Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.

Baytex Energy Corp T.BTE

Alternate Symbol(s):  BTE

Baytex Energy Corp. is a Canada-based energy company. The Company is engaged in the acquisition, development and production of crude oil and natural gas in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin and in the Eagle Ford in the United States. Its crude oil and natural gas operations are organized into three main operating areas: Light Oil USA (Eagle Ford), Light Oil Canada (Pembina Duvernay / Viking) and Heavy Oil Canada (Peace River / Peavine / Lloydminster). Its Eagle Ford assets are located in the core of the liquids-rich Eagle Ford shale in South Texas. The Eagle Ford shale covers approximately 269,000 gross acres of crude oil operations. Its Viking assets are located in the Dodsland area in southwest Saskatchewan and in the Esther area of southeastern Alberta. It also holds 100% working interest land position in the East Duvernay resource play in central Alberta.


TSX:BTE - Post by User

Comment by HeavyBananaon Aug 27, 2024 2:32pm
109 Views
Post# 36198105

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Official statements on fcf

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Official statements on fcf
riski wrote:

I'm going back to the Ranger announcement when $1B was forecasted at $75 WTI. 

Then $700M at $75 WTI. 

Now $700M at $78.50 WTI.

I think they have the problem surrounded and they know what they have now. So it's a good time to take advantage of the reduced confidence in the name becuase of the above trend. 

HeavyBanana wrote:
riski wrote: Not a word out of place. The question at this point is do you think they have plugged the capex leak, or do you think there is more disappointment to come? It's important because the share price is way below peer valuations due to investors concern about these very things which creates the tremendous opportunity that is before us. We are not breaking new ground here. Every institution has a question mark on the BTE's projections that have been tweaked since the Ranger acquistion.

I personally think they would have disclosed a significant problem 6-12 months ago. They are tweaking because of a few minor, nonreportable surprises (that always happen with acquisitions), but the verbiage is very confident with regards to share buybacks and debt reduction in 2024. I anticipate that they will hit those targets and the market will take notice and find more confidence in the name causing the share price to re-rate to something closer to peer valuation.

To not hit those targets after repeating them for an entire year would be muderer's row for the confidence in this name and, frankly, unprecedented in any name I have ever invested. I can't see Greager and management walking that plank. They would have disclosed a material change in projected FCF and capex long ago to save their own jobs.

1234bmth wrote: 2 things here are worrying. 1- they change the cap ex strategy many times in a year which results to confusing investors decisions and confidence towards management. 2- At each quarter report they increase the WTI price to be realized in order to meet the same FCF that they had promised a year ago with lower WTI price, in fact since Ranger Oil acquisition on each report they have delivered less than promised, and that is the main reason the SP is performing poorly compared to other oil stocks.


Riski, can you elaborate on what you mean by "capex leak". If there were problems, wouldn't the actual capex balloon up massively from the full year plan rather than simply a change in quarterly allocations?

Initially they did indicate higher capex in Q1 and Q3 as you point out. What would be the rationale for that original plan and why do you think (if you do) the changes to the allocation are worse than that plan outside of optics?

I genuinely don't get why some investors are as concerned as they seem to be. I don't like the current share price as much as the next investor just to be clear but I'm also not as concerned as many have expressed.





 

Ok, thx Riski. I have better context now on what you are referring to. It was the change in free cash flow relative to the "original" original plan rather than the E&D allocation changes par se.

Cheers



<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>