lamented that investors today are on their own because institutional money managers don't read, think, study, or practice.  He said other money managers never asked him how he outperformed because they thought he was just lucky.  I witnessed all of that behavior inside investment firms where I worked.  I want nothing to do with those people.  

Next up was Doug Roberts' Channel Capital Research speaking on the QE-driven rally.  Follow the Fed to Investment Success lays out Doug's thesis.  The Fed has driven down bond yields and boosted bond valuations, forcing investors to take on more risk.  QE3 is different from previous rounds because of its indefinite size and duration.  Hew drew a brilliant analogy with markets in the 1930s, where low to negative real interest rates and violent bear markets in equities destroyed investors.  The oil shocks of the 1970s had similar effects, where inflation rose and equities dropped.  Accommodative Fed policy can last longer than rational investors can expect.  Crises and shocks can always surprise policymakers.  Mean regression will penalize long-term returns.  I asked Doug what could cause a run on the US dollar by foreign investors.  He answered that a Middle East conflict could cause autocratic leaders to take power, or that China's internal conflict between its military leaders and its Western-educated business elite could become a power grab that sparks open military conflict.  His basic analogy was with political turmoil in Germany in the 1930s.

Ronald Muhlenkamp, the patriarch of Muhlenkamp, gave his first talk on natural gas an an energy game changer.  I'll cover his second talk farther down this article.  He noted that natural gas at $3/mcf equals coal's price.  Natural gas has always been a local commodity because it can't be shipped economically without being compressed into LNG or constructing pipelines.  He gave an example of how the shale gas boom is lowering consumers' commodity charges on home heating bills.  The cost spread of crude oil versus natural gas is currently too wide to be sustained.  Changing the fuel mix of over-the-road trucks to NG will lower the price of diesel fuel.  Steel plants now use NG as a feedstock.  Comparing NG to other energy sources reveals that it takes seven or eight wind turbines to equal the energy output of one typical NG well.  He also noted that NG wells have a much lower acreage footprint that solar or wind installations.  Ron said that coal has gotten a lot cleaner and US carbon emissions are now below the levels specified in the Kyoto Protocols even though we never ratified that treaty.  Other Kyoto signatories are still above the limits.  Ron said that the concerns about water use in NG fracking are overblown because using 1M gallons on 40 acres is the equivalent of less than an inch of rain on said property.  He mentioned that T. Boone Pickens' Clean Energy Fuels is building coast-to-coast NG filling stations for long-haul trucks.  I asked Ron if the Henry Hub price is a decent proxy for world NG prices.  He said not necessarily because NG prices really are discrete by region.  Ron closed by saying that he likes Sam Walton's book on retailing because that's how the guy got rich as a middleman; as a purchasing agent, he delivered goods to markets more cheaply.  I guess that's the analogy with NG distribution.

I listened briefly to a presentation on managed futures but departed because I'd heard the main points before, and I even gave a pitch like this once when I was a licensed broker at a large firm trying to sell a managed futures product.  The CFTC has regulations governing futures commission merchants (FCMs) and introducing brokers.  Alfidi Capital doesn't fall into either of those categories.  The CME Group is a popular market for futures traders.  I don't trade futures.  I believe futures are only relevant for businesses that want to hedge against adverse price movements for commodities they produce or transport.  Turning the futures market into just another casino for retail investors is IMHO an exercise in futility.  How deep is a given futures market's liquidity?  Can an investor really unwind positions instantly?  What is the counterparty risk?  I'll look for answers to these questions in a future blog article, with the sad case histories of Long Term Capital Management and MF Global as examples of what can go wrong.  Oh yeah, one more thing on managed futures.  Reg FD on selective disclosure pretty much eliminated the ability of actively managed futures to generate alpha.

