Anybody know if there are some typos in the news release?
...Gas production for the properties from which the royalty was carved (the "Underlying Properties") totaled approximately 4,667,683 Mcf (3,767,162 MMBtu). Dividing gross revenues by production yielded an average gas price for June 2002 of $1.95 per Mcf ($2.41 per MMBtu) as compared to $2.45 per Mcf ($2.27 per MMBtu) for May 2002
In every other news release (thank you SJT for the detail in the release as other's don't give detail)the Mcf is always the smaller number and MMBtu is larger. This throws me off as the $perMcf is smaller in June than in May, per this release.
Makes me wonder if the $.077559 is suspect: Capex is up compared to July, June lease is up compared to July, June taxes are up compared to July, down to June amount paid to Burlington is down compared to July, June
I presume there is a good size chunk of revenues to come next month? Hope we didn't lose something in the transition of the trustees.
My guess is a typo. The conventional gas has been increasing in percentage of total gas sold from SJT (a trend that could be plotted back when the press releases broke it out, but conv. gas wells are being drilled while CBM wells are not), and of course, the conv. gas has a higher BTU than the CBM gas (which has an increasing CO2 content as BHP is lowered with production; ie, BTU decreases w/ time on CBM gas).
Just my guess...I can't really imagine any physical reason for the flip, but it is REAL easy to see a typo. All my opinion, do your own due diligence, and good luck. I am on the sidelines in the RT world.
Axecent, just curious. any particular reason as to why your on the sidelines at this time? Are you waiting for a pull back? Not getting personal, just interested in others views. If you are not comfortable replying that's fine TIA
I didn't see your post. That is an interesting reply from the trustee. Burlington....what can I say. I have been a royalty owner under BR operated properties, and I have to say that I have received some corrections to past revenues, in monthly statements with reconciliations, that have NEVER been explained to me by their royalty payment dept. I am impressed that the trustee has taken this aggressive stance to indicate they will be looking in to this...but that is what they get paid to do.
I e-mailed this question to the trustee, and received the following response.
The August 20 press release contained the following sentence:
Dividing gross revenues by production yielded an average gas price for June 2002 of $1.95 per Mcf ($2.41 per MMBtu) as compared to $2.45 per Mcf ($2.27 per MMBtu) for May 2002.
Is the average gas price for June correct? Is seems odd that the price per Mcf is 23% lower than the price per MMBtu, whereas in May the price per Mcf is higher than the price per MMBtu.
[end of message]
We agree it is unusual for the average price per MMBtu to be greater than the average price per Mcf, but the numbers are correct. Burlington said it is due to the settlement of cash revenues related to an audit exception that affected only Mcfs, not MMBtus. We have asked our auditors to research Burlington's adjustments. This issue will be addressed in the 3rd quarter 10-Q when we know more. We appreciate your comments!
[end of message]
That raises more questions for me because it makes both prices (per MMbtu and per Mcf) suspect. However, we are promised a full account in the next 10-Q.
Not all NG is created equal. Some has more btu content than other. This is especially true of coal seam gas, which there is some in San Juan. No user buys gas by the cuft unless there are mitagating circumstance. The only thing that counts, is btu's. Best to only consider that as a yard stick for comparison, month to month. Haven't followed the capex etc, so won't comment.