Earlier this month, two oil & gas operators that I follow fairly closely held their annual analyst meetings. After flipping through their massive PowerPoint slide decks, some of the companies' estimates left me scratching my head.
Early in Forest Oil's
The phrase "'profitable' organic growth" appears in Forest's slides seven times. I think the firm felt the need to underscore its focus on profitable growth, following a year in which many companies drilled just to hold onto leases. The consequences of those decisions are still with us, as natural gas futures touch six-month lows. The chart of the US Natural Gas
Ground zero for this questionable drilling activity appears to be the Haynesville. Petrohawk Energy
Getting back to Forest Oil, the company pegs its core Haynesville/Bossier rate of return at 15%, given the price assumptions outlined earlier. Returns drop to 5% at $4 gas/$50 oil prices and hit 28% at $6 gas/$70 oil prices. It looks like the average Haynesville well is uneconomic at today's gas price of around $4 per million BTU.
You wouldn't get that impression from Encana's
Not only is this slide inconsistent with Forest Oil's, it's also inconsistent with EnCana's own supplemental slides. Way in the back of the presentation, we see that Haynesville wells generated 19% after-tax returns in 2009. The firm projects 26% returns from the 2010 program.
It seems that in talking about 50%-plus returns in the Haynesville, Encana is factoring in the $6 to $7 gas prices it expects to see in future years. While that's not an unreasonable long-term assumption, Encana really should make it explicit, to avoid misleading investors. That's especially important, given that Encana's accelerated "land retention program" places it firmly in the Haynesville drill-to-hold camp. Consider this a bit of constructive criticism for an otherwise very shareholder-friendly shop