A Closer Look At Buckeye Partners' Distributable Cash Flow As Of 2Q 2012 [View article]
You are probably referring to the $300 million issue of 6.050% Notes due January 15, 2018. While I don't think there is cause to worry, there is always a risk. A severe crisis, similar in scale to what we saw in 2008, could make it hard for BPL and other MLPs to refinance debt. Having said that, energy MLPs weathered the 2008 crisis quite well.
A Closer Look At El Paso Pipeline Partners' Distributable Cash Flow As Of 2Q 2012 [View article]
EPB continues to operate as before, except the general partner is now KMI. There could, in the future, be some rollup transaction which will combine all the Kinder Morgan partnerships, including KMI, into one partnership that will not be obligated to pay incentive distributions to the general partner. Whether, when and under what terms this will occur is not known.
A Closer Look At Kinder Morgan Energy Partners' Distributable Cash Flow As Of 2Q 12 [View article]
First question: I don't see a quick and dirty way. Second question: not a concern because it is quite appropriate to fund expansion capital expendiutres (as opposed to maintenance capex) with a mixture of debt, equity and internally generated cash. Also, net cash from operations may contain non-sustainable items such as working capital liquidation or cash flows related to risk management.
Preliminary Look At Q2 2012 Distributable Cash Flow Generated By El Paso Pipeline Partners [View article]
I have been holding EPB for years, and if performance warrants will continue to hold. I held BPL for an even longer period but voiced my concerns as performance deteriorated (see the BPL articles on my website http://bit.ly/L7tNRz) and gradually sold all my units.
Update Regarding Energy Transfer Partners' Sunoco Acquisition [View article]
I listened to the conference call discussing the ETP-SUN transaction. The range mentioned was $200-300m in terms of what management expected to receive. But as I noted in a prior article, the acquisition was not made conditional on completing a deal with Carlyle, so the disclosure on p16 is accurate. Still, I cannot discount your interpretation - it may be correct. At the end of the day, we are both long but wary.
Update Regarding Energy Transfer Partners' Sunoco Acquisition [View article]
$2.65b (50% of the $5.3b purchase price) will be in the form of ETP LP units to be issued. In order to produce a 7.50% per annum distribution yield for LPs, ETP must generate 14.4% (=$382m) of which 48% ($183m) will be paid to service ETE’s IDRs and 52% ($199m) will be paid to ETP’s LPs. As you can see, and as I previously noted, ETP has a high cost of capital. For its worth, the transactions between ETE and ETP will be, of course, accompanied by fairness opinions. I do not have sufficient information to form an opinion, so I don’t know whether ETP is being disadvantaged. But I think the “normal” GP-LP conflicts of interests are magnified when such large acquisitions take place, and more so when the acquiring entity at times is ETE (e.g., SUG) and at times is ETP (e.g., SUN). On top of that, the exceedingly complex structure adds to my discomfort as a unit holder.
Update Regarding Energy Transfer Partners' Sunoco Acquisition [View article]
SUN will contribute its interests in SXL in which it holds a 32.4% limited partnership interest, the 2% general partnership interest and 100% of its IDRs, to ETP. Then ETP will contribute these interests to a newly formed entity called ETP Holdco (see my response to Lufbery for additional details). So SXL ownership will be as follows: ETP Holdco will own the 2% general partnership interest and IDRs, as well as 32.4% of the LP units outstanding. The balance of the SXL LP units outstanding will continue to be held by the public. You are correct that on paper this should not change the performance of SXL. However, the structure following all these ETP and ETE transactions is exceedingly complex. Kelcy Warren has mentioned the need to “simplify the story”. The question is how fairly the various constituents will be treated if and when a simplification transaction is announced.
Update Regarding Energy Transfer Partners' Sunoco Acquisition [View article]
As I understand it based on ETP's June 18 and June 25 announcements, a new entity called ETP Holdco will be formed. It will be owned 60% by ETE and 40% by ETP, and be controlled by ETP (I assume for consolidation purposes). Both SUG and SUN will be dropped into ETP Holdco. Prior to the contribution of SUN to ETP Holdco, SUN will contribute its interests in SXL in which it holds a 32.4% limited partnership interest, the 2% general partnership interest and 100% of its IDRs, to ETP. ETP's 8-K of 6/25/12 explains what SUN shareholders will receive in return: "Under the terms of the merger agreement, Sunoco shareholders may elect to receive, for each Sunoco common share, either $50.00 in cash, 1.0490 ETP common units or a combination of $25.00 in cash and 0.5245 of an ETP common unit". So I don't yet see where my analysis is wrong (other than having reviewed the numbers again it comes to roughly 56 million ETP units).
A Closer Look At Enterprise Products Partners' Distributable Cash Flow As Of Q2 2012 [View article]
A Closer Look At Buckeye Partners' Distributable Cash Flow As Of 2Q 2012 [View article]
A Closer Look At Targa Resources Partners' Distributable Cash Flow As Of 2Q 2012 [View article]
A Closer Look At Williams Partners' Distributable Cash Flow As Of 2Q 2012 [View article]
A Closer Look At Suburban Propane Partners' Distributable Cash Flow As Of 3Q FY2012 [View article]
A Closer Look At Williams Partners' Distributable Cash Flow As Of 2Q 2012 [View article]
A Closer Look At El Paso Pipeline Partners' Distributable Cash Flow As Of 2Q 2012 [View article]
A Closer Look At Kinder Morgan Energy Partners' Distributable Cash Flow As Of 2Q 12 [View article]
Second question: not a concern because it is quite appropriate to fund expansion capital expendiutres (as opposed to maintenance capex) with a mixture of debt, equity and internally generated cash. Also, net cash from operations may contain non-sustainable items such as working capital liquidation or cash flows related to risk management.
Preliminary Look At Q2 2012 Distributable Cash Flow Generated By El Paso Pipeline Partners [View article]
Update Regarding Energy Transfer Partners' Sunoco Acquisition [View article]
Update Regarding Energy Transfer Partners' Sunoco Acquisition [View article]
For its worth, the transactions between ETE and ETP will be, of course, accompanied by fairness opinions. I do not have sufficient information to form an opinion, so I don’t know whether ETP is being disadvantaged. But I think the “normal” GP-LP conflicts of interests are magnified when such large acquisitions take place, and more so when the acquiring entity at times is ETE (e.g., SUG) and at times is ETP (e.g., SUN). On top of that, the exceedingly complex structure adds to my discomfort as a unit holder.
Update Regarding Energy Transfer Partners' Sunoco Acquisition [View article]
Update Regarding Energy Transfer Partners' Sunoco Acquisition [View article]
Update Regarding Energy Transfer Partners' Sunoco Acquisition [View article]
Update Regarding Energy Transfer Partners' Sunoco Acquisition [View article]
"Under the terms of the merger agreement, Sunoco shareholders may elect to receive, for each Sunoco common share, either $50.00 in cash, 1.0490 ETP common units or a combination of $25.00 in cash and 0.5245 of an ETP common unit".
So I don't yet see where my analysis is wrong (other than having reviewed the numbers again it comes to roughly 56 million ETP units).