RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Dividend Debate Dumbed DownYasch22 wrote: Houba, I don't think the .60 natgas price is misleading in the context of the next four quarters. Isn't it just a way of saying that Peyto's hedges are high enough that the price for the unhedged 30% can drop to .60 without forcing Peyto to pay the dividend out of borrowed money. Then again, as Mikey argues, anything that fails to actually knock down debt -- or anything that takes a big chunk out of EBITDA -- could still knock valuations from Bay Street into the gutter.
Mikey, a sidenote: A typo when you multiplied 110 boe/d to 759K mcfe/d? If it's 659, the divvy would cost even more, at ~.95/mcfe instead of .83, which adds even more weight to your point.
Good conversation. I'm reminded of one of my mother-in-law's favourite lines:
"Count that day lost in which you learn nothing."
Yasch, I multiplied that by 1.15 to include the value of the heating content that Peyto receives, but that was a mistake on my part, as that shouldn''t have any bearing on volume, just pricing. (1 boe = 6 mcfe)