RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Where is myhoneypot The majority of the O&G companies I am invested in have hedges just as bad as ARC. But none of those companies have committed to return up to 80% of free cash flow and I think it is very unlikely they are lying - people get sued and even go to prison for lying about such things.
Also, they are hedging 40% of their production, not spending 40% of their CF on hedges. There is a huge difference between the two.
MyHoneyPot wrote: No its like this 50-80 percent of free cash flow returned to shareholder, it is really a LIE.
40% of all CF is wasted on Hedges, and that number is likely higher as a result of royality costs associated with those hedege. This is a major issue. (40-45%)
Shareholder would rather have the dividends then have management buy back shares on their behalf, ARX just pushed forward and these share buybacks are meaningless when you have 725 million shares outstanding. However how low would the shareprice be if they didn't buy back 20 million shares.
Attachie can't be sanctioned because of treaty 8 issues, and they really don't know what it is going to look like going forward. However they put this PET project ahead of giving shareholders meaningful returns, now you can add sunrise to the list, the ever increasing capex requirement, now 700 for attachie, now 150 for sunrise just pushes shareholders futher down the road in regards to getting a meaningful return.
ARC did not restore the dividend to a meaningful level, or even its previous level, this management team slashed it and put their pet projects ahead of the shareholders.
Spending money on Attachie ahead of proper sanctioning of the project is irresponsible and high risk, and will add to the costs of the project. They don't know how working with these treaty 8 groups will be like going forward. Thowing the shareholders under the bus, another example of bad risk management.
If ARC balance sheet is so fantastic then why would they hedge so much of the upside away.
Management is dismal
IMHO