/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>54932825
First of all, Tourmaline's P/E is 5. Secondly you shouldn't look at P/E with these companies. Capital intensive business and cyclical too, so P/E offers a bad metric. You need to remember that P/E is always one year backward looking so when you're in the current atmosphere where natty has dropped off a cliff and been beaten to the ground, these companies that produce natty in North America will get kicked in the nuts which will show in future earnings reports and subsequently P/E ratios.

Now I haven't had time to look at all of these companies yet because it takes more than P/E to judge an o/g company. I need to know their netbacks; gross sales prices per unit; minimum all-in operating costs per unit (including OPEX, royalties, transportation, G&A); hedges; CAPEX; production numbers; liquids weighting; balance sheet; and their plans going forward.

For all I know, SM Energy could lose be losing money right now because I have not looked into the company. So I cannot say whether SM Energy is a better or worse buy compared to Tourmaline. Tourmaline is a much bigger company and bigger companies tend to earn a bit of a price premium though. Tourmaline attracted me because of its strong balance sheet and access to credit; good market access (able to sell some to LNG benchmark prices for example, premium price); good margins and cashflows; generous dividends; and satisfactory hedges in place. Furthermore Tourmaline is increasing production by about 40% going into 2028E which I like because I am bullish on North American natgas thanks to improved market access.
>>54933208
kek it happens