ams.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Marker:
Sierra Bancorp (BSRR)
$26.56 down -0.64 (-2.35%)
Volume: 28,734
Current Report Filing (8-k)
Date : 12/29/2017 @ 3:22PM
Source : Edgar (US Regulatory)
Stock : Blue Dolphin Energy Co. (QX) (BDCO)
Quote : $1.00 0.11 (12.36%) @ 2:01PM
[....]
On December 27, 2017, the Lazarus Parties and GEL entered into a third amendment to the Letter Agreement (the “Third Amendment”), which extended the Continuance Period through February 1, 2018, in order to facilitate ongoing discussions.
[....]
Source:
https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=76382718
*the bad news is we don't have a settlement agreement yet...the good news is they're still talking. It would have been wrong on a ton of levels but this situation with GEL could have gone into a bankruptcy situation very easily. Im encouraged theyre still negotiating.
Marker:
Blue Dolphin Energy (BDCO)
$1.00 up 0.11 (12.36%)
Volume: 3,405
Hi-Crush Partners LP Announces Successful Refinancing Transactions and Unit Repurchase Program Update
Date : 12/26/2017 @ 6:00AM
Source : GlobeNewswire Inc.
Stock : Hi-Crush Partners LP Common Units Representing Limited Partner Interests (HCLP)
Quote : $10.20 0.2 (2.00%) @ 2:48PM
Hi-Crush Partners LP (NYSE:HCLP), or Hi-Crush, today announced that it entered into a new $200 million Senior Secured Term Loan Credit Agreement ("Term Loan"), and a new five year Revolving Credit Agreement, as well as completed $20 million of unit repurchases and received necessary approvals to execute the remaining $80 million of authorized unit repurchases.
[....]
Separately, Hi-Crush announced that it has repurchased 2,030,163 common units in the fourth quarter of 2017, representing approximately $20 million of unit repurchases since announcing its unit buyback program of up to $100 million in October 2017. This represents the maximum amount of unit repurchases allowed for under the Company’s previous Term Loan Credit Facility and revolving credit facility. The Partnership’s new Term Loan and Revolving Credit Agreement permit unlimited repurchases of common units, therefore allowing for execution up to the remaining $80 million authorized. The repurchase program does not obligate the Partnership to repurchase any specific dollar amount or number of units, and may be suspended, modified or discontinued by the Board of Directors at any time, in its sole discretion and without notice.
"We remain fully committed to the unit buyback program, as evidenced by our decisive execution thus far, and expect to create further value for our unitholders through additional unit repurchases,” said Robert E. Rasmus, Chief Executive Officer of Hi-Crush.
[....]
Source:
https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=76361415
Marker:
SVB Financial Grp. (SIVB)
$241.67 up 5.37 (2.27%)
Volume: 261,930
How healthy is this bank? Very!
Click the link to check out its core vital signs.
https://banktracker.investigativereportingworkshop.org/banks/california/santa-clara/silicon-valley-bank/
To help pass time waiting to see how the UDFI saga unfolds its interesting to read other stories involving some of what could only be described as clandestine type activity that are in many ways reminiscent and therefore relatable to the [UDFI] story.
This is offered as a reprint of a historical interest story only and is for those who found the events leading up to the financial melt-down on Wall St in 2007/08/09 devastating but fascinating and in no way makes a judgement on who did what, when, where or why.
Did Hayman Capital Spread The Goldman Sachs Rumor That Helped Destroy Bear Stearns?
By Mark Mitchell, Published: October 30th, 2009
It was perhaps the single most important moment leading to the downfall of Bear Stearns.
On March 13, 2007, reporter David Faber, live on CNBC, said, “I’m told by a hedge fund that I know well…I’m told that [last night] Goldman would not accept the counterparty risk of Bear Stearns.”
