it is counter balancing. helps mwe during low liquids prices ie capital available from a refiner who gets price advantage of differential in WTI-Brent now; then later when differential contracts MPC will benefit from MWE liquids prices, etc
ball appears to be no theory anymore.
Their new partner NAVB is in the pre IND filing stage. First test was on the delivery mechanism which succeed in 5 humans.
Then using MT-1001 dox application on human tissue samples showed little up take in non diseased cells. Testing done by one the leading HIV experts Dr. Michael McGrath.
Please go to NAVB and listen to at lest the first 30 minutes of their July 7 presentation on results in KS/HIV human tissues
Early NAV3-12 study results on 5 patients is Til/Manocept entered both TAMs and cancer cells and recycled-entering cells for programmed cell death (implosion-apoptosis) is what is desired not explosion (croses).
dosing number and TAMS-cancer cells entry and recycling in patients around 0:22.00
criticalness of implosion vs explosion around 0:23.55:00
results of MT 1001 in human tissues several places in the presentation with 75% to 85% kill rate after 24 hours 100% after that with little uptake to non diseased cells-never been done before.
obviously combining transporter and conjugate in human IND trials will be the final test but so far so good
Expect IND filing this fall
dox should not be toxic when delivered by the right platform to the correct receptor protein, then tightly bound and taken into the TAM-Cancer cell for programmed cell death; then excreted thorough normal channels from the body
Cannot follow your calculation on derivations of $200 mm figure?
~$200mm annual cash flow comes from way-above-market hedges that roll off within the next 9 months or so
following should be within 1 or 2 cents as depends on what 29% means for Nov 2015 actual paid distribution, but based on mplx merger disclosures of 29-25-25-20-20 should be approx:
(I follow distribution paid as that is the cash in my account)
paid nov 2015 .47, paid feb 2016 .50
2016 dist paid=====2017 dist paid====2018 dist paid====2019 dist paid
2016 dist earned===2017 dist earned===2018 dist earned===2019 earned
lower yield after merger and npv of the 3.37 (3.37) vs. dist growth NPV few years down the road of any entity. lower yield and 3.37 can be yield up traded after merger eom
my thought is resolution to dcp will be somewhat complex as taking so long so may be re valuing many of properties and working with bankers and investment houses
also just happened to look hear. not in any e&p's for the near term. if they continue to follow trend of post 1985 uptrend in ^XOI and oil prices could start uptrend in nest little while (see post 189886 on investorvillage bry board-no cost to read and post there). OT Back on navb also look at their collaboration with Bind ( in nano and co founded by Robert Langer)
rl if you are willing to look at brli take a look at navb. do not use yahoo board but use investorvillage navb board for some ideas
attaching the accurin to the manocept backbone for macrophage targeting has exciting potential. go to investorsvillage and go to navb board for some informed discussion. can also use the bind message board. as an option. you do not have to be a paying member to read and post and can attache web references, etc.
Macrophage Therapeutics Reports Data Demonstrating a Manocept™ Drug Conjugate Induces Apoptosis in CD206 Positive Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Tumor Associated Macrophages
- Results demonstrated programmed cell death in KS tumor cells and anti-HIV activity -
- Reinforces therapeutic potential of targeting activated macrophages via the CD206 receptor -
and have not doubt their execution was on schedule
-then another 400 mmcf/d in 3rd quarter with cadiz 3 and seneca 4
-then another 400 mmcf/d in 4th quarter with mobley 5 and bluestone 3; plus 50,000 bbls/d of combined ethane at sherwood and mobley and 31,000 bbls/d c3-frac from bluestone
10 or more varied reasons why some of the top tier-growth mlp have been so volatile ie
-tax payment selling by etf's,
-some of the mlps like mwe have high institutional ownership so we do not know why they sell, when they do, but suspect some may still be covering plays on oil-gas prices ie big houses still cannot reasonably forecast oil price trends so having to raise cash,
-general concern about cagr growth reduction going forward longer oil and gas prices stay suppressed
-debt level on many of the mlps
-on mwe some concern about capital commitments over next few years (ie mwe has stated they are going to stay a growth mlp),
-like with dpm or ngls concern over unheadged or under-hedged liquids prices,
-like with ngls concern over propane-ethane export levels etc. etc. etc. etc and then some on interest rates
On RMP- why strength
-No debt at IPO-end 1st quarter and ~$450 mm in liquidity
-Only operating gathering in Washington and Greene counties of PA
-when they decide to grow/expand picture may begin change
(side not been wondering they are buyers of MHR Eureka Hunter)
npv is what it is. the next 10-15 years carry most the of the NPV.
While they are growing over next 5-10 years they must continue to borrow and issue new units to get grow so when one says $150 over the next 5-10 years that is after diluting with new units and new borrowings that pay interest and cash distributions paid. Using your numbers of $28.28 for 6 years (assume that is npv for now) in distributions over next 6 years and add that to $150 you are at $178 unit and extrapolate $28.28 as flat for 4 more years $47 for 10 years so $197 or ~ $200 unit after 10 years is what unitholder received. ie when mwe pays distribution they are using assets of the company which is a reduction in NPV so must add back to get value unit holder received
for of all stakeholders but primarily the unit holder in a non gp mlp like mwe. Most unitholders/investors forget to look at the terminal value. If you hold mwe till the end (I wished we all could live that long) it is not worth anymore than the NPV of all its distribution to the unit holders and maybe a little cash after of abandonment costs. LP unit holders tax impact should not be a primary concern of the mlp. That is up to unit holder as the unti holder can enter and exit anytime they want. .
-$150 is too conservative. (Remember they have got to payback the debt someday and abandon the assets so it reduces NPV from operations). $150 is my current NPV back of the envelope calculation ie the further out you go from today the less the NPV ie mwe net future cash flow and our distributions have little NPV value after 15-20 years out so even if they go negative NPV after 15-20 years with debt payback and abandonment costs the impact is not material to today but as you get closer to terminal value time it is still there. If we had their cash inflow and out flow tables, equity offerings and debt offerings and payback schedules for the next 50 years we could apply an expected COC and be more precise; so for now I can stick with $150 and not feel too bad.
Any entity should be for sale for the best price. Best price here is way north of $100 possibly closer to $150 in my back of envelope estimates once you factor in 5 to 10 year (1.5b capital year) growth, 8 mm acre acreage dedication and life of dedicated fields (in excess of 50 years is my guess with multiple horizons and infill drilling in NE), newer age of processor and frac plants, distribution yield-cagr growth, ages of semple and fox, etc etc