% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Inergy, L.P. Message Board

rrb1981 67 posts  |  Last Activity: Mar 21, 2015 2:15 PM Member since: Apr 18, 2001
  • Reply to

    ETP is a bad deal for RGP holders

    by bkluck Jan 26, 2015 11:01 AM
    rrb1981 rrb1981 Jan 27, 2015 7:30 AM Flag

    Yes, you are losing out on immediate income. As I said, I am sitting on a minor capital loss and will simply take the ETP units. I've been investing in MLPs since 2000. I've been the beneficiary of many GP buy-outs. I haven't been right on every transaction and not every deal works out in my favor, but overall, I pleased to see RGP being rolled into ETP. The downturn in commodity prices was going to hurt the G&P side of RGP. We could have seen even more price deterioration and likely little to no distribution growth. RGP never managed to obtain an investment grade credit rating, which they had been trying to do for some time.

    As you said, you can do other transactions to lessen the pain. At least RGP unit holders get equity in what is now the second largest MLP behind EPD.

    I expect at least 4-5% distribution growth and perhaps we will be surprised as see 5-7%. Not much we can do about the terms, I suspect that they will receive enough votes to make it happen.

  • Reply to

    ETP is a bad deal for RGP holders

    by bkluck Jan 26, 2015 11:01 AM
    rrb1981 rrb1981 Jan 26, 2015 8:45 PM Flag

    Overall the deal is ok for Regency holders. The "cut" in distribution stinks, but clearly ETP is a much stronger company that is far more diversified than RGP. The collapse in oil will hurt RGP. RGP has been trying to get to investment grade for years. They have some good things going for them, but clearly taking on PVR, which was a turn around play, didn't really help them. The Hoover and Eagle Rock deals are probably too early to really know. Their Haynesville lines aren't full and volumes have been dropping. Everyone knew RGP and ETP would merge one day. That day arrived. Distribution growth was likely to slow down to 2-3% a year in a low crude price environment. On the other hand, ETP will likely grow at 5-6% annually. ETP is getting RGP at the bottom, but RGP holders are getting equity in a much stronger enterprise.

    I'm holding RGP at slightly higher than today's close. I'll gladly take the ETP and let it ride. I expect distribution growth at ETP to make up for the cut within 2 years.

    As an owner of ETE, I view this as simply part of the roll-up.

  • Reply to


    by no1matemary Jan 22, 2015 12:16 PM
    rrb1981 rrb1981 Jan 25, 2015 11:30 AM Flag

    Probably the typical increase of $.0125 quarterly ($.05 annualized).

    Buckeye might actually see an uptick in storage of both crude and refined products. The recent Trafigura deal will be the main topic of discussion on the upcoming conference call.

  • rrb1981 by rrb1981 Jan 22, 2015 7:11 PM Flag

    Finally got a chance to listen to the conference call. Kinder continues to amaze. The roll-up of KMP, KMR and EPB into KMI were perfectly timed to coincide with what appears to be an excellent time to acquire midstream assets. America has been blessed to have such abundant oil and natural gas reserves and despite near term volatility, there is little doubt that these reserves will continue to be harvested for decades. Kinder will continue to play a large role in moving natural gas, crude oil, refined products etc.

    The projection of surplus DCF for '15 is meaningfully above their original projection. Kinder has taken a page from the EPD playbook, which has been to run with "excessive" coverage, which in turn is used simply as equity growth capital and to provide an excellent cushion against unforeseen events. It is a pity that the slick talking Rockov did not operate Linn with said excessive coverage ratio. But, to coin an old Kinder phrase that he frequently used to say, "make sure you aren't drinking your own whiskey and smoking your own dope". It appears that Rockov was doing just that, ...getting high on his own supply.

    The acquisition of Hiland is likely the first of many deals that Kinder will make now that he has a ultra-low cost of capital. Hiland will no doubt grow in value, especially with CLR acreage dedication. If you were going to bet on any Bakken player, it would be Continental. The fact that Kinder was able to catch Hamm in an inopportune time is fortuitous. I eagerly await to see one of Rockov's acquisitions. He finds himself leveraged to the hilt and with an equity cost of capital still well over 10%. Silly, simply silly for them to have so haphazardly abandoned their full hedge position to try and "time" the markets.

    How divergent KMI and LINE have been since the clown at Hedgeye attacked the two enterprises.

  • rrb1981 rrb1981 Jan 22, 2015 12:28 AM Flag

    It is indeed in the Form 4 (available on SEC.GOV).

    I copied it below..

    "Units sold involuntarily. These units were held as collateral for a loan and were sold as a result of a decline in the Issuer's unit price."