Faber and that hedge fund might as well have flown an airplane into the side of Bear Stearns’s headquarters on 47th Street. Previously, there had been rumors about Bear Stearns, but this was the first time that anyone had stated as fact that a major bank was refusing to accept Bear Stearns risk. It wasn’t until Faber and that hedge fund unleashed the explosive news — right in the middle of a crucial interview with Bear Stearns CEO Alan Schwartz – that the run on the bank began.
This raises two important questions: Which hedge fund told Faber that Goldman wasn’t accepting Bear’s counterparty risk? And, was the news true? The answer to the second question is a definitive “No.” We know this because some hours later, Faber reported that, actually, “Goldman did say alright, now we will accept Bear as a counterparty.” Oops. Of course, at this point it was too late – clients were fleeing Bear Stearns in mass, panicked by the news that Goldman might or might not have accepted Bear Stearns as a counterparty. The run on the bank had started, and Faber’s retraction did nothing to stop it.
To answer the first question, it is necessary to understand that short selling hedge funds often “foment” the markets by spreading incendiary information about the companies they are attacking. In a video sold to hedge fund managers and other high paying subscribers, CNBC’s Jim Cramer, a close associate of David Faber, once encouraged hedge fund managers to “foment.” He said, “Now you can’t foment. That’s a violation of…But you do it anyway because the SEC doesn’t understand it…This is actually blatantly illegal…But I think it’s really important to foment.”
It is also necessary to understand that one particular network of hedge funds has, for several years, have accomplished much of their “fomenting” by placing false or hysterical stories with a specific group of dishonest journalists. After the hedge funds have demolished a company’s stock price, they turn to those same journalists to cover up their misdeeds and present skewed versions of what happened to the company.
One of these journalists is Jim Cramer. Another is David Faber. A third is Roddy Boyd, formerly of Fortune magazine. Roddy is particularly humorous because he unwittingly tends to reveal the miscreancy of his hedge fund sources. By reading between the lines of his stories and turning a keen ear to his public boasting, we can often discover nuggets of truth. So it is that Roddy has revealed the likely identity of the hedge fund that crashed that airplane into the side of Bear Stearns.
In a story published on March 30, 2007, Roddy repeated the assertion that Goldman had refused to serve as a counterparty to Bear Stearns. He noted that Goldman had stated this refusal in an email that Goldman sent on March 11, 2007. And in support of this assertion, Roddy quoted Kyle Bass, the manager of a Dallas-based hedge fund called Hayman Capital. “I was astounded when I got the [Goldman] e-mail…” Bass said to Roddy. “Goldman told Wall Street that they were done with Bear, that there was [effectively] too much risk. That was the end for them.”
Kyle Bass is known to be a close friend of David Faber. The two men worked together on “House of Cards,” Faber’s CNBC special documentary on the collapse of Bear Stearns. It appears quite likely that it was Bass’s hedge fund, Hayman Capital, that fed Faber the death-knell news that Goldman had refused to serve as a counterparty. And to convince Faber that Goldman had cut Bear off, it is likely that Hayman alluded to the same supposed “email” from Goldman to Hayman that was later cited by Roddy Boyd.
Beyond these suppositions, the story gets a bit murky. Depending on whom you ask, there was either no such email, or there was an email, but it was an utterly routine email that merely stated that Goldman could not immediately process counterparty requests, but would do so in short order. While Roddy gives absolute credence to Bass’s claim that “Goldman told Wall Street that it was done with Bear Stearns,” he also states, in parenthesis, that Goldman denied that it had refused to accept Bear’s counterparty risk, which is another way of saying that Bass’s claim was an exaggeration to say the least.
In hopes of getting to the bottom of this, I called Hayman Capital. Hayman’s lawyer, Chris Kirkpatrick, told me that neither Bass nor anyone else at the hedge fund would comment on the matter. Apparently, Hayman only speaks to Roddy Boyd, David Faber and a few other journalists known to be tools of short selling hedge funds. Certainly, Hayman would not provide me with a copy of the famous email.
