In any extractive industry this is a revolving question for shareholder, boards & managers once stable cash flows & a strong balance sheet have been established.
🧵
1/n
Make (develop) has significant potential to create value (something out of nothing) but comes with significant delay between cash-outflows & returns (15+y) & at risk of total capital loss. Which is why the market does not reward it.
2/…
Take MMG & the Las Bambas project in #Peru. The market gave zero credit to MMG’s share price until the mine produced #copper. But it is true for the entire mining or resource SECTOR.
3/n
What about buying (not building)? There is less risk as cash outflows (payment) & cash inflows overlap somewhat. However, there is significant information asymmetry as sellers know more about the risks (perhaps off B/S) than the buyers.
4/n
Meanwhile, do NOT buy synergies «as sold» by a management teams without a significant capital allocation track record. Most managers want to build an empire & believe their own lies about synergies. Charlie explains that best with his 60+ years of experience.
5/n
And share buybacks? They are superior to both build or buy choices as they deliver immediate shareholder rewards. Nor do they carry litigation risk for boards (from angry shareholders) as they represents an acquisition of assets of identical quality to those already held.
6/n
To extent that buying or building assets represents an addition of new units of supply that are of a lower quality – both from a financial & a technical perspective – to assets that already exist in the portfolio, it is always better to simply buy back your own shares. Thx
7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
$SQZ is rock solid: 58mboe 2P Res from 5 fields with soild maturity mix (Columbus); comes off milestone payments for BKR acqu.; N&S Egg growth pipe; UK lowest E&P tax rate ex US; access to services; conventional fields; top mgmt; zero EV in 2022?
GB 500p intrinsic value.
1/3
Check out its potential cash flow profile (without growth capex for North & Egg) or potential well interventions for BKR in 2022 for, perhaps, $80m. FCF would be $537m. Deduct $50-80m and it may still be zero EV by year-end due to gas price futures curve. Insane!
2/3
Here is the NBP gas price Future curve as of today. We modelled Serica below that to leave room for their 20% hedging which could be below that.
$SQZ is also a hedge against potential Ukraine disruption. Better than $IOG as proven fields;
EU gas: Right now & hear, #Gazprom uses gas export as political weapon. It books but does not use; bookings became useless indicator of what might flow in pipes. Latest: even NS flows reduce.
So far, EU compensated with warmer weather & LNG, as illustrated below.
1/4
Last month, Gazprom booked 21% of Mallnow’s (GER entry from PL) capacity for Jan, yet there have been no flows. In Dec, the company used daily pipe allocations for that route after opting against booking capacity for the whole month. Nor do Flows enter Poland (from BL).
2/4
On the Ukrainian route, some capacity was booked on Monday for gas shipments to Slovakia via Velke Kapusany border point for Feb. Yet, current flows through that station, even though an extra booking was also made for this month, are a fraction of contractual volumes.
The EU is in a gas crisis, the details of which we explained in various threads on this channel.
Ironically however, the liberalisation of the European gas markets is a huge success story. A brief history & some present day observations on gas security (#Gazprom).
Thread 1/n
With the liberalisation of EU gas & electricity markets in 1998, in theory consumers were able to freely choose their supplier & shop for the best deal. However, most households and businesses still lacked a real choice of supplier well into 2014. Why?
2/n
A Commission inquiry into the energy sector, published in February 2006, identified a number of "serious malfunctions" in the market as most countries maintained their local monopolies.
Starting on 22 December, European gas prices experienced - shall we say - a bit of a "rug pull". Within 10 days they crashed by 60%. Is the gas crisis over?
Thread 1/n
TTF (EU equ. of US price Henry Hub) crashed from a record $59/MMBtu down to $23/MMBtu within 10 days. Today, the price is back at $29 (left axis; $168/boe) or >7x (!) the price US consumers pay for their heating bill.
So no, the crisis is hardly "over". It gets worse.
2/n
Why did TTF (or it's UK equ. NBP) come crashing down in late December? Chiefly b/c Europe had an unusually warm weather patch. Warm weather meant less gas withdrawals.
Copper - the metal that conducts electricity & heat best - is high in demand & short in supply.
Yet, the macro concern is all about China's property slowdown.
Let's give a go at that. Short thread
First, what is copper used (not "consumed", but "used" in durable goods & recycled thereafter) for?
Answer: for everything. But "building construction" is 28% of global copper use. Likely 50% of that is China construction related (hard to precise), say 4.1mtpa.
2/..
Of those 4.1mtpa however, a part is infrastructure construction related, which China does not slow down for now. Say, "building construction" related is 2-3mtpa - an unknown known.