Where did you get this information? The ND O&G Director's cut for April says this:
Today’s rig count is 186 (all-time high was 218 on May 29, 2012) (That was posted on April 16, but the number I was referring to is the all-time high number.)
This is old news; they changed their rating in April.
Now it's wait-and-see if any other analysts do anything. The last time there was a "short" the bankers came out of the woodwork to reiterate their positions. Will be interesting to see if they will do it again.
Yet additional info from a Linn customer:
On Targa's earnings call (and associated presentation) is the fact that some customers that have contracted for frac capacity in Mont Belvieu are NOT delivering all the volumes they contracted for. They are rejecting ethane (which we know, especially in the mid-Contintent), and not delivering y-grade volumes to Mont Belvieu. Targa's contracts are mostly "frac or pay", so the customers are paying deficiency charges even though the volumes are not being delivered.
"Logistics and Marketing division operating margin, primarily fee-based, set a record in Q1 2013 driven by increased fractionation fees, volume deficiency payments from certain fractionation customers which mitigated modestly lower volumes and increased LPG export activity with volumes averaging 1.3 million barrels per month in Q1 2013 .
This was a payoff. Read the 10K re: the Berry purchase. Dunlap is CEO of Superior Energy Services, which is a big supplier to Linn.
If you are done with it why do you keep making a big deal out of it as you do with everything else?
Look, just admit you're in over your head, then you'll feel better.
Like I said, it involves dividing one number into another, which is way beyond your ability, let alone your comprehension.
Stay tuned on SA, maybe Mr. Filloon will be able to shed some light on it for you.
A similar discussion is occurring on the IV board. This is from MattZ, who is very good at analysis:
The savings grace for any MLP is high cash flow and at least some real growth. Nearly all MLPs are highly leveraged, but there are big differences when it comes down to being able to pay that debt back in a low-growth scenario.
In a low-growth scenario all the costs previously hidden by expansionary policies come home to roost in the form of asset write-downs, sales at a loss, good will, impairments, and so forth. It's leverage in reverse, so to speak, because even though many of those losses are non-cash items, the DEBT related to those items remains on the books and becomes a big drag on the assets that remain. Costs go up faster than volumes go up (and in some cases volumes also turn the corner and now you have rising costs and falling volumes).
The E&P space is turning the corner on these metrics right now. All the backloaded costs from earlier expansions are coming to the front-burner. Take EVEP for example. Major impairments declared in 2012. Major depreciation declared, high lease costs, and so on. They are good at spreading around the pain but it doesn't take a college graduate to add the numbers all up. Even though the top-line revenue increased dramatically, the costs associated with that revenue increased even MORE dramatically.
This isn't to say that these companies are headed to bankruptcy or anything like that. But it doesn't necessarily mean that they are good investments, particularly not when they are bleeding away their cash paying a high distribution when by all rights they should be cutting the distribution and paying down debt. Natural Gas prices have to increase fairly dramatically for them to be good investments.
Great points, all. I said much the same thing on the VNR board not long ago. If it weren't for the high yields, these companies wouldn't be followed at all. My process will be to eventually extract myself from all E&P MLPS that I own, and move into the GPs that have more potential to increase their dividends (on the backs of their MLPs) and minimize the tax issues that I've had to deal with, (and will have to until I move into something else.)
Which simply shows you are clueless as about anything you post. I've forgotten more than you'll ever know.
Don't bother even responding, because I won't.
Yes please post where I said Marcellus land was selling for $30-60,000.
Like the last time you claimed I wrote something and you couldn't produce it, I don't expect any response.
Never said that, but then again, you and Norris, LOVE to put words on the page that I never typed.
PS have you read the SA TPLM post lately?