The most I could get out of Kirkpatrick was a vague statement that “what has been reported in the media is not accurate.” I do not know if he meant that Roddy’s story was inaccurate – that Bass, in fact, no longer claims that “Goldman told Wall Street that it was done with Bear Stearns.” I do not know if he meant that it was inaccurate to suggest that Bass had received an email that said as much.
What I do know is this: at the time that Faber and his hedge fund source (probably Hayman) delivered that deadly blow to Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs (GS) was accepting Bear Stearns counterparty risk. That is an absolute fact.
So here’s the kindest scenario: Goldman at one point sent out some kind of email. It is possible that Goldman is lying (it does that sometimes), and this email did, in fact, state that Goldman would not serve as a counterparty to Bear Stearns. Or it is possible that the email stated no such thing. Either way, by the time of Faber’s report Goldman was accepting Bear as a counterparty so the email was no longer relevant.
Although the email was no longer relevant, Hayman Capital was either confused or super-excited by said email, and in its tizzy, Hayman couldn’t control itself – it just had to call David Faber with the shocking news right before Faber was to conduct a life-or-death interview with Bear Stearns CEO Alan Schwartz. But that’s all it was – an innocent tizzy. Hayman certainly did not mean to spread inflammatory information about Bear Stearns.
The other scenario is that a cabal of hedge funds, including Hayman capital, orchestrated a “conspiracy” to destroy Bear Stearns for profit. That is the scenario that Bear Stearns’ former CEO, Jimmy Cayne, laid out for Fortune magazine. When a Fortune reporter (not Roddy Boyd) quoted Cayne’s “conspiracy” remark, Hayman Capital’s lawyer, Kirkpatrick, wrote a letter to Fortune in which he stated that “Cayne’s rant” was a “feeble attempt to deflect blame…”. Hayman’s lawyer added that Hayman “did not have any positions in Bear Stearns’ securities at the time of its failure…In short, Hayman did not stand to profit from [Bear Stearns’s] failure.” Because our markets are defined by their opacity there is no way to confirm whether Hayman had any “positions in Bear Stearns’ securities” or any other kind of bet against Bear Stearns. The SEC does not require hedge funds to report their short sales, their credit default swap positions, or any of the myriad other derivatives by which a hedge fund might profit from the demise of an investment bank.
But given that Hayman reportedly was betting big against subprime mortgage derivatives, and given that the value of such derivatives plummeted as the result of the Bear Stearns fiasco, it is a bit disingenuous for Hayman to suggest that it “did not stand to profit” from Bear’s failure.
Moreover, Hayman failed to mention that one of its most important investors was Dan Loeb, manager of a hedge fund called Third Point Capital. As Deep Capture has detailed elsewhere, Loeb is very much a part of that network of short sellers that has habitually disseminated false information through a clique of dubious journalists, including David Faber and Roddy Boyd.
Most of these hedge fund managers, including Loeb, are connected in some way to the famous criminal Michael Milken or his close associates. (Loeb worked side-by-side with many of Milken’s former traders at Jefferies & Co., and got his first big break by obtaining preferential access to certificates of beneficial interest that had been issued by Milken’s bankrupt operation at Drexel Burnham Lambert). And members of this network, including Loeb, were by far the biggest short sellers of Bear Stearns stock.
Most of these hedge funds invest in smaller hedge funds with the expectation that the smaller hedge funds will somehow participate in their attacks on public companies. I do not know what preconditions came with Loeb’s investment in Hayman, but I think it’s fair to say that Hayman is an honorary member of the network.
As a measure of the lengths to which this network goes to spew false information, consider that Loeb once contracted with an outfit called Magic Consulting – owned by convicted stock manipulator Michelle McDonough (formerly Michelle Sarian). Emails obtained by Deep Capture show that McDonough’s job was to coordinate a stable of internet stock message board posters and journalists who bashed stocks shorted by Loeb and his friends. McDonough was herself a fairly prolific message board basher, prior to going to prison.
