The treadmill analogy is only partially applicable
Sometimes it is easier to start a new thread, and following up on the long threads discussing the recent SA article, I was stricken by how many people seem to adopt the treadmill analogy as the "be and end all" solution for MLP growth. (the analogy being it takes larger and larger acquisitions to fund an assumed 5% growth rate given the increasing size of the legacy unit count from year to year).
I dont disagree with the analogy having application because logic dictates that absent increased production from legacy assets, further acquisitions are the only option; however, increased production from legacy assets IS ANOTHER WAY TO GET THERE and, thus, the treadmill analogy is only PARTIALLY applicable. For example, part of LINEs growth over the last few years was attributable to (a) an acquisition where they picked up the Hogshooter property, which (b) became a legacy asset post acquistion, that (c) they greatly produced the production from by drilling more wells with SIGNIFICANTLY higher yields based on OIL content vs dry gas. Just my two cents. Lex