The Forbes columnist roundtable was a fun panel, primarily because bond guru Marilyn Cohen was on it.  The panel seemed to hold a consensus that the Fed's tapering is inevitable.  IMHO the Fed is already losing control of the long end of the yield curve.  The panel hinted that this is happening by noting big drops in the value of long term bonds and mortgage REITs.  Every panelist had their own approach to ideal portfolio construction but Marilyn likes split-rated bonds (i.e. bonds where rating agencies differ on the ultimate rating, implying the bond may be undervalued) and individual junk bonds from firms that have pricing power.  She also thinks the Detroit bankruptcy will be a seminal event for the muni bond market, predicting the case will go to the US Supreme Court and contagion coming to other states' bonds.  The stock picking columnists on this panel mentioned stocks that are driven by consumers' disposable income.  Those are stocks I avoid.  They also mentioned some new spinoff ETF (maybe Guggenheim's CSD, I didn't catch the ticker), which is another thing I'll avoid because spinoffs are the result of active decision rules and don't belong in a passive index.  One panelist said that some large gold miners tie their dividends to the price of gold.  I didn't know that, but it makes some sense because the price of gold determines how much cash miners can get for their metal.  The panelists discussed their sell disciplines.  They all have price level rules except Marilyn.  Her sell rule for a bond is to sell upon discovering any accounting discrepancy in the issuer, any private equity buyout attempt of an issuer (because the target issues new bonds that denigrate the existing bondholders' interest coverage), and any denigration of yield when rolling down the yield curve.  Marilyn Cohen is brilliant, and I told her so after the panel was over.  I heard her speak at the first MoneyShow I attended in 2001 and she's as sharp as ever.  I respect her because she understands fundamental drivers of a bond's value.  Marilyn shared a couple of her corporate bond picks and said bondholders don't like share repurchases because those actions divert cash flow from potential bond interest payments.  The panel let the audience chew on the arbitrage potential between GDX and GLD by going long miners and short paper bullion.  It's not a perfect arbitrage because it's an apples-to-oranges comparison, but it's a useful mental exercise in demonstrating that the price of gold has outrun the profitability of gold miners.  Marilyn's final zinger was to say that I Savings Bonds are a bomb due to lack of inflation, but even she is skeptical of the US government's reported inflation numbers.  Just wait, Marilyn, because when hyperinflation really takes off those I-Bonds will be even worse bombs.

I got to hear more from Marilyn Cohen when she held her own seminar on remedies for situations when management disregards bondholders.  Check out her work at Envision Capital Management.  Marilyn reiterated that M&A and spinoffs affect bonds, and that accounting improprieties are sell triggers for corporate bonds.  Acquirers issue bonds to fund their takeovers, but a failed acquisition makes these newer bonds less desirable than older bonds.  Private equity buyouts hurt existing bondholders if they don't have covenants with change of control provisions in their bonds.  She said the median equity in private equity buyouts is 40%, and any less means existing bondholders suffer.  She warned us all to stay away from covenant-light bonds and to read prospectuses for covenants.  Bond indentures with change of control provisions ensure that your bonds are taken out at a premium to par.  High coupon bonds deserve attention in buyouts; she sells them upon a buyout's announcement.  Bond clawbacks can happen if an issuer has the right to buy back a percentage of bonds issued.  A clawback action is more typical of junk bonds and not so much for investment grade bonds.  Buyout targets take on the acquirer's bond rating.  The bond indenture will describe the make-whole provision of any potential clawback offer.  Bond buyers must beware of these clawback provisions!  Marilyn also advised us all not to buy bonds in private equity companies themselves, because they use those bond issues to pay themselves dividends.  She also told us not to buy pension obligation bonds, because they're taxable.  She wants us to stay away from general obligation munis issued in problem areas (I'm thinking Detroit, Stockton, etc.) or that need appropriations.  She really likes senior lien airport revenue bonds, personal income tax (PIT) bonds, sales tax revenue bonds, and water/sewer bonds.  She also likes bonds of companies that just emerged from bankruptcy because they have clean balance sheets.  Way to go, Marilyn!

I attended Ron Muhlenkamp's second seminar on the squeeze effects of taxes and interest rates.  When someone impresses me, I elect to learn everything I can from them.  He noted that government has never collected more than 20% of GDP as taxes; please refer to Hauser's Law for confirmation.  If the federal deficit grows less than GDP, the debt-to-GDP ratio gets healthier.  Ron also gave us a hint on how frugal lifestyles beget wealth.  He said buying used cars helps you get rich, and one should never borrow to buy a depreciating asset.  I'd caveat that by saying that a depreciating asset that generates cash flow may be worth the debt needed to buy it.  Entrepreneurs who buy taxi cabs, dump trucks, limousines, or hearses should at least calculate the NPV including the periodic negative outlays for debt repayments.  Ron noted that higher taxes won't cure the federal deficit because people will just work less.  Defined benefit pension plans will bankrupt employers.  I'm pretty sure I blogged about that at some point and that's why I read balance sheets to identify underfunded pension liabilities.