One of the internet message board bashers in McDonough’s stable was Floyd Schneider, a former employee of a Mafia-connected short seller named Anthony Elgindy, who is currently serving an 11-year sentence for short selling crimes. One of the journalists in McDonough’s stable was the above-mentioned Roddy Boyd.
In one email to Schneider, Roddy refers to McDonough as “our mutual best friend.” So we might question Roddy’s version of the Goldman email story. We might question Roddy’s relationship with Hayman Capital. We might question Hayman Capital’s relationship with Loeb and his network of “fomenting” short sellers. And we might also question whether these short sellers deliberately set out to destroy Bear Stearns.
Actually, it is not we who must question. It is the SEC. But as Jim Cramer said, the SEC “doesn’t understand.”
Source;
http://www.marketrap.com/article/view_article/91167/Did-Hayman-Capital-Spread-The-Goldman-Sachs-Rumor-That-Helped-Destroy-Bear-Stearns
Marker:
United Development F (UDFI)
$3.05 down -0.05 (-1.61%)
Volume: 12,148
I don't have a dog in this fight but if I did it would have been a very "short" dog.
You're upset with the CEO but there isnt a CEO of a tanker company on the planet that could have navigated his way around the contango situation which in turn made offshore storage no longer economical. Need proof? Look at a 5 year chart of NAT and what you will see is a sudden and steady rise in NATs' pps beginning in the fall of 2014. What triggered that was OPECs' announcement it would NOT be cutting production..and nobody saw that coming. In fact the Saudi's not only didnt cut production, as they normally would have, they announced they would be increasing production.
The Saudi's were effectively declaring war on US domestic oil producers...many of whom had a debt structure that could only be sustained IF oil stayed in the $100+ @ bbl range. Over 65 domestic produers would declare bankruptcy over the next 2 years but thats another story.
What ensued after the OPEC decision was a sudden worldwide glut of oil. US producers were pumping record amounts ...so was Russia...South America, Africa, Brazil, Canada, Mexico, etc. Etc. The world was drowing in crude... so much so that one of the only places left to put it was on a ship/tanker or a tanker train. Subsequent (and very lucrative) storage fees for ship owners were like pennies from heaven for an otherwise listless and sinking tanker industry.
Contrary to a popular notion you cannot store crude on a tanker forever. Ships are the last choice for long term crude storage. What immediately began next in 2015 was a worldwide effort to build more land based storage facilities. What effect do you think that had on the dudes with ships! Land based storage is far cheaper. Those good times for NAT et al didnt last long and the pps has been declining ever since.
Blame the CEO if you want but the fact is when you own a bunch of empty tankers that hold only one type of cargo sitting in ports all over the world paying mooring fees its a tough way to earn a living.
A new CEO couldn't change the oil shipping situation. I'm sorry man but it is what it is. Good luck.
Marker:
Nordic American Tank (NAT)
$2.59 down -0.12 (-4.43%)
Volume: 3,339,814
Below in quotation is a portion of the December 12, 2017 conference call re: details of the FAIRMOUNT SANTROL/UNIMIN MERGER
Marker:
BOFI Holding, Inc. (BOFI)
$28.17 up 0.94 (3.45%)
Volume: 986,493
Marker:
SVB Financial Grp. (SIVB)
$237.55 up 7.88 (3.43%)
Volume: 1,820,850
*All-time high(s)!
Marker:
Delta Air Lines, Inc (DAL)
$55.25 up 1.62 (3.02%)
Volume: 13,564,125
*5 years and now a 5 bagger.
Trinity Industries, Inc. Announces Intention to Spin-off Company’s Infrastructure-Related Businesses
Date : 12/12/2017 @ 8:00AM
Source : Business Wire
Stock : Trinity Industries, Inc. (TRN)
Quote : $37.21 1.41 (3.94%) @ 12:47PM
[....]