  • rrb1981 rrb1981 Jan 21, 2015 11:50 PM Flag

    Regarding Rockov's sale, as Warren Buffett likes to state: It is only after the tide has gone out that you find out who has been skinny-dipping. It certainly seems like a margin sale type of transaction.

    And in other news, looks like Rich Kinder managed to swoop in and catch Harold Hamm in a cash bind (thanks to his rather costly divorce), picking up Hiland Partners.

    As is usually the case, Kinder is simply tucking in another quality asset that will no doubt become more valuable in a few years as crude supply/demand balance is restored and the current pricing malaise subsides and pricing returns to a point where the incremental marginal barrel of production can be produced profitably. Don't kid yourself, look at "real" crude production growth across the world, the US shale basins constitute the bulk of the production gainsand that was with 4+ years of $100 oil as a tailwind (not counting restoration of dormant production). The Saudi's are playing with fire, forcing Americans to speed up technological investments which will, reduce completion costs (drilling and frac'ing) increase expected ultimate recoveries. In the end, the world will benefit from plentiful supply.

    Of interest will be any comments from storage operators such as BKEP, BPL etc on upcoming CC regarding terminal utilization for both crude and refined products. Cushing volumes are marching steadily upward and I expect BORCO is seeing comparable refined product inventory climb. Not everyone is hurting from surplus supply.

  • rrb1981 rrb1981 Jan 17, 2015 10:30 AM Flag

    Has anyone seen the degenerate sandforbrains? I haven't seen him since the poor hapless sap predicted a distribution increase to $3.08

    Ha Ha. I bet he is still bragging about how the Bakken is going to surpass the Permian and Eagle Ford. Poor dolt. He always was so high strung.

  • rrb1981 by rrb1981 Jan 12, 2015 10:13 PM Flag

    Kinder appears to have timed his EPB,KMP,KMR roll-up almost perfectly. While, it would have been far better to do it years ago (ala EPD), the roll-up right before the plunge in oil appears to be very well timed.

    Kinder Morgan is likely to fall short of producing $500 million in surplus cash (I think DCF drops by $7 million for each $1/bbl drop, and we assume that is based off their assumed $70). The drop to $45 would mean $175 million drop, or perhaps $325 million in surplus. The reality is that the $325 probably will be tough, but I do expect meaningful coverage.

    As others have alluded to, acquisitions seem highly likely. KMI isn't a homerun, but it should weather the storm.

  • rrb1981 rrb1981 Jan 12, 2015 8:26 PM Flag

    Agree artist that terminals ought to do well over the coming year. In fact, I saw an article that stated Cushing was only 1/3rd full but that many oil traders were scrambling to secure storage as they could lock in modest gains with the strip being well above current pricing.

    I think Plains, Magellan, Buckeye, Blue Knight and NuStar ought to see an uptick in utilization. Also, as you point out, it won't matter whether it is oil or refined products.

    I always worried about Borco. It is a world class facility, large, modern but it was a large deal for Buckeye. I have to believe that it will be full within a year if pricing stays low. I've noticed that most of the crude tanker stocks have popped nicely as traders are securing them as "floating storage".

    I don't know how long pricing will stay weak, but it seems likely that pipeline and storage MLPs ought to do well. A glut in crude means that pipes and tanks ought to be full.

  • Reply to

    Some devastating sensitivity numbers

    by bicepsbunny Jan 7, 2015 1:14 PM
    rrb1981 rrb1981 Jan 11, 2015 9:31 PM Flag

    Actually, I'd consider it bullish that they are buying crude and putting it into storage. It means longer dated crude is higher.

  • Reply to

    New Payout Rate

    by skinz4q Jan 7, 2015 4:28 PM
    rrb1981 rrb1981 Jan 9, 2015 6:59 PM Flag

    I think EPD has done what is best for the long term. They have managed the company fairly conservatively, though the OilTanking deal might have been a bit early.

    The distribution increase as a percentage indeed is falling as long as they keep increasing by the same amount.

    I really don't think a bump will garner much from the market. It's probably better to let them keep doing the predictable and hold back the surplus to fund development.

  • Reply to


    by rrb1981 Jan 7, 2015 8:43 PM
    rrb1981 rrb1981 Jan 8, 2015 4:21 PM Flag

    Add Genesis (GEL) to the list. And, I guess you can also include Enbridge (EEP), which announced that it will bump with the Alberta Clipper drop-down.

    The midstream MLPs, those without excessive commodity exposure should survive, perhaps even prosper during the down-turn. I actually expected most of the MLPs to be a bit more cautious. I am quite curious to see what MMP will do. They are excellent operators and are also very conservative.

  • rrb1981 by rrb1981 Jan 7, 2015 8:43 PM Flag

    Announcement should be made within the next 3-4 days based on historical announcement dates.