I attended Marilyn Cohen's second seminar on how the bond crisis is moving at glacial speed.  Like I said before, I pay attention to people who know what they're talking about.  She borrowed the term "Global Thermonuclear Devaluation" from finance guru Mark Grant to describe what happens after QE.  The best thing Marilyn did for her audience today was to share a method for minimizing taxes.  The Affordable Care Act's tax on capital gains from high earners is unpopular but bondholders can amortize premiums to avoid it.  Amortize the premium of a taxable bond by taking it as an annual deduction on your income tax returns, rather than using it as a capital loss at maturity or sale.  The Form 1099 from a brokerage will show the adjusted cost and premium only for the last year an investor owned a bond.  Amortizing it annually will reduce the ACA's tax.  Competent CPAs know how to calculate this amortization.  I think the risk in this approach lies in the ability of the IRS to change allowable amortization on a whim.  Marilyn thinks it's unique that all new bond issues are at premiums now because ZIRP keeps short term rates at zero.  You'll never find bonds at par or discount anymore because of ZIRP.  She thinks Payment-In-Kind (PIK) bonds are horrible because the issuer (usually distressed) can keep paying in PIKs like an eternal Ponzi.  She noted that even private equity firms are now issuing PIKs.  Which ones?!  I don't think I want to find out.  She admonished us to get more selective on munis, because Detroit really has changed everything.  Many other muni issuers are just as troubled.  Investors in general obligation (GO) bonds may become unsecured creditors.  She said any bonds whose revenues rest partly on federal grants are risky, with Build America Bonds (BABs) as a prime example.  The BAB indentures state that they can be called at par if the federal government cuts its subsidy.  Sequestration puts all grants and subsidies at risk.  She thought GARVEE bonds for highways were usually safe, until now.  The Treasury Offset Program (TOP) can withhold money from these bonds' repayments.  The federal assistance built into some munis is part of Marilyn's glacial crisis picture.  She disparages "yield hogs," investors who just chase high yields with no concern for covenant risks.  I saw a variant of the yield hog breed in some writers who extolled the value of high-interest savings accounts in Cyprus before that country's banking system went into lockdown.  Marilyn thinks California's high speed rail project is a boondoggle and that's part of the reason she now prefers revenue bonds; GO issues are funding useless projects.  She likes "intercept bonds" but I don't think those originate with California issuers.  Marilyn uses Investing In Bonds for research and thinks everyone should use it too.  Okay, I sure will.

That's the exhaustive summary, with pithy italicized Alfidi Capital commentary, of all the seminars I attended.  I already blogged about John T. Reed's MoneyShow seminar because it was too good to delay.

I want to impart a few more random but related Alfidi Capital observations before I wrap up this report.

#1) I am really starting to suspect that oil and gas royalty trusts belong in tax advantaged accounts but I need to look into some rules to be sure.  The payouts from a royalty trust include both return of principal and additional yield.  Eventually the principal will be zero as wells deplete.

#2) IMHO rising real interest rates will eventually crash the value of bonds (particularly Treasuries) that banks hold on their balance sheets, destroying their capital adequacy ratios.

#3) Pension liability analysis must be part of any public company valuation.

#4) The normal interest rate for a 10-year Treasury may very well be its average since 1962, which is 6.58%.  The impact of a mean reversion to this figure from where we are now will be hugely adverse for stocks, bonds, and housing.

These four observations, plus everything else I learned at the MoneyShow San Francisco 2013, play a huge role in how I invest my own money.  I'm totally convinced that the investing public is better off for reading my synopses of investment conferences and that my own seminar added tremendous value to MoneyShow 2013.  I'll see you again next year.  

Friday, July 19, 2013

Shale Gas Fracking or Coal Gasification

America has long been rich in hydrocarbon energy.  That's great for Joe Six Pack and his fellow energy hogs who forget to turn off a light when they leave a room.  The country's remaining reserves of coal and natural gas are still plentiful but are more expensive to extract than ever.  Choosing between gas and coal is not easy.

The US Potential Gas Committee has published estimates of natural gas reserves for decades using rigorous peer-reviewed methods.  The Committee estimated that the US's recoverable gas reserves stood at 2.38 Tcf at the end of 2012 with no caveat for expected production timelines or market prices.  The New York Times's "Drilling Down" series exposed the hype some shale gas enthusiasts had pushed on the public.  Large US gas reserves are not necessarily cheap or easy to obtain.

Shale gas may be cheaper and cleaner to burn than coal but that does not mean its extraction is without cost. Methane is still a greenhouse gas and its uncontrolled escape exposes the atmosphere to global warming.  That's why monitoring orphan gas leakage from wells and pipelines is important for the energy sector.

