|Bid||7.71 x 1000|
|Ask||7.91 x 800|
|Day's Range||7.32 - 8.06|
|52 Week Range||4.68 - 30.18|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||4.41|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||1.02|
|Earnings Date||Feb 25, 2020 - Mar 2, 2020|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||N/A (N/A)|
|1y Target Est||19.25|
Small cap stocks are listed companies that have market capitalizations ranging from $300 million to $2 billion. Since the share prices of these companies can have big fluctuations over a short period of time, companies with market caps of up to $10 billion are also found in the small cap universe. Owing to their small-sized classification, companies in industrial sectors make up a large share of the small cap universe.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- It would be understandable if your first reaction to news that California’s governor has slapped restrictions on fracking was: They frack in California?California actually ranks seventh in terms of state oil output, just behind Alaska.(1) Yet California is usually noted more for its thirst for the stuff, with its legions of drivers consuming more gasoline than in any other state. In terms of production, you’re more likely to associate California with barrels of Cabernet than crude.Which goes a long way to explaining why Governor Gavin Newsom made his move.Newsom hasn’t banned fracking in California — indeed, he says he isn’t empowered to do that unilaterally. Rather, in response to oil spills in Kern County, he has ordered regulators to assess the safety of a different technique for stimulating wells, called cyclic steam-flooding, use of which has surged in California. However, he has also taken the opportunity to order that new permits for fracking be subject to scientific review and that the whole permitting process undergo an audit by the state’s Department of Finance.Phrases like “subject to review” and “undergo an audit” are most unwelcome in the planning departments of oil producers. Few things undercut the value of a project quite like time or uncertainty. So anything that delays drilling outright or puts enough doubt in the mind of the operator (or their financiers) about the viability of doing so effectively does one thing: raise the cost of capital. Exhibit A is what Newsom’s announcement on Tuesday did to the stock of California Resources Corp.:California Resources rushed out a statement saying it doesn’t rely on cyclic steam-flooding and that less than a tenth of its wells used any sort of stimulation techniques in recent years. But that’s the thing about doubt and the sense that the governor of your titular state really just isn’t fond of oil and gas production: It persuades investors to shoot first and (maybe) dig into the details later. (It doesn’t help that California Resources sports leverage of 3.7 times Ebitda, but still.)There’s a similar dynamic at play in Colorado. Last November, the state’s voters rejected a ballot measure that, again, wouldn’t have banned fracking outright but would have instituted minimum distances between buildings and wells that would have severely curtailed fracking anyway. Yet even though proposition 112 failed to pass, the state announced last month it would impose additional scrutiny on wells drilled within 2,000 feet of homes anyway, in response to a study finding heightened risk of benzene exposure within that distance. Hence, stocks of Colorado-exposed drillers remain under pressure:California and Colorado are relative anomalies among America’s top oil-producing states. Both, unusually for such states, either tilt Democratic or lean outright. Moreover, and perhaps linked to that, their diversified economies mean they may be relatively big producers but aren’t what you would call resource states:Citing that same data from his firm, Kevin Book of ClearView Energy Partners sums up Tuesday’s announcement in the context of its impact on California’s oil and gas production like this: “Newsom. Simply. Doesn’t. Care.” Curbing drilling in California should, all else equal, raise the cost of oil and, thereby, the state’s already famously high pump prices. Still, as I wrote here in the run-up to last year’s midterms, despite high prices and those clogged freeways, the burden of gasoline as measured against average income in California is relatively low. It’s also worth remembering that Kern County voted 59% for Newsom’s opponent and, above all, accounted for less than 2% of statewide ballots. Politically speaking, Newsom may be obeying the law of small numbers here.California and Colorado may be relative oddities in the club of fossil-fuel states. But the tensions on display there between resource producers and their opponents intersect with wider forces acting on the energy industry.One is the fragmentation of policies at more localized levels in the face of federal efforts to block or roll back measures to address climate change. California’s battle with President Donald Trump (and several large automakers) over fuel-economy standards is another prominent example of this.Plus, in California and Colorado, we can see intimations of how America’s division between urban and rural voters affects energy and climate policy. Colorado’s disputes arise in part because fracking there is running into urban expansion in one of the fastest-growing populations in the country. This dynamic is worth watching in other states where the fracking boom has revived production relatively close to large population centers, such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.Above all, Newsom’s