The transaction is expected to result in two separate public companies that will benefit from leading positions in their respective industries, strong free cash flow generation, and compelling growth opportunities. Following the transaction, each company will have distinct corporate strategies and capital allocation priorities:
-Trinity’s portfolio of businesses will be comprised primarily of Trinity’s industry-leading rail-related businesses which are marketed under the trade name TrinityRail®. TrinityRail’s integrated business model consisting of rail manufacturing, leasing, and services provides customers with a comprehensive offering of rail transportation solutions, products, and services. TrinityRail’s financial profile is expected to generate stable cash flows and earnings growth opportunities throughout the manufacturing cycle, giving the company an ability to pursue an optimized capital structure, efficiently allocate capital, and effectively leverage its multiple rail platforms.
-The new infrastructure company will be a growth-oriented company that is focused on infrastructure-related products and services. Trinity’s infrastructure businesses have leading positions in construction, energy, and marine markets throughout North America and are also positioned to grow free cash flows. The new infrastructure company will have the balance sheet strength and capital allocation flexibility to pursue growth through acquisitions and to capitalize on the large and growing market opportunity in North American infrastructure spending.
[....]
Source:
https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=76277574
*Big day today!!
Short Activism: The Rise in Anonymous Online Short Attacks
[....]
In recent years, anonymous online hit pieces against public companies have become an increasingly common and effective form of short activism. Given their success in driving down stock prices, anonymous online short campaigns are likely here to stay.
[....]
This post has five main sections: Section I discusses the rise in anonymous online attacks, Section II analyzes the effectiveness of short seller campaigns, Section III discusses how anonymous short attacks are waged, Section IV analyzes the challenges that anonymous online attacks pose for public companies, and Section V discusses different considerations in determining whether and how to respond to anonymous online attacks, and the strategic decisions required to successfully defend against them.
[....]
1. A New Breed of Short Activism: The Rise in Anonymous Online Short Attacks
[....]
Short seller activism is generally associated with prominent hedge funds and “celebrity” activists, such as David Einhorn and Bill Ackman. These short sellers often launch short attacks capitalizing on their notoriety and name recognition. In recent years, however, a new breed of short activism has emerged: individuals who anonymously post negative research reports and articles about targeted public companies on widely followed online financial and research platforms, such as Seeking Alpha. According to Activist Insight, “activist short sellers are more often than not anonymous entities and funds.”
Unlike the typical investor, a short seller seeks to take advantage of bear markets and profit from the decline in a company’s stock price. Short attacks are most effective where long investors lose confidence in their own appraisal of a stock’s value. This most commonly happens when a company’s financial position is complicated, when a new industry or product is being valued, when a government investigation is disclosed to or suspected by the market, or when other forces create ambiguity in the valuation.
Under current regulations, investors are not required to disclose short positions, making it difficult for companies and the market to track the existence of short sellers and monitor their activity. The inherent anonymity of the internet exacerbates these challenges. As long as online short activists have access to the internet, they can theoretically launch a short attack that reaches millions of investors from anywhere at any time—and with little accountability.
Until recently, the market dismissed anonymous short activists as illegitimate and not credible, as “real” short sellers with legitimate claims do not hide behind fake pseudonyms and aliases.
That premise has been proven wrong. Anonymous short sellers can be, and often are, disguised prominent hedge funds and individuals. For example, in December 2015, a short seller using the pseudonym “Investors for Truth” published an anonymous report about United Development Funding IV (“UDF”) on the investing websites Harvest Exchange and Value Investors Club, causing UDF’s stock price to plummet 35%. After much speculation, Kyle Bass, founder of Hayman Capital Manager, eventually claimed responsibility for the articles posted under the pseudonym Investors for Truth. [6] Such prominent short activists have incentive to post under pseudonyms in order to protect against litigation and reputational risk in the event of public or company backlash, and to protect their bets against premature public exposure.
