Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

IPAA 2008 Private Capital Conference IPAA 2008 Private Capital Conference “How Private Equity Views the E&P MLP Model” January 16, 2008 QUANTUM ENERGY.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "IPAA 2008 Private Capital Conference IPAA 2008 Private Capital Conference “How Private Equity Views the E&P MLP Model” January 16, 2008 QUANTUM ENERGY."— Presentation transcript:

1 IPAA 2008 Private Capital Conference IPAA 2008 Private Capital Conference “How Private Equity Views the E&P MLP Model” January 16, 2008 QUANTUM ENERGY PARTNERS SM

2 Page 2 QUANTUM ENERGY PARTNERS Firm Overview ►Family of energy-focused private equity and direct property acquisition funds with primary emphasis in oil and gas sector and secondary emphasis in midstream, oil field services, coal, power, and alternative energy sectors. ►Currently manage $3.2 billion; latest fund $1.32 billion in commitments. ►Quantum Energy Partners:  Private equity fund.  Investment size: $25 - $150 million.  Multidisciplinary investment team with complimentary expertise in finance, engineering, geology, geophysics, operations, tax, and law. ►Quantum Resources:  Direct property acquisition fund.  Investment size: > $200 million.  Partnership w/ Aspect Energy.

3 Page 3 QUANTUM ENERGY PARTNERS Market Update On E&P MLPs ►Currently there are nine E&P MLPs with a collective market cap of > $8.8 billion. Four E&P MLPs currently in registration process and multiple others have discussed potential plans for an offering. ►E&P MLP trading metrics include a median yield today of 8.0% (vs. 5.1% six months ago). Despite recent weakness, majority of E&P MLPs outperformed broader MLP index in 2007. ►Valuation gap between E&P MLPs and C-corps has tightened.  Public market valuations – Recent E&P MLP offerings (Quest and Vanguard) have traded below their initial pricing, with current yields above 10.0%.  Asset deals – Significant competition in the A&D market, partly driven by MLPs, has lifted valuation metrics on upstream asset transactions. ►Two clear strategies have emerged:  Drop-Down Strategy – Parent entity contributes assets to its MLP over time providing visibility on future growth.  Acquisition Strategy – The MLP looks to replace and grow production through the A&D market. ►Significant “quick” equity capital available via PIPE transactions (> $8.5 billion raised for all MLPs in last 12 months). However, widening PIPE discounts have forced some MLPs back to conventional equity offerings.

4 Page 4 QUANTUM ENERGY PARTNERS Will E&P MLPs Become Mainstream? ►There is plenty of precedence. >30 U.S. E&P MLPs in early 80s; >40 Canadian royalty trusts with market cap peaking >$60 billion; >40 current midstream MLPs with market cap ~$100 billion. ►Pool of mature assets with limited ability to grow production (i.e. assets that are candidates for E&P MLP ownership) is significant. We estimate that ≈ $250 to $300 billion of assets in the U.S. fit the MLP profile. ►Significant supply of capital from Baby Boomers seeking both current income as well as growth and institutional investors entering the MLP space. ►Arbitrage still exists between MLP valuations on one hand and C-corps and asset deals on the other. Although this valuation gap has tightened recently.

5 Page 5 QUANTUM ENERGY PARTNERS Private Equity And E&P MLPs ►Private equity firms primarily employ two different strategies in the upstream oil and gas space:  Acquire, exploit and improve the cost structure of mature, often under- capitalized, assets; and  Aggregate acreage and pursue moderate risk exploitation/exploration opportunities. ►In both strategies, the overriding goals remain constant:  Economically grow production;  Lower costs;  Generate inventory; and  Identify value-maximizing exit strategies. ►The advent of E&P MLPs has several implications (good and bad) for energy private equity firms.  Good – fundamental valuation shift in existing assets.  Bad – significant competitor with a superior cost-of-capital.

6 Page 6 QUANTUM ENERGY PARTNERS “Management Team Risks” To The E&P MLP Model ►To be competitive, MLPs will be tempted to make aggressive assumptions about decline curves, production and capital costs and exploitation opportunities. Many will fail to execute their plans. ►Some MLPs don’t understand their cost-of-capital. Management teams often mistake a stock’s distribution yield for their cost-of-capital. It is not. There is a significant implied distribution growth rate and GP IDRs (if applicable) that must be included in determining an MLPs cost-of-capital. ►MLPs can create the false sense of distribution growth by purchasing higher-decline, lower-RLI properties. This happened in Canada. ►Commodity price and interest rate volatility can have a devastating affect when they go the wrong way for an MLP that isn’t sufficiently hedged.

7 Page 7 QUANTUM ENERGY PARTNERS “Market Risks” To The E&P MLP Model ►Acquisition prices are getting bid up. An increasing number of MLPs will escalate the competition for assets and erode the valuation arbitrage. ►Will the larger companies continue divesting their assets to MLPs that are arbitraging an immediate and significant gain or will they set up their own “drop-down” MLPs? ►Publicly traded partnerships are being targeted by Congress for taxation. A rewrite of the tax code and partnership law would be a mess, but the risk is higher now than at anytime in the past 20 years. ►Interest rates and the market’s expected spread to Treasuries could increase. A 100 basis point increase in average yields would lower unit prices on average 10-15%.

8 Page 8 QUANTUM ENERGY PARTNERS A Blueprint For Building A Successful E&P MLP ►To the extent possible, avoid the “Risks” described on the prior two slides. ►Get behind a great management team.  Acquisition-driven businesses depend on a management team’s ability to asses risk and allocate capital accordingly, not over-pay, control costs, identify additional by-passed opportunities, and execute according to plan. ►Purchase assets that truly fit the MLP model.  High PDP component, ideally > 80%;  Low decline rates, ideally < 10%;  High RLI, ideally > 15 years; and  Low maintenance capital requirements to keep production flat, ideally < 25%. ►Hedge aggressively. Remember, you are no longer an oil and gas company but rather a bond with a growth component. You are paid to never miss a distribution target and penalized severely when you do.

Download ppt "IPAA 2008 Private Capital Conference IPAA 2008 Private Capital Conference “How Private Equity Views the E&P MLP Model” January 16, 2008 QUANTUM ENERGY."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google