You should be able to find an answer to the first question in their annual report and the trust supplied estimate will always be a conservative one.
The answer to the second question should be pretty obvious - you say 'when the wells stop producing'. If the wells have stopped producing, what do you think the royalty interest is worth at that point? Correct, zero is the right answer. There may be a final small payout as things are wrapped up but your units will be essentially worthless at that point. It's all about the distributions received until that point, which means your first question is the important one.
"this field will pump for a hundred years."
Whether true or not, that has no bearing on the future production from this trust.
Apart from the fact that the trust has a defined limited lifetime, the field producing for a hundred years would only be with continuous drilling. This trust has finished the drilling program and there will be no more development. That means production from existing wells will decline, rapidly at first and gradually slowing to a long tail.
Do not confuse a field with a limited set of wells, especially when those wells have already been drilled and will have no further development. It is quite reasonable and consistent for Marcellus overall to continue producing and growing production at the same time that ECT produced less and less gas and distributes less and less income.
Then why not call themselves Dividend Income Resources. Now there would be a name that would let investors know what to expect. How about Safe Monthly Dividend Resources, Inc.
" I sincerely doubt that CHK is buying anymore of this since their focus seems to be on shedding assets."
The parent would never by buying trust units - quite the reverse - they will want to sell their holdings over time. The whole point of them creating a trust is to monetize future production. It would make absolutely no sense for them to buy back their own production in the form of trust units.
As for CHK employees, who knows but we all know that company employees are not the best judge of their company's stock performance - after all how many Enron employees lost their life savings.
You could just look it up on investopedia or some resource like that.
You think you need to experiment to figure out how ex-dates work?
You only need to be a holder at the close of trading on 5/16.
You can sell at the open on 5/17 and still get the distribution.
Why do people write emphatically NO in capital letters yet have no idea what they are talking about?
Did your extensive studies go beyond pulling up the profile page on yahoo?
In March 2012, WBWB notified the Trustee that it was undertaking a study of the Underlying Properties on a well-by-well basis to determine the economic viability of continuing to produce each individual well. WBWB has plugged and abandoned 11 such wells, mostly in the fourth quarter of 2012. These wells were very low producing and deemed non-economical. Additional information about remaining wells has been disclosed in detail in the Trust's 2012 10-K filed on March 15, 2013. The additional decisions on a well by well basis could adversely affect the Trust's future revenue stream, and if a significant number of wells are abandoned, it could cause a termination of the Trust.
The estimated net proved reserves, as of January 1, 2013, attributable to the Trust from the properties appraised are approximately 7.6 billion cubic feet of gas with a future net value of approximately $19,538,000 with a 10% discounted value of $12,824,000.
With the estimated quantities of this year's reserve estimate of 7.6 billion cubic feet of gas remaining, it could be estimated that the Trust still has a life span of 3 to 4 years.
Here is someone who has actually analyzed that instead of parroting something...google "MLPs And Interest Rates, How Right Is Mr. Gundlach?"
Reorganization fees apply to unit/stock holdings, not to options.
How is reporting on the trusts own latest SEC filing considered manipulation.
The ones who cry manipulation are always the ones who have no idea what the filings and the articles mean.
Each US shale play could add from 1 to 5 Bcf/d supply by 2025, adding in total up to 50 Bcf/d to the market, and still be profitable at prices below $5/MMBtu, an official with Enterprise Products Partners said.
Speaking at Benposium in Houston, Tony Chovanec, the vice president of Texas-based midstream company, said lean Marcellus Shale will likely add from 5 to 11 Bcf/d. In addition, rich Marcellus will add from 2 to 4 Bcf/d, Utica 2 to 5 Bcf/d, Barnett and Fayetteville will likely each add from 2 to 3 Bcf/d, Haynesville 4 to 5 Bcf/d, Eagle Ford from 1 to 4 Bcf/d, and all other shale plays will have gas additions ranging from 1 to 4 Bcf/d.
From the current supply level of 69.7 Bcf/d the market will likely add 1.1 Bcf/d by 2015, and up to 17.2 Bcf/d by 2020 from the current level.
Speaking on the sidelines of the conference, Chovanec said supply of up to 50 Bcf/d is available, but "it needs market," such as exports and increased industrial demand. According to Enterprise estimates, by 2020 the US demand could add from 11 to 20 Bcf/d, with 4-7 Bcf/d coming from power generation, 2-4 Bcf/d from industrial/chemical sector, 0.5-1.5 Bcf/d from natural gas- fueled vehicles, 4-6 Bcf/d from LNG exports, and 0.5-1.5 Bcf/d from residential/commercial demand.
Chovanec added that the majority of plays are profitable with the price of gas below $5/MMBtu. For example, dry gas plays may be profitable at $4.45/Mcf, while rich gas plays are profitable at $4.11/Mcf, because rich gas contains other components, such as propane, iso butane, natural gasoline and ethane.
Thus, the total price of an Mcf of rich gas is around $4.98/MMBtu, making rich gas production profitable at $4.11/Mcf, Chovanec said.
With super-rich gas, the price of one Mcf consists of 60% dry gas, 35% natural gasoline, normal butane, iso butane and propane, and the remaining 6% ethane. Thus, super-rich plays are profitable with gas price at $3.75/MMBtu, according to Enterprise estimates.
Due to this, rich gas product
Yes it does compute. As you say, those big producers may (I don't remember the precise stats) account for 20-25% of US production.
The remaining 75-80% is mostly small producers. Those small producers cannot cut production because they need to pay their bills. They do not have the flexibility to switch to oil or to forgo current income like the big players do. In any case, should we even believe those companies when Bentek and others are reporting rising production?
Today was reaction to approval of a new LNG export facility. I don't think it has any bearing on NG prices for the rest of this year.
I posted a reference to an article.
That doesn't amount to an 'assessment' (from me).
These company executives you are quoting...well they themselves say they expect NG to remain below $4 for the rest of the year.
"Natural gas to remain below $4, energy executives say in survey"