I will go out on a limb to suggest that the risk of groundwater contamination from fracking is overblown.  The GAO-12-732 found no evidence of aquifer contamination from fracking.  Oil companies already know how to purge contaminated water from a well by plugging it at the bottom and creating air pressure that sucks contaminants out of a compromised bore hole.  The scene in the documentary film Gasland of a water faucet lighting on fire displayed the results of biogenic methane gas unrelated to oil and gas exploration.

Fracking's impact on surface topology also appears to be negligible.  A fracking well's surface footprint is 5-7 acres for each well pad, but horizontal drilling means several wells can fit on a single well pad to save space.  Surface traffic into rural areas will increase as trucks bring in large amounts of water to sustain fracking, but refer again to that GAO-12-732 study above which was inconclusive on the impact of surface disturbance.  The GAO's 2013 High Risk Report concluded that the management of oil and gas royalties from production on federal lands needs improvement because of uncertainty over monitoring and revenue collection.  It all comes down to money, folks.  Uncle Sam will ignore fracking's potentially unknown impact on surface degradation if it gets a more accurate account of the enormous revenue it generates.

Trucking in all that water means someone else doesn't get to use it.  The "water wars" of the Western states have always been pretty intense between environmentalists and farmers.  Introducing fracking wells' need for water may end those wars unexpectedly because energy companies are rich enough to outbid other parties.

Fracking may have some common cause with the geothermal energy sector.  Injecting water into deep wells does induce seismic activity.  LBL's Earth Sciences Division has studied induced seismicity for years in the context of energy exploration.  It would be great if the geothermal sector could partner with the oil and gas sector by sharing data on deep well injection because they could probably learn from each other.  Both sectors should also peruse the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program data to see where their drilling is likely to raise their costs if they get hit with lawsuits from earthquake victims.

If you don't like the headaches involved with shale gas, you won't like the coal sector either.  The current Administration seems determined to make life difficult for the coal sector with increased regulatory attention.  Goal gasification in situ may provide a favorable solution.  The heat transfer to the surface generates electricity and the carbon byproduct stays locked in the Earth's crust away from the atmosphere.  DOE's support for the FutureGen coal plant conversion project shows that the Administration is willing to back a demonstrated carbon capture technology for the coal sector.  One big potential drawback to coal gasification is the uncertain means of turning off the thermal reaction underground.  I recently had a conversation with a former energy company executive who mentioned some underground coal mine fires in Pennsylvania that have burned for decades and then migrated to consume other deposits.  He had the same concern about extracting methane hydrates from Arctic tundra and the frozen ocean floor.  Taking out too much at once may cause an unpredictable reaction.

California is set to play a big role in satisfying America's future energy needs.  The Monterey Shale Formation may be the biggest oil-bearing formation in the US.  Getting energy out will be hard because of its complex geology.  I predict it's going to happen anyway.  Ignore the political noise and focus on the money.  America is going to build clean coal plants, lay the Keystone-Xcel pipeline, and frack California's shale.  The energy companies that line up first will be minting money for years.  

Sunday, May 12, 2013

The Limerick of Finance for 05/12/13

Gas exports have come into play
Energy sector joining the fray
Terminals to approve
Pipeline routes to improve
Producers will have a field day

Saturday, March 23, 2013

Sunday, March 17, 2013

The Haiku of Finance for 03/17/13

Natural gas bond
Need clear title to big field
Build a new pipeline

Cyprus Bank Deposit Levy and Natural Gas Bonds

Cyprus' president has pledged to cover the value of its imminent savings deposit levy with an equivalent value of natural gas bonds.  It's hard to say whether Cypriot savers should take this promise seriously without some analysis of its viability.

Let's use the European bailout sum for Cyprus of US$13B as a proxy for the amount of savings about to be confiscated from Cyprus' resident depositors.  I need a proxy because I have no idea how much the government of Cyprus will actually collect from this levy.  The natural gas revenue needed to back the bonds that would make savers whole would likely come from the Aphrodite field.  Title to this field is unclear; Turkey has made a competing claim for the sovereign right to control drilling.  There is currently no pipeline from Cyprus to either Turkey or Crete which could deliver the gas to market; that would cost US$1B to build and Cyprus has no money.  Building a $10B LNG terminal is ten times as unlikely, because Cyprus is still broke.  The energy supermajor that ends up building it will get the lion's share of the revenue from the gas field as compensation for its costs and will have to deal with the likelihood of being shut out of other projects in Turkey.

