d I had a bigger picture in mind.
Re. BNP I prefaced my post with "back of the napkin" and intentionally used a different valuation method as a check and balance on the income method which I never completely trusted and really, what got us here with PLT and AVF (I lost money too but thankfully, it was quick) in the first place. Had investors done that homework, they would have dumped PLT a while back and got in to BNP (or even better Peyto which is a purer natural gas play (which long term has the most upside), has less debt relatively speaking and pays a more sustainable dividend).
There's been a dividend bubble in this country that has caused many investors to lose money because the dividends were not sustainable and eventually the underlying sp plummeted. Even if they were purported to be sustainable, it was at the expense of the stock price due to DRIP dilution and increasing debt (how many times have we heard "our credit line is only 60% utilized" from a dividend paying stock?), culminated by the usual debt wall being hit.
Moreover, until we are told (w/appropriate verifiable supporting backup) how much capex is needed to sustain existing production levels (which figure should be deducted from cash flow) and how much DRIP stock was issued in lieu, we're not going to know how much cash, if any, these companies are really generating. Sadly, what I suspect is not much or not at all will be the answer for too many of these.
Thus, if you buy in to what I just posted (if you don't, my friend has some Yellow Media to sell you), that leaves us with valuing companies on the long term upside potential (from acquisition or commodity price increase) based on production levels, drilling inventory and land. Which I do think in Canada is substantial for natural gas producers given the low North American prices and vis a vis crude oil re. energy content.
Going back to PLT, up until Q1 2012, dividends were ~$32M while the bank line and DRIP were ~$17M I believe implying that only half the dividend was sustainable though production had grown a bit. In Q2, the bank loan went up another $6M (ex acquisition) and together with DRIP proceeds of ~$6.3M, more or less equals the dividend paid out ie based on cash generated alone, and excluding DRIP, the entire dividend was unsustainable (perhaps there were costs related to the acquisition, there is always something, isn't there?). Of note production was 6,790 which adjusted for the acquisition, was 13% less than Q2 2011. And then we have Q3 however that's going to turn out, with Q4 starting behind the 8 ball.
Bottom line: PLT is an income stock with unstable income and an unsustainable dividend so we are left with valuing it on the basis of its current production and its prospects.
The sad part is nobody wants to talk about it (the dividend bubble) because the industry would be exposing themselves - after all they just friggin issued $60M of stock to the public less than 6 months ago but meanwhile, big investors are bailing and the small investor is left holding the bag.