RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:The Tourmaline vs Peyto debate: apples and orangesFirst, let's stay on topic which you seem to have a problem with. PEY is more efficient than TOU as I have shown. That is fact. Debt is another matter; a different topic....not moving the goalposts. Are you with me.
Let's look at debt. A standard measure used in the industry is cash flow coverage of debt because that is what can pay the debt; other than issuing stock. I will use TD's projected cash flows and YE debt levels as I third party analysis is much more reliable. For YE2017 TOU will be 1.59 while PEY wil be 2.32. YE 2018 TOU 1.47 while PEY is 2.34. No Question TOU is better in this measurement.
Payout ratios are another good measurement. Again using TD analysis for YE 2017 TOU will be 119% while PEY is 134%. YE2018 TOU is 119% while PEY is 128%. PEY improves while TOU regresses. What this is saying is TOU needs to spend great amounts of capital to just about stand still. Sounds somewhat like the shale companies in the U.S. PEY gets better even paying the dividend. Wihtout the dividend PEY would be YE2017 96% and YE2018 93%. Now I realize these are not facts but they are better than company generated data and were released October 24, 2017 knowing the decline in NATGAS prices.
What is known is every shareholder of PEY receives $1.32/share every year while TOU shareholders hope for SP gain. What is also known is TOU is producing about 2.5 times more than PEY of their FINITE resource to achieve these results. Again, it looks an awful lot like a U.S. shale company.