Oil and Coal Stock Valuation: What You're Missing

Like it or not, climate change and society's attempts to constrain it have a growing impact on companies' bottom lines. Nowhere is that more the case than for oil and coal companies. As carbon emissions become Public Enemy No. 1, the public discourse increasingly reflects the notion that companies with heavy fossil-fuel exposure may find themselves sitting on stranded assets.

The idea is that if global governments start passing legislation aimed at reining in carbon emissions, oil and coal assets may become unburnable, thus rendering them worthless. This prospect has some analysts and observers talking in terms of a "carbon bubble."

Share-price relevance
While there's a ton of sense behind the unburnable-carbon thesis, and indeed many analysts accept its general premise, it hasn't really piqued the interest of mainstream investors so far. That's because the likely effects on companies -- while potentially substantial -- are far enough in the future that they don't really change valuations much at standard discount rates.

That may be about to change.

Peak coal
Coal, for instance, has been suffering mightily without any help from a global climate deal. Demand has been dropping everywhere but China, and that country, too, has just made some aggressive moves to constrain coal-fired power-plant development in the wake of its "Airpocalypse" earlier this year. As China moves to contain its public-health catastrophe, Deutsche Bank estimates that Chinese coal consumption will have to decline in this decade if the country is to meet its own targets.

Citigroup this month published a research note titled "The Unimaginable: Peak Coal in China," in which it argues that a confluence of factors could lead to a flattening or peaking of coal consumption before 2020. If you've watched the free-fall of pure-play coal stock prices over the past few years, it's hard not to suspect that Citigroup might have a point.

Tipping point for oil demand
Citigroup didn't rest its case with coal, either. In March, it published a report called "Global Oil Demand Growth -- the End is Nigh," in which analysts argue that natural gas substitution and increased fuel economy are leading to a tipping point for global oil demand. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, meanwhile, have published various research pieces focusing on oil companies' rising costs and declining return on equity, and questioning their capital expenditure programs.

All of this adds up to a growing chorus of mainstream investors and analysts warning of real risk to coal and oil in the much nearer term than the market seems to expect.

It's all about the cost curve
So how do you take this down to individual stocks to see where their risks lie? In an excellent article for Responsible Investor, Craig Mackenzie -- head of sustainability at Scottish Widows Investment Partnership -- observes that risk depends entirely on where a company falls on the industry cost curve.

This is basic economics. When demand falls, the marginal producers at the expensive end of the cost curve become unprofitable and mothball or close capacity, while the producers at the cheap end remain profitable. ... [M]arginal oil projects require US$90/bbl to make a return. ... The cost curve is what, in practice, will drive the "unburnability" of carbon and potential asset stranding. As demand falls, expensive carbon will become unburnable first, cheap carbon later.

If Mackenzie's logic holds, you should be awfully worried about expensive projects like Canadian oil sands and Arctic drilling.

Taking this logic further, Mackenzie seeks greater emphasis on cost control and capital discipline, particularly around capital expenditure levels. He proposes that investors should scrutinize such measures as return on capital employed, or RoCE, and whether directors' compensation and incentives are linked to such measures of capital discipline so as to protect the quality of long-term growth.

The following table provides a snapshot of five of the world's top holders of carbon reserves. The rank indicates how the company compares with other top holders in coal and in oil and gas, respectively, as measured in Gigatons of carbon dioxide, or GtCO2. The capex ratio is the company's capital expenditure divided by total sales. I used my own calculations for RoCE: EBIT divided by total assets minus current liabilities. While some companies provide RoCE in their investor presentations, they don't necessarily calculate it the same way, and some don't provide it at all. Thus, I used my own calculations for the sake of consistency.

Company

Type/Rank

GtCO2

CapEx Ratio

RoE

RoCE

% 5-Year Share-Price Change 

BHP Billiton (NYSE: BHP  )

Coal/3

16.07

28.85%

15.92%

22.12%

21.5%

Peabody Energy (NYSE: BTU  )

Coal/8

10.23

1.59%

(14.92%)

1.39%

(65.7%)

ExxonMobil

Oil/2

41.03

7.11%

21.77%

29.32%

28.1%

BP (NYSE: BP  )

Oil/3

34.6

6.04%

21.79%

8.95%

(2.3%)

Chevron

Oil/5

21.22

10.85%

17.61%

23.31%

70.4%

Sources: The Carbon Tracker Institute, The Motley Fool, Yahoo! Finance.

The selection of companies in this table is purely based on which of the top carbon holders in oil and coal were publicly traded on U.S. exchanges. We'd have to be careful comparing Peabody -- a small coal pure play -- to much larger, diversified BHP, for example. Still, it's interesting to note the differences in their ratios, especially considering how much better BHP's share price has held up in recent years. Also note BP's weaker RoCE and share price performance as compared with its peers.

Foolish bottom line
Now, we must never imagine that a single factor explains share price movements. Still, everything about the carbon bubble thesis and the idea that we should look at capital discipline and cost curve position makes sense to me. While sustainability and environmental issues don't always correspond neatly to near-term share price movements, this is one area where they might be intimately linked already.

Great advice on a future-proof resource
With all this uncertainty brewing around the long-term value of these natural resources, you owe it to yourself to discover the most precious resource in the history of the world. It's not gold. Or even oil. But it's more valuable than both of them. Combined. And here's the crazy part: One emerging company already has the market cornered and stands to make in-the-know investors boatloads of cash. We reveal all in our special 100% free report "The 21st Century's Most Precious Natural Resource." Just click here for instant access!


Read/Post Comments (3) | Recommend This Article (2)

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 September 21, 2013, at 7:57 AM, serioso777 wrote:

    What youre missing here is ALL the Valuations are WRONG, throwing a Trillion Dollars a year in the Market isn't Exactly what I would call Earnings ! If that's the case, send me some ...

  • Report this Comment On September 22, 2013, at 6:09 PM, NOTvuffett wrote:

    Hey Sara, I believe you are trying to write an article for investors. However, in the early 80's, I did a rather comprehensive energy audit. Even with projected rates of growth and KNOWN coal reserves it was enough to last 500+ yr. Who thinks coal will not be supplanted by a new technology before that time?

    Here is what our Dear Leader has to say about coal:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-wCC0Szx4g

    Carbon sequestration in most areas of the country isn't even possible because of geological factors, it is a pipe dream. Oh, and guess what? you have to produce more energy in order to capture that bad stuff, lol.

    Despite what they say, the people on the left and the eco-weenies don't care about jobs.

    Ok, this is an investing website, not a political one. With this administration's policies- wouldn't you be hesitant in investing in coal?

  • Report this Comment On September 22, 2013, at 11:57 PM, RenegadeIAm wrote:

    Why is Sara referring to "Climate Change" (nee Global Warming) as a existing fact?

    It's NOT.

    No Global Warming in 16 years. IPCC backing off from doomsday predictions. All AGW models have been WILDLY wrong.

    While it might make sense in the short term to judge your investment strategy based on political fashion trends (e.g. AGW), you might want to be careful about doing it in the long run.

    Politicized science (AGW) can influence the market in the short run, but in the long run, trust REAL science.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2648124, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/21/2014 12:11:46 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...

Apple's next smart device (warning, it may shock you

Apple recently recruited a secret-development "dream team" to guarantee its newest smart device was kept hidden from the public for as long as possible. But the secret is out. In fact, ABI Research predicts 485 million of this type of device will be sold per year. But one small company makes Apple's gadget possible. And its stock price has nearly unlimited room to run for early-in-the-know investors. To be one of them, and see Apple's newest smart gizmo, just click here!


Advertisement