    Will be interesting to see if they raise or keep it flat.

    This is one of the better management teams within the business. They called a drop in oil early in '14. They even tried to prepare for it.

  • Reply to

    Up 6.86% ...

    by smithlewis89 Dec 16, 2014 8:45 PM
    rrb1981 rrb1981 Jan 7, 2015 8:40 PM Flag

    I understand. I own a much wider array of MLPs. I feel comfortable with most. I still ask the question, if we have a glut of oil, It has to get to market. The pipelines ought to be full. Obviously producers are suffering, but rig counts are dropping and given time, the supply-demand issue will sort itself out.

  • Reply to

    Up 6.86% ...

    by smithlewis89 Dec 16, 2014 8:45 PM
    rrb1981 rrb1981 Jan 6, 2015 7:21 PM Flag


    Nice seeing you here. I have sold very little of my MLPs.

    I won't dare call a bottom, but I feel that we are nearing it. Some of this is panic and some of it is simple supply/demand. Long term, I don't think the world can be satisfied with $48/bbl.

    Genesis just raised the distribution, a good sign.

  • rrb1981 rrb1981 Jan 4, 2015 5:36 PM Flag

    I think analysts are predicting $30 billion out of around $160 billion in energy high yield bonds to default. There will of course be at least partial recovery in many, perhaps most of those. This will not be a Lehman contagion, not evenly remotely close, sorry to disappoint you.

  • Reply to

    .0833 to .10

    by davidbdc2001 Jan 3, 2015 3:28 AM
    rrb1981 rrb1981 Jan 4, 2015 5:26 PM Flag

    The loan you are referring to was for the spinco, to term out the revolver. post spin (read the sec documents).
    I did some digging after you made the comments. It was indeed Atlas, but it was not ARP.

    Agree, they should have hedged the Eagle Ford deal much better. A classic screw up on Cohen's part, probably "hoping" prices would rise and he would look "smart". We know how that always turns out.

    One thing is certain, if ARP cuts, it significantly hurts the new spinco (GP).

    Yes, also agree they will not raise $275 million in '15. I bet it is closer to $150 million.

  • Reply to

    BBEP cut after market close

    by artist_formerly_known_as_pooch Jan 2, 2015 7:17 PM
    rrb1981 rrb1981 Jan 4, 2015 3:13 PM Flag

    I understand what you are saying pooch. I would say that a divestiture of any production or acreage at current prices would indeed be viewed as distressed, however a divestiture of UEO would not be viewed as distressed. UEO, and to a lesser extent Cardinal, are probably the best decisions management has made in quite some time. I also think the Barnett deals, which were perhaps a bit pricey, also significantly helped the company in shifting them towards more gas than oil. Yes, we know they botched the Utica divestiture. We get it. They tried to play the game that Aubrey McClendon was so good at, which was to hype a play, then sell-off a huge portion of that play via a JV or a carried interest, usually recouping their entire investment. EVEP failed miserably in that department.

    My personal belief is that they should monetize UEO. If they don't, it won't be the end of the world and no doubt cash flow will continue to increase over time. If they do monetize it, they can deploy those proceeds in the market, being buyers rather than sellers.

    I'm not saying a distribution cut won't happen, I'm just saying that those that look at the situation, should realize that Linn and BreitBurn were heavily exposed to oil production and did not hedge effectively.

  • Reply to

    BBEP cut after market close

    by artist_formerly_known_as_pooch Jan 2, 2015 7:17 PM
    rrb1981 rrb1981 Jan 4, 2015 9:10 AM Flag

    Don't kid yourself, UEO will be in high demand if EVEP elects to divest their respective interest.

    The E&P sector is hurting but the midstream sector is not nearly as beat up. I would not be surprised to see MWE, SXL (or ETP, RGP) or EPD move on UEO.

    If EVEP elects to keep it, it will steadily increase cash flow through 2015 and 2016. It really is a crown jewel type asset.

    I think your call for a 50% cut is silly. Linn and Breitburn cut that drastically because of their high crude oil exposure. Compare their oil and NGL exposure compared to EVEP. Just silly to call for a 50% cut, simply silly.

    I think as long as EVEP is continuing to approach 1.0x coverage, most would prefer to have the .001/unit increases and not take a cut.

    I doubt Walker cuts the distribution.

  • Reply to

    15%decline rate

    by gpd8252 Jan 4, 2015 7:48 AM
    rrb1981 rrb1981 Jan 4, 2015 8:56 AM Flag

    Perhaps the decline rate is 15% rather than 10% due to their not selling the remaining Permian Wolfcamp production, which we know is high decline due to being relatively new wells.