cheapstk i would not venture a guess on coverage till i see financial results and what exactly made up this quarters shortfall other than gas price. i am speculating some of the short fall came from buying co2 from third party for the short term and if the volume shortfall is also attributable to the delayed co2 project, but will have to see
yes bbep produces ubti-the question should be is it negative or positive and that depends how you handle idc amortization and depletion in your allocations
details on investorvillage mlp board
Msg 39749 of 39802 at 7/23/2014 12:04:38 PM mlp iv board by
The following message was updated on 7/23/2014 12:52:03 PM.
In response to msg 39747 by crashcardigan
mailbagman2000 in a response to the target rise posted in Ratings/Target Price Changes Log 07/23 wrote "LOL that was a great call by them, NMM is already there."
crashcardigan in a response to the target rise and ratings fall of MWE in Ratings/Target Price Changes Log 07/23 (II) wrote "They Downgrade MWE from BUY while raising the price target from $70, which it blew past recently to $79. Gotta hand it to those guys. They really know how to ANALyze."
I should note that none of those posts received a "recommend" - so there is evidence that the board "get's it".
Target prices from the analysts comes from the use of the (multi-staged) dividend discount model (DDM) along with a Price at a logical Price/DCF Ratio model. Both use a RRR and CAGR metric in their calculation. I would guesstimate that 90% of us know that CAGR projections can widely vary for the smaller stocks. I would guesstimate that less than 10% of us track RRRs - and know that they vary, too. The curent price is not a metric that goes into the DDM (or the other model). Having an analyst valuation assessment that the target is lower than the current price should not be a surprise. And it is not aways the case that next year's price should be higher than the current price. But you already know that.
It is the second comment from crashcardigan that has merit "on the surface". Why did the price target for MWE rise substantially while the rating fell? I do not have access to the full report from Global Hunter Securities - so what follows is logic based speculation. While distribution growth for MWE has been guided lower by the company, the analyst community have higher expectations for 2015. If you have CAGR projection awareness - you already know that. part 1
It appears off line from 28th may as chr indicated till around time of press release. best part was able to process gas at majorsville but obviously there was a cost to transport, fix houston, etc so some financial impact
"Plant III is a 200 MMcf/d cryogenic facility that has been offline since May 28th, 2014 after the facility’s heat exchanger was damaged.
During the period required to complete all necessary repairs to Houston’s Plant III, MarkWest was able to minimize disruption to its producer customers by utilizing its large, high-pressure, rich-gas header system to route gas to the Majorsville complex in Marshall County, West Virginia for processing. ..."
Have also committed around 66,000 bbls day of ethane
As previously announced, Antero has signed an agreement to become the anchor ethane supplier for the Ascent petrochemical complex in Wood County, West Virginia. Under the agreement, Antero intends to provide 30,000 barrels per day of ethane to Ascent which represents almost half of the volume required to operate the Ascent ethane cracker that is planned for the Parkersburg, West Virginia site. This agreement is contingent upon Ascent reaching a final investment decision once the multi-year feasibility analysis is completed and a construction decision has been made.
Additionally, Antero recently signed an agreement to become an anchor ethane supplier to the proposed Shell ethane cracker complex in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. Under the agreement, Antero intends to provide 25,000 barrels per day of ethane to Shell which represents a significant portion of the volumes needed to operate the proposed cracker. This agreement is contingent upon Shell reaching a final investment decision once the multi-year feasibility analysis is completed and a construction decision has been made.
Antero is committed to a 10 year transport, terminal and storage agreement with Sunoco Logistics Partners LP related to its Mariner East II Project that will connect the NGL resources in the Marcellus and Utica Shale to Sunoco's existing infrastructure and international port at its Marcus Hook facility near Philadelphia. Mariner East II is expected to be operational in late 2016 pending final investment decision which is expected in the third quarter of 2014. Under the agreement, Antero will be an anchor shipper and have firm transportation of 51,500 barrels per day (11,500 barrels of ethane, 28,000 barrels of propane and 12,000 barrels of butane). Antero will have the ability, through the Marcus Hook facility, to market ethane, propane and butane to local markets in the Northeast as well as export product to international markets
thanks marv. should have said 700,000 net chevronr and ~610,000 net statoil
Marcellus Net Acreage
-Magnum Hunter 79,000
-Consol, Noble and XTO net not specifically identified
Utica Net Acreage
from investor day presentation
and supports the above average growing CAGR
this is on top of rrc reporting a while back that they had 40 to 50 years of proved reserves also if my recollection is correct
June 2014 presentation-slide 36- many other good slides in presentation
CONSIDERABLE RESERVE BASE WITH
40 year proved reserve life based on 2013 production
Reserve base provides significant exposure to liquids-rich projects
– 3P reserves of over 2.2 BBbl of NGLs and condensate in ethane recovery mode; 33% liquids
final post said several communities and a state group of counties (i believe something like that) now protesting sxl using public utility abandonment rights to gain right of way. my comment was sxl in hindsight should have used this abandonment approach initially before stirring up all of the communities against it and was wondering is they will meet their targets in their presentation
could these community issues delay start up of both mariner 1 and 2 plans by sxl. looks like sxl should have went the public utility route initially before raising all of the emotions instead of late into the project