Unimin to buy shale sand supplier Fairmount in cash-and-stock deal
(Reuters) - Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc said on Tuesday it would sell itself to Unimin Corp in a cash-and-stock deal to create one of the largest suppliers of sand for use in hydraulic fracturing to shale oil and gas producers.
The deal, which is expected to close by the middle of next year, will create a company with about $2 billion in annual revenue and will supply more than 45 million tons of sand annually. The new company will also supply industrial coatings.
Sand, known as proppant in the oil industry, is used as part of the fracking process to hold open tiny cracks in shale rock in order to allow hydrocarbon molecules to escape. Oil companies typically shop for various shapes and sizes of sand to suit their geology. That has made the sand industry appealing to investors in recent years.
"Together we will serve our customers more efficiently and effectively with a broader and more diverse product offering, greater technical expertise, improved scale and geographic diversity and an expanded logistics platform," Fairmount Chief Executive Jenniffer Deckard said in a statement.
Deckard is expected to be CEO of the new company, which has not yet been named.
Fairmount shareholders will receive $170 million in cash and own about 35 percent of the new company after the deal closes. Unimin, a division of Belgium-based SCR-Sibelco NV, will own the rest.
Shares of Fairmount rose 4.6 percent to $5.27 after the deal was announced.
Source:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-fairmount-m-a-sibelco/unimin-to-buy-shale-sand-supplier-fairmount-in-cash-and-stock-deal-idUSKBN1E6200
Marker:
Fairmount Santrol Ho (FMSA)
$5.19 up 0.15 (2.98%)
Volume: 7,353,300
Latest rig count as of Dec. 8th was a +2.
U.S. total rig count stands at 931.
Marker:
Hi-Crush Partners LP (HCLP)
$10.60 Up 0.5 (4.95%)
Volume: 1,492,856
*the more rigs = the more drilling = the more call for proppant.
Here below is the Dallas Business Journal article re: the UDFI lawsuit with Kyle Bass/Hayman Capital printed out in its entirety for the boards' ease of reading and revisiting.
Exclusive: UDF sues Kyle Bass’ hedge fund amid flurry of active investigations
By Natalie Posgate of The Texas Lawbook and Candace Carlisle of the Dallas Business Journal
Dec 5, 2017, 5:48am
The heated, two-year multimillion-dollar feud between United Development Funding (OTCMKTS: UDFI) and Dallas hedge fund manager Kyle Bass erupted again last week and shows no signs of cooling off.
UDF filed a 61-page civil lawsuit Nov. 28 claiming Bass and his hedge fund, Dallas-based Hayman Capital Management, mounted an illegal campaign to spread false information about the publicly-traded real estate investment trust and its affiliates in an effort to reap financial gains by short-selling shares of UDF.
Additionally, The Texas Lawbook has learned that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will likely decide in the next few weeks whether to pursue civil charges against UDF. Lawyers close to the investigation say that SEC officials are leaning toward a finding of negligence – not fraud.
At the same time, the FBI and federal prosecutors remain “very active” in their investigation of UDF, according to lawyers familiar with the government inquiries.
The lawsuit brought by UDF and its umbrella of REIT affiliates seems to be part of a continued effort to deny allegations of misconduct levied by Hayman Capital. Sources who spoke to the Lawbook say the lawsuit shows UDF intends to fight any charges brought by federal officials.
UDF spokesman Jeff Eller said, “It would not be appropriate to comment on the litigation at this time. The reasons for bringing the lawsuit are fully stated in the complaint.”
The lawsuit, filed in Dallas County court, claims Hayman Capital took a position shorting UDF stock and then created a “tabloid-style website” in late 2015 to spread incorrect information about UDF’s financials by suggesting the REIT operates like a Ponzi scheme.