decision can be viewed as another example of tactics aimed not at outright bans of fossil-fuel production, but the imposition of measures or delays that upend the economics of the business. Battles against key pipelines can be viewed through this prism, too.One of the results of several decades of ignoring or obfuscating the costs of climate change is that the measures proposed to address it have become more interventionist in direct proportion to the increasing urgency of the issue. Calls for market-based solutions such as carbon taxes have increased in volume. But they now face real competition from demands for things like outright bans on fracking or phasing out internal combustion engines.Disasters such as California’s wildfires show the costs of ignoring climate change will show up in disruptive ways. Similarly, having helped stymie a broader, coordinated approach to climate change, the energy business should brace for more disjointed disruption on the policy front.(1) Based on trailing 12-month state oil production data through August 2019 (source: Energy Information Administration).To contact the author of this story: Liam Denning at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Gongloff at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Liam Denning is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy, mining and commodities. He previously was editor of the Wall Street Journal's Heard on the Street column and wrote for the Financial Times' Lex column. He was also an investment banker.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- California intensified its battle against fossil fuels by seeking independent reviews of all pending hydraulic fracturing permits and halting approvals of a key production technique in an area that has pumped crude for more than a century.Governor Gavin Newsom ordered regulators to assess the safety of high-pressure steamflooding, a production process that has been linked to recent oil leaks in Kern County, the state’s Department of Conservation said in a statement Tuesday. The state is also requesting third-party scientific reviews of any pending applications for fracking, as well as looking for ways to toughen regulations to protect residents near oil and natural gas well sites.It’s the latest in a series of actions or threats against unconventional oil and gas production. Democratic presidential contenders Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have promised to ban fracking if elected. The U.K. government halted new fracking wells in England earlier this month on concerns about earthquakes.Newsom, a San Francisco Democrat in his first term as governor, has been stepping up pressure on oil and natural gas producers through a series of initiatives such as denying permits and drilling leases on land that is or once was protected by federal authorities.California Resources Corp., the state’s largest oil producer, tumbled as much as 32% on the news and its bonds dropped to just 25 cents on the dollar, the lowest since 2016. The company predicted no “significant effect” on its output because the type of steamflooding it employs is exempt from the ban, according to an email.Berry Petroleum Corp., a driller based in California’s de facto oil capital, Bakersfield, slumped as much as 25%. The new rules won’t affect Berry’s 2019 financial performance but “potentially impacts” certain wells that will be drilled in the future, the company said in a statement. KeyBanc Capital Markets analysts Leo Mariani and Steven Dechert downgraded their recommendation for the stock to the equivalent of sell, from the equivalent of hold.“This moratorium is not the most effective way to manage the industry,” Berry said. It will benefit “countries that export oil to California such as OPEC countries, which have poor social justice and environmental records, pay no California taxes and don’t employ our citizens.”Phase OutCalifornia is the sixth-biggest oil-producing state in the nation, ahead of former powerhouses like Alaska. Although in-state output has plunged by 60% since the mid-1980s, explorers rely on so-called enhanced recovery techniques like steamflooding to keep fields first drilled in the 1800s in active production.“These are necessary steps to strengthen oversight of oil and gas extraction as we phase out our dependence on fossil fuels and focus on clean energy sources,” Newsom said. “This transition cannot happen overnight; it must advance in a deliberate way to protect people, our environment, and our economy.”The state fined Chevron Corp. $2.7 million last month after several “surface expressions” of water and oil were found at the Cymric field near Bakersfield. The Department of Conservation attributed the leaks to steamflooding and said they created a “significant threat of harm to human health and the environment.”Yorba LindaChevron said it will comply with the new regulations while protecting people and the environment. Western States Petroleum Association said the state’s moves are “disappointing” given that “multiple state agencies already validate our protection of health, safety and the environment during production.”Steamflooding in California was introduced in the Yorba Linda Field in 1960 and then the massive Kern field a year later.Explorers such as California Resources tout it as a low-cost method for creating steady, long-term crude flows from fields that otherwise would contribute little in terms of output or profits. The technique is also used in West Texas, Colombia and the Persian Gulf region.“Governor Newsom’s historic action protects Californians from some of the most dangerous and destructive oil-extraction techniques,” said Kassie Siegel, senior counsel and director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “This marks the turning of the tide against the oil industry, which has been allowed to drill at will in our state for more than 150 years.”\--With assistance from Joe Carroll.To contact the reporters on this story: Kevin Crowley in Houston at email@example.com;David Wethe in Houston at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Simon Casey at email@example.com, Tina Davis, Carlos CaminadaFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
