RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Peyto cashflow & debtcome on y22. i am smarter than that. you brought up TOU debt for one reason and one reason only. because at $1.6b it "seemed" excessive and higher than Peyto's. I did not just fall of the turnip truck. the $1.6b was not excessive. The ARC debt is NOT excessive. the peyto debt IS.
I understand that you need to take subtle jabs at TOU and POU because I happen to like the companies. I get that. But let's get REAL.
the PEYTO balance sheet is POOR. PEYTO borrowed heavily to pay a dividend. the TOU balance sheet is PRISTINE. And TOU has a credible PUBLISHED plan to lower debt to zero in about 4 or 5 years. PUBLISHED for all to see.
TOU initiated a Dividend because they have been building a brand new business of selling midstream processing services to other producers. It is a very creative business plan that is working quite well. well enough to send the cash from that business out to shareholders.
We have to be REAL around here y22. I am pretty good at sniffing out stuff that isn't.
Yasch22 wrote: Thanks for correcting my "paux pas", ceremony. Perhaps you should take a wee bit more time to write, to understand what your counterpart has said, to think through what you're going to say, to avoid name-calling.
There is NOTHING in my comment that suggests Tourmaline's debt is excessive. You've somehow (embarrassingly) read into a single simple sentence a massive misreading of balance sheets. Talk about SENSITIVITY !
The question (open-ended) remains: Why would any company start up a dividend program when they still have debts to pay off? What's the value of a dividend in the first place, for POU, TOU, ARX, PEY, etc.? When you start to answer that question, you realize that it's not a simple either/or proposition, as in, "EITHER the debt has to be paid first OR the dividend has to be scrapped."
The implications for Peyto are obvious, and address the all-important context. Peyto's debt costs 6% of annual revenue to maintain, and Peyto too has a plan to reduce it.