The lack of drilling and delivery infrastructure means that no Aphrodite gas will go to Europe until 2018 at the earliest.  A lot can happen with the price of natural gas in five years.  The wide availability of shale gas in the U.S. will keep the price down in North America.  Europe's need for gas is met mainly by Russia, and Gazprom can adjust its rates at will to pressure Russia's neighbors.

There is no single European energy market and the price of natural gas by country varies widely.  The caloric value of natural gas is about 1000 BTU per cubic foot (cf), so this gives us a way to find the value of the Aphrodite field if we have a single market price.  I will use the U.S. price because the CME trades the Henry Hub futures market in natural gas, giving this particular commodity some price predictability for several years.    BTW, that's the instrument that global hedge funds will use to speculate on gas prices and that energy producers will use to hedge delivery contracts.

The current U.S. natural gas Henry Hub spot price is $3.72 per million BTUs.
The Aphrodite field contains an estimated gross mean average of seven trillion cubic feet (i.e., 7 tcf) of natural gas, according to Noble Energy.
Math:  ($3.72 / 1M BTU) x (1000 BTU / 1 cf) x (7 tcf) = $26.04B total present value

The good news for Cyprus is that the total value of their natural gas discovery is about $26B, twice the value of what Cyprus is expected to receive in the bailout.  This begs the question:  Why didn't Cyprus just pledge the value of its gas field as collateral for the bailout instead of giving in to Brussels' demand that they shake down depositors?  Brussels may trust cash up front more than the expected future value of gas revenues, given the competing sovereign claims and lack of infrastructure.  A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.

The savings levy itself is not quite a done deal until a majority of the fractious Cypriot parliament votes for it.  This will be fun to watch.

Wednesday, March 06, 2013

Friday, December 07, 2012

Thunderbird Energy (TBDYF) And Natural Gas

Thunderbird Energy Corp. (TBDYF on OTC / TBD.V on TSX) is drilling for natural gas in Utah and oil in Wyoming.  Let's see if they've had any success so far.

My readers know my preference for a geologist at the helm.  Their CEO is not a geologist but their Chairman is one, so maybe that plus the petroleum experience of the rest of their team is enough to get something done.

Their Gordon Creek natural gas project in Utah is notable for its 2P reserves of 39.3 Bcf, according to their NI 51-101 report.  Using a current price estimate of $2.71/Mcf, this discovery has an unadjusted gross value of $106.7M.  That may seem like a lot but we haven't yet annualized it based on the expected life of the property, nor have we subtracted operating costs at the wellhead.  Thunderbird's own estimates are more conservative, figuring an operating cost of $1000/well/month plus $0.45/mcf, for a discounted NPV of just under $70M.  Photographs on their website show an extant pipeline on the property, which is all they need to get their product to market.

Their Wyoming oil project is not as well developed, so I'm looking forward to seeing more data.  I'd also like to hear how they plan to extract and market the CO2 reserves they believe they have at Gordon Creek, and how this will not interfere with the more valuable natural gas they will put through their pipeline.

The good news about their natural gas find is that natural gas prices in North America are at record lows thanks to a glut of supply, and every natural gas operator on the continent loves to remind investors of how an eventual increase in price will make their projects worth much more.  It's good that Thunderbird has an agreement with another company to receive royalties and fees.  It's not so good that their breakeven analysis (in their corporate presentation as of December 2012) ignores sunk costs; since they're obviously not making a decision to walk away from the Utah project, their exploration costs should be considered necessary exploration costs and not sunk costs.

Check out their financial statements from January 2012.  Note 2 sheds further light on their agreement to receive royalties and fees; this relationship is contractually contingent on Thunderbird's completion of further well drills.  The $25M in payments agreed upon so far won't dig Thunderbird out of its $29M retained earnings deficit.  Thunderbird will have to hit significant additional 2P finds to remain a viable company.

My bottom line on Thunderbird is that it's one of those natural gas plays that has done a lot of things right up until now.  Their management still has to do a lot of things right - further fundraising, further successful drilling - to keep the company alive and/or out of a forced sale to benefit its royalty partner.

Full disclosure:  No position in Thunderbird Energy Corp. at this time.  

Further disclosure:  Please note that I use the energy sector's convention of "mcf" for one thousand cubic feet, but the financial sector's newer convention of "M" for one million dollars.