(Bloomberg) -- Real estate billionaire Sam Zell says he’s a buyer of distressed assets as the U.S. oil sector sees a slowdown.He’s bought assets in California, Colorado and Texas at fire-sale prices from companies that are raising cash in anticipation of potential problems in the future, Zell said Thursday in an interview on Bloomberg TV. He said some oil companies are running out of money to drill and are selling their cash flow to raise more capital.“The amount of capital available in the oil patch is disappearing,” Zell said Thursday. “I compared it to the real estate industry in the early 1990s, where you had empty buildings all over the place, nobody had cash."The U.S. oil sector is seeing a decline in the number of active drill rigs as the equity and debt markets remain closed to most exploration and production companies. Chesapeake Energy Corp., once the second-biggest U.S. producer of natural gas, warned investors last week that it may not be viable as a “going concern” if low oil and gas prices persist.‘Keep The Game Going’Zell and Tom Barrack Jr.’s Colony Capital Inc. said in September that they were teaming up to create Alpine Energy Capital LLC, a rebrand of Colony HB2 Energy, which was formed in 2018 and recently closed a $320 million investment with California Resources Corp.That deal was structured as a so-called DrillCo, in which private investors pay to drill certain fields. Once oil begins flowing, the private firm receives the majority of the cash flow until costs are recouped and pre-agreed profit targets are attained.“The seller in that was a big company -- not in trouble but not terribly liquid, and therefore looking for ways to, in effect, get somebody else to put up the money to keep the game going,” Zell said. “What we’re seeing are situations where companies are taking steps in anticipation of problems rather than responding to problems.”(Updates with Alpine Energy background beginning in fifth paragraph.)To contact the reporters on this story: Rachel Adams-Heard in Houston at firstname.lastname@example.org;Alix Steel in New York at email@example.comTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Simon Casey at firstname.lastname@example.org, Christine BuurmaFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Investors need to pay close attention to California Resources (CRC) stock based on the movements in the options market lately.
California Resources (CRC) delivered earnings and revenue surprises of 194.59% and 4.68%, respectively, for the quarter ended September 2019. Do the numbers hold clues to what lies ahead for the stock?
California Resources Corporation , an independent California-based oil and gas exploration and production company, today reported net income attributable to common stock of $94 million, or $1.89 per diluted share, for the third quarter of 2019.
Most investors tend to think that hedge funds and other asset managers are worthless, as they cannot beat even simple index fund portfolios. In fact, most people expect hedge funds to compete with and outperform the bull market that we have witnessed in recent years. However, hedge funds are generally partially hedged and aim at […]
California Resources (CRC) doesn't possess the right combination of the two key ingredients for a likely earnings beat in its upcoming report. Get prepared with the key expectations.
Today we'll evaluate California Resources Corporation (NYSE:CRC) to determine whether it could have potential as an...
Announcement of Periodic Review: Moody's announces completion of a periodic review of ratings of California Resources Corp. New York, October 25, 2019 -- Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") has completed a periodic review of the ratings of California Resources Corp. and other ratings that are associated with the same analytical unit. The review was conducted through a portfolio review in which Moody's reassessed the appropriateness of the ratings in the context of the relevant principal methodology(ies), recent developments, and a comparison of the financial and operating profile to similarly rated peers.
California Resources Corporation will host its third quarter 2019 financial results conference call on Monday, November 4th at 5:00 p.m. EST . The Company’s earnings and guidance will be released following the market close on the same date.
Just because a business does not make any money, does not mean that the stock will go down. For example, biotech and...
Vancouver, British Columbia--(Newsfile Corp. - September 25, 2019) - Corsurex Resource Corp. (CSE: CRC) is one of the latest new listings on the Canadian Securities Exchange. The company, previously a subsidiary of NRG Metals, was spun out in January 2017.For more information, please view the InvestmentPitch Media "video" which provides additional information on the company. If this link is not enabled, please visit www.InvestmentPitch.com and enter "Corsurex" in the search box. Cannot view this video? ...