The residential lender also claims in the lawsuit that Hayman Capital’s former general counsel, Christopher Kirkpatrick, who was an enforcement lawyer with the SEC’s Fort Worth regional office in the 1990s, supplied false information about UDF to his former SEC colleagues and the FBI in an effort to get the agencies to open investigations. According to the filing, Kirkpatrick “abruptly” left his position with Hayman Capital after the FBI raided UDF’s corporate office in February 2016.
By October of that year, the lawsuit claims Bass closed out his short positions in UDF IV, the largest in UDF’s umbrella of REIT funds that began listing on the NASDAQ in mid-2014, but now trade over the counter around $4 per share.
“Because UDF was not the worthless Madoff-like business fraud that defendants made it out to be, UDF survived,” the UDF lawsuit states. “Defendants’ almost year-long campaign of lies severely damaged UDF’s ability to carry on its business while at the same time profiting defendants by an estimated $60 million or more.”
In the filing, UDF claims Bass took a short position of 4 million shares when UDF IV was trading at over $17 per share, then purchased them back for as low as $1 per share, which resulted in a profit of more than $60 million.
Bass has repeatedly declined to disclose his short positions in UDF, but in February 2016, he admitted to multiple media outlets that he had positions in UDF and intended to profit from them.
We don't ever disclose our positions to anyone — and won't — but as you can see we are spending a lot of time and resources on this," he told the Dallas Business Journal.
Hayman Capital vehemently denies the allegations made in the UDF lawsuit.
“It is our strong belief that this lawsuit is without merit, and is intended to distract and deflect from UDF’s other problems, including significant investor litigation and law enforcement issues,” Hayman Capital General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer Blake Jones said in a written statement to The Texas Lawbook. “We look forward to addressing those allegations in open court and firmly believe that we will prevail on all those claims.”
Michael K. Hurst and Jeremy Fielding of Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst and Cole Ramey of Kilpatrick Townsend said they would likely be defending Bass and Hayman in UDF’s lawsuit. They said they should be able to provide comment on the case this week.
Meanwhile, The Texas Lawbook has learned that senior UDF officials, including CEO Hollis Greenlaw and CFO Cara Obert, are scheduled to meet with senior-level SEC officials in two weeks in an effort to try to convince the federal agency to not bring regulatory charges against them. The meeting, according to multiple lawyers with extensive knowledge of case, will involve SEC officials from Washington, D.C. and the Fort Worth Regional Office, which is leading the investigation.
UDF is expected to present a “nothing-to-see-here defense,” those lawyers say, while trying to direct the SEC to focus instead on the conduct of Hayman Capital and Bass. “I don’t think that argument is going to fly,” one of those lawyers told The Texas Lawbook on the condition of anonymity, who added that the SEC seems laser-focused on UDF.
Another lawyer familiar with the SEC inquiry said, “UDF is coming into the meeting seeking exoneration, while the SEC wants to get a plea or settlement agreement.”
Lawyers familiar with the investigation say the agency will “most likely” accuse UDF of negligence, not fraud, because it will be an easier charge to prove in court. The sources say that the SEC will want “a significant amount of money” through a fine or penalty.
The SEC inquiry is being led by assistant enforcement director Eric Warner and staff attorneys David Whipple and David Hirsch. Lawyers say that Fort Worth Regional Director Shamoil Shipchandler and Associate Regional Director Jessica Magee are also heavily involved in the case.
UDF is represented in the SEC investigation by Bracewell Partner Barrett Howell, while Bracewell partners Joe Cox and Andrea Broyles also represent the company. The attorneys representing the REIT declined comment.
There also seems to be a renewed interest by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice in the allegations being tossed around by Hayman Capital and UDF, according to sources. U.S. Attorney Nick Bunch of the Northern District of Texas is overseeing the active investigation.
Legal sources say UDF probably filed the civil case against Hayman Capital last week because it faced an upcoming two-year statute of limitations. One source questioned the “wisdom of this filing” because it could grant Hayman Capital access to crucial financial information and put UDF executives under oath.
