RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Pony cash costs 2017E and 2018Etrue, pony burned cash to this point to get the production up; but now they have good structure in place and then can coast at current production levels, and choose to crank it up as/when market conditions improve - that's actually a pretty good position;
plus remember they also have extra capacity that they picked up with the UGR acquisition, never mind ramping up Methanex from 10 to 50 over the next few years;
from here on, Pony is in a better cash-making position than it has ever been, it seems, so once commodity pricing improves, they can ramp up very efficiently;
this is where I'm at for the group:
AAV - most efficient, low debt, but not a massive asset base, so long-term they will be catching up; and of course, quite dry, although they're working on it
TOU - good liquids profile, size will be a challenge once conditions improve because it's harder to ramp up from 300 than from say 50; not very torkey, due to size - great for downside protection, not so good for a run; it may be five years before TOU goes tripple, while something like PONY can do it in a year, in a good market, overall, solid, if you want a large cap in your portfolio, just not that torky
PEY - they "get it" (ROE, ROCE) and as result they are bit debt-heavy; I think they're unduly punished for using debt as source of capital, in a prolonged downturn there will be some nervous nellies; so here's where your GAAP comes into play - look at their history and you'll see that the hated dividend is actually what it should be, a true distribution of GAAP profits, over the lifecycle
PONY - solid operator, fantastic long term assets, good market diversification, could be more liquids (but they're working on that); VERY torky to NG price and market sentiment - in three to five years this could be ten to fifteen bucks again, if the market doesn't collapse in the next eighteen months
ARX - what can you say; solid, just not torky enough for me;
all IMO, not advice of any kind