This most-searched list is a feature included in Benzinga Pro's Newsfeed tool. It highlights stocks frequently searched by Benzinga Pro users on the platform. McDermott International (NYSE: MDR ) shares ...
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- There’s one energy market that won’t feast on renewed fear of conflict in the Middle East. The windfall accruing to oil producers after the weekend’s attacks in Saudi Arabia is a bad sign for U.S. natural gas.Far from scrambling for supplies, production of freedom molecules just hit a new record. Ordinarily, that would be cause for celebration. And it is for customers. Producers, meanwhile, are drowning in the stuff – or, rather, burning it off. Flaring of natural gas, when producers burn the excess that they can’t use or sell, is also hitting records. Preliminary data from Rystad Energy show producers in the Permian shale basin flared more than 800 million cubic feet per day in June. On a trailing 12-month basis, they burned off almost enough to supply the entirety of Texas residential gas demand.This is why even though the benchmark Nymex gas futures price has risen almost 30% over the past five weeks, it still trades below $2.70 per million BTU. Average swaps for 2020 are back merely to where they stood in mid-July.We’re dealing with a broken market here, and the re-emergence of oil’s geopolitical premium exacerbates that.This is because a significant portion of the growth in U.S. gas supply is effectively de-linked from the price. So much gas is being flared in the Permian basin because it’s a mere by-product of oil output. Associated gas comes out of the ground alongside oil. Producers care more about the latter, since it’s worth much more and easier to transport (oil can be trucked out if need be; not so with gas).That means gas prices can fall very low and still not persuade frackers to ease off. How low? Speaking at a forum organized last week by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Rusty Braziel of RBN Energy estimated that if oil is trading at $55 a barrel, a typical Permian well could break even with gas priced as low as negative $4. That’s right, they could pay customers to take the gas and still do OK – which happened in West Texas already this year.As it is, after the Saudi attacks, West Texas Intermediate crude is trading back above $60. At $65, Braziel estimates the breakeven gas price would be negative $8.The renewed geopolitical premium in oil is like a windfall for U.S. frackers, adding dollars to the price they get and displacing competing supply from the market. It’s no accident that the strongest-performing E&P stocks on Monday morning are walking wounded such as Whiting Petroleum Corp. and California Resources Corp. Chesapeake Energy Corp., a company that exemplifies the shale-gas boom and bust, is up more than 10% as I write this.Besides adding to earnings, higher futures prices offer producers a chance to lock in revenue for next year via hedging. As of now, 2020 swaps are up by less than $3 a barrel, to just over $55, reflecting the concentration of fear in the near end of the curve. But if Saudi Arabia takes longer to fully restore output or, more ominously, we enter a cycle of retaliation and escalation, then that fear would spread further out. Anything that encourages more rather than less fracking adds to the glut weighing on gas prices.In theory, even if pricing isn’t affecting gas production, all that flaring should ultimately cause another mechanism to kick in and limit supply. Flaring requires waivers from the Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates the state’s oil and gas industry. And the fact that a swathe of the state is now lit up like a Christmas tree most nights suggests some sort of limit ought to be near.Hopefully you’re sitting down when I tell you the Railroad Commission seems to be just fine with all that potentially salable fuel (and greenhouse gas) just being vented or burned off into the atmosphere. Remarkably, they ruled in a recent case in favor of a producer who wanted to flare gas even though its wells were connected to pipelines that could have taken it away. This was a function of cost, not physical necessity.Such actions could ultimately prove harmful to the industry, and not just in terms of provoking an environmental backlash. Gabriel Collins of Rice University’s Baker Institute points out that if pipeline operators must now contend with the possibility that producers can just flare even if pipelines are there, then those operators may demand more-stringent contract terms or just think twice about building new capacity at all. If we are entering a prolonged period of upheaval in the global oil market, however, then what is the likelihood regulators in a state exemplifying U.S. energy dominance will choose now to take a more restrictive approach? Yet, absent that, as Collins says, “ultimately, you’re putting all the optionality in the hands of the producers.” And those peculiarly Texan torches and that moribund gas market tell you exactly what producers like to do best.To contact the author of this story: Liam Denning at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Gongloff at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Liam Denning is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy, mining and commodities. He previously was editor of the Wall Street Journal's Heard on the Street column and wrote for the Financial Times' Lex column. He was also an investment banker.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.