Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Canadian REITS, Trusts & Dividend Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: russet who wrote (1597)	10/2/2001 9:55:35 PM
From: bill	Respond to of 11633

Bought Pembina Pipelines today for 9.95. 10.5% payout. It is a top pick in the pipelines. My TRP seems to have topped out for now so I'm not expecting a big run up there. Picked it up cheap so the return in dividends in fine. What think the threadsters of Pembina? I see there's a recommendation out (buy) on PWI. Also FZR.

To: russet who wrote (1597)	10/2/2001 11:11:13 PM
From: Lorne Larson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

ERF is holding up well because it has some nice hedges in place. However Yahoo board on ERF has a post from a person who contacted ERF and was advised that they have NO hedges in place for 2002. ERF pays out conservatively and than adjusts their payments (usually upwards) every 3 months. The next adjustment will be the November payment, which will support the trading price until then. After that its a race between the hedges expiring, and a hoped for increase in NG prices. If NG prices stay down, and ERF's hedges have expired, ERF will be in for a hammering. I'm not short ERF because I don't want to cover the monthly distributions. However if we get into December and energy prices are still down, I'll do it. NCF is simply too hard for me to figure out so I'm going to avoid it short or long. It trades on the U.S. market and as a result seems to be prone to extreme price swings, for reasons which aren't apparent to me. I don't believe for a moment however that they can maintain their .25 distribution. The trust that continues to amaze me is SHN. Have no idea what is holding this trust at $12.50. At present NG prices, next distribution will be less than half their last .70 quarterly distribution. I've shorted it down from $15.00, and if I had any guts I'd double my short position. However the price action right now makes no sense, which makes me very jittery. One I'm looking at to go long on is VKR. Can't see how it can go much lower. Reasonable oil/gas weighting. Anyone have any thoughts?

To: russet who wrote (1597)	10/3/2001 9:38:28 AM
From: stan_hughes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11633

russett - A few final comments and then I'll move on. 1. At any given point in time, X number of wells need or could use some rework. But I don't believe you will gain much insight into overall gas supply conditions speculating whether the value of X is higher or lower than it was in the past. There isn't enough data to draw any conclusions. 2. There never was a "gas production spike" but there was a gas price spike, one that was largely caused by administrative farkups by Californian gas procurers caught asleep at the switch last winter. In truth, the fact that production didn't appreciably increase quickly in the US was the cause of much consternation a few months ago, because most people expected that it would. That prices would still fall in the face of an anemic supply response reveals that the price spike issue was rooted in the demand side of the equation, i.e. the California situation. With equilibrium restored however, the industry immediately faced ironically the precise opposite challenge, a sharp decline in demand. Storage activities have picked up a lot of the slack on the way down but soon we will hit the brick wall of having no more storage space. That's when the fur is really going to fly. 3. As for the analysts of this world - it is of little importance to me or most investors that the trusts may have outperformed index X, Y or Z in the past. Some people might even argue this predicts that trusts should now underperform in order to return to the mean. IMO, the whole discussion is all so much rearview mirror BS. All I care about is where they're headed now, as you should be. 4. The number of producers willing to sell gas at a dollar would obviously be quite high if the alternative was no sales gas at all, so just remember price is relative. IMO you haven't seen just how self-sacrificing companies can get when too much production is competing for not enough consumption, especially when the buyers are sitting on historically high storage volumes and would like to recover some of the dough they got pinched for last winter. Business is business. 5. I hope you have a more concrete vision of long term gas supply dynamics than praying for cool weekends in October. I also hope you're not one of the people clinging to the faint hope of some kind of magical turnaround to yesteryear in industry fundamentals, because IMO you're going to be sorely disppointed for a considerable length of time. 6. One thing we do agree on - I'll be letting the market be the judge of whether I'm too much of a pessimist right now. I would equally and respectfully suggest you take off the blinders for a few hours and ask yourself whether you're being an emotionally driven NG optimist. No matter what happens, good trading to us both.

To: russet who wrote (1597)	10/3/2001 5:58:52 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

----- Some comments concerning Stan's response to this post of yours 1. At any given point in time, X number of wells need or could use some rework. But I don't believe you will gain much insight into overall gas supply conditions speculating whether the value of X is higher or lower than it was in the past. There isn't enough data to draw any conclusions. ------ Typical response to any new info that does not jive with his views ---- I DON'T BELEIVE.-------------------- 2. There never was a "gas production spike" but there was a gas price spike, one that was largely caused by administrative farkups by Californian gas procurers caught asleep at the switch last winter. In truth, the fact that production didn't appreciably increase quickly in the US was the cause of much consternation a few months ago, because most people expected that it would. -------- For this I looked straight to the Q2 report from enerplus and this is what I found under the headings MARKETING -- NATURAL GAS """""""" INCREASED NATURAL GAS DRILLING SPURRED ON BY THE HIGH PRICES """"""""""""""". So clearly there was a gas production spike. For one trust for all trusts. A case again of just not accepting what the real numbers show.---------------------------------------- 3. As for the analysts of this world - it is of little importance to me or most investors that the trusts may have outperformed index X, Y or Z in the past. Some people might even argue this predicts that trusts should now underperform in order to return to the mean. IMO, the whole discussion is all so much rearview mirror BS. All I care about is where they're headed now, as you should be. ----- These people just can't get it through their heads that past info is the best and only source by which to judge how something is to perform. How it has done. Gives a pretty good indication of how it will do. Especially if that track record is long enough. Spanning both industry good times and bad times as well as market good times and bad. That whole discussion about pricing showed all that prices for ngas hovered between the $1 and $2 range for the most part since 1988. A few of the longer running trusts survived and unit holders received good income all during that time period. To come out here and rant about how the trusts were selling at huge losses now when prices are only in the same general historical trading pattern they have been in was and is the only BS.------------ 4. The number of producers willing to sell gas at a dollar would obviously be quite high if the alternative was no sales gas at all, so just remember price is relative. IMO you haven't seen just how self-sacrificing companies can get when too much production is competing for not enough consumption, especially when the buyers are sitting on historically high storage volumes and would like to recover some of the dough they got pinched for last winter. Business is business. ------------ A simple call to any or all trusts will clear this up quite nicely. Ask them if they would sell ngas at a huge loss just to make a sale. Knowing the pricing cycle like these trusts do. It is just sheer nonsense that they would even consider such a thing.--------------------------