Recs

7

Forest Oil's Unique Advantage in the Natural Gas Market

Watch stocks you care about

The single, easiest way to keep track of all the stocks that matter...

Your own personalized stock watchlist!

It's a 100% FREE Motley Fool service...

Click Here Now

Denver-based Forest Oil (NYSE: FST  ) has not looked strong of late. But that does not necessarily mean that the company can be written off. In fact, with the looming natural gas boom on the horizon, the company's management seems to be on track to exploit the situation.

Ambitious plans
Forest Oil has recently floated an initial public offering for its wholly owned subsidiary, Lone Pine Resources (NYSE: LPR  ) -- a company that is involved in the exploration and production of natural gas and liquids in Canada. Clearly, Forest has ambitious expansion plans that Fools should notice.

Recent fundamentals of Forest might not look too impressive with falling production and dipping revenues. Production in 2010 fell nearly 10% from a year ago and 13% from 2008 volumes. Given the lousy market for natural gas, that's not shocking. For the record, 75% of last year's production and 78% of total proved reserves happen to be natural gas.

Why Forest?
However, as Foolish colleague Dan Dzombak rightly points out, it pays to invest in commodities and the companies that acquire them when they are currently trading higher than their cost of production. And this is what caught my attention regarding this company.

While current natural gas prices are at $4.27/mcf, Forest's average cost of production comes to only $1.14/mcfe. This is pretty impressive even when compared to other promising natural gas stocks. Ultra Petroleum's (NYSE: UPL  ) production costs stand at $2.61/mcfe, while Southwestern Energy's (NYSE: SWN  ) production costs are $3.85/mcfe.

Fools should also look at Forest's ability to generate future cash flows. Total present value of estimated future cash inflows from proved reserves, less future development and production costs, discounted at 10% per annum, stands at $2.7 billion as of Dec. 31, 2010. This is a 32% jump from the previous year's value, mainly because of extensions, discoveries, and revisions of previous estimates, which account for an added $593 million.

How is the stock valued?
I like to see how expensive the company is when compared to its future cash flows by looking at its total enterprise value to discounted future cash flows. This is how Forest stacks up compared to its peers:

Company

TEV/EBITDA

Price/Book

TEV/DFCF

Forest Oil 8.1 3.1 1.69
Ultra Petroleum 8.8 6.6 2.56
Southwestern Energy 9.9 5.0 5.45

ATP Oil & Gas

(Nasdaq: ATPG  )

12.6 8.2 1.22
Range Resources (NYSE: RRC  ) 18.9 4.1 3.20

Source: Capital IQ, a Standard & Poor's company.

Forest is the cheapest stock (relatively speaking) when compared to its peers. In terms of trailing multiples, the overall market seems to have undervalued it.

Future potential to generate cash compared to the enterprise value shows why Forest could be a good buying opportunity for investors. I believe the biggest reason why is that this company has an ability to produce natural gas at a far lesser cost than its peers. When market conditions improve, expect this stock to soar.

Foolish bottom line
With a promising natural gas market and a sound business model in place, Forest Oil is looking pretty cheap. The Street does not seem to have factored in the advantages yet, but it will only be a matter of time.

The Steve Jobs Betrayal
You may already know that in the final year of his life, Jobs revealed a stunning betrayal — and told his biographer, "I will spend my last dying breath... and every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong." What was it that made Jobs so irate — and why could it make a few in-the-know investors some major profits over the coming months and years?

Enter your email address below to find out what made Jobs so enraged!

Fool contributor Isac Simon does not own shares of any of the companies mentioned in this article. The Motley Fool owns shares of Range Resources and Ultra Petroleum. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended buying shares of Range Resources. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended writing puts in Southwestern Energy. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On June 29, 2011, at 2:10 PM, TMFDoodleBugger wrote:

    I'm not sure I believe the significantly lower cost of production for Forest. I think the $1.14/mcfe cost is the most likely the F&D cost or the lifting costs but probably not all inclusive and probably excludes or DD&A. The costs used for SWN and UPL include those expenses. Additionally, different companies calculate these measures differently so you have to dig through all the details. Some companies also capitalize interest and part of the G&A while others don't. Additionally, some companies took massive write downs in 2009 so their DD&A looks a lot better now. It's never that simple.

    TMFDoodlebugger

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2011, at 2:04 AM, isacsimon wrote:

    Hi TMFDoodlebugger,

    Thanks for bringing up the point.

    You are right about some companies not adding DD&A costs while calculating average production costs. It appears that FST has done just that.

    I have recalculated the costs for FST (including DD&A this time) and the value comes to $2.66/mcfe, which I believe is still very competitive, especially when compared to the trading price and peers.

    Still, compared to to its discounted future cash flows, FST looks pretty inexpensive when compared to UPL and SWN which makes it look undervalued.

    -Isac

  • Report this Comment On June 30, 2011, at 8:56 AM, lovesstocks2 wrote:

    You also need to look at how they run their properties over time, and forest looks like it runs its properties into the ground. Proper management control is not in place to maximize extraction of the resource. Employee turnover would be the key here. In fact, they have been incredibly lucky at times to get their money back and their employee turnover looks to be on the high side. These people have never been a top company on anyone's list.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1513414, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/26/2012 1:48:35 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 16 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,454.83 -74.92 -0.60%
S&P 500 1,317.82 -2.86 -0.22%
NASD 2,837.53 -1.85 -0.07%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

5/25/2012 4:02 PM
FST $8.43 Up +0.22 +2.68%
Forest Oil Corp CAPS Rating: ****
SWN $28.77 Down -0.07 -0.24%
Southwestern Energ… CAPS Rating: ****
UPL $18.92 Down -0.06 -0.32%
Ultra Petroleum CAPS Rating: *****
RRC $61.01 Down -1.16 -1.87%
Range Resources Co… CAPS Rating: ***
ATPG $5.15 Down +0.00 +0.00%
ATP Oil & Gas Corp CAPS Rating: ***
LPR $3.32 Up +0.02 +0.61%
LONE PINE RESOURCE… CAPS Rating: ****

Advertisement