Bass and Hayman Capital are known in the investment world for their expertise in short-selling, an investment tactic employed by many hedge funds that bet on a company stock declining. Most notably, he is known for his bet against subprime mortgages that were at the center of the U.S. financial crisis of 2008.
In the lawsuit, UDF claims that Bass went after the publicly-traded REIT because he was “under tremendous pressure” in 2015 after a couple of failed short-selling bets, including positions against pharmaceutical companies such as Biogen, Bristol-Myers, Celgene and others.
Last year, Bass told the Dallas Business Journal that UDF was operating in a $1 billion, “Ponzi-like scheme” that had the ability to impact some of North Texas’ big residential projects.
“UDF IV has two-thirds of its loans with a single borrower, in one market,” Bass told the DBJ. “That level of credit concentration — regulated or unregulated — raises a red flag. A credible financial institution or lender would not put themselves in that position.”
Bass said his actions were meant to protect additional UDF investors from losing money.
"If you asked me how much money we are saving UDF investors from investing in UDF V, I’d say we are saving them $1 billion, which is what they were looking to raise for the funds and are now having a lot of trouble doing so,” Bass told the DBJ last year.
According to the lawsuit, two years ago, Bass began publishing anonymous posts attacking UDF and its affiliates under the blogger name Ernest Poole on the Harvest website, an online community for financial firms and advisors. He later confirmed in February 2016 that his company was behind the web posts.
He then launched a Hayman Capital-sponsored website called UDFexposed.com, which published multiple case studies that questioned UDF’s financials tied to real estate projects, including residential developments throughout Texas. At UDFexposed.com, Hayman Capital called the REIT a “billion-dollar house of cards."
In that same month, the FBI raided UDF’s corporate headquarters in Grapevine, seizing boxes of documents and other assets.
UDF IV’s shares plummeted in the wake of Hayman Capital’s accusations and the FBI raid. It didn’t take long before shareholders began filing class-action lawsuits against the REIT. Nasdaq later delisted UDF IV for failure to meet deadlines to provide regulatory documents, such as quarterly and annual financial reports.
The aftermath led to lenders pulling UDF credit lines and denying extensions. UDF executives claim the negative impacts to the business stemmed from Bass’ “personal hostility,” to its CEO, Greenlaw.
According to the lawsuit, the alleged friction between Bass and Greenlaw stemmed from multiple showdowns for real estate investments in North Texas and elsewhere.
Source:
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2017/12/05/udf-sues-kyle-bass-hedge-fund.html
Marker:
United Development F (UDFI)
$3.50 down -0.05 (-1.41%)
Volume: 17,473
Citi hitting a 7 year high.
Citigroup, Inc. (C)
$77.15 up 0.05 (0.06%)
Volume: 8,808,082
*Hard to imagine. I think most of us still remember those dark days banks were faced with in 08/09. In some ways it seems like only yesterday.
On November 28, 2017, the Lazarus Parties and GEL entered into a second amendment to the Letter Agreement (the “Second Amendment”), which extended the Continuance Period through December 31, 2017, also in order to facilitate ongoing discussions.
Marker:
Blue Dolphin Energy (BDCO)
$0.17 0.01 (6.25%)
Volume: 8,000
You have to wonder why now? What Bass & Co. did was horrendous. Was it horrendously stupid as well?
Does this delayed counter-punch happen now, a full 19 months after Bass publically torpedoed UDF, because UDF at long last has vindicating proof in the financials of no wrongdoing?? I certainly hope so.
Or is this lawsuit really just a delay tactic to buy time and take the focus off of UDF?? Maybe the financials can't be "fixed" so management has decided to go on the defense?? Is this a last ditch effort from a drowning victim on his way down?? Throw some sh*t back hoping something sticks??
Inquiring minds want to know.
This should be interesting. Bass was one of my heros but this whole UDFI incident had me rethinking why. :-0
Current Report Filing (8-k)
Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure.
On November 28, 2017, United Development Funding, L.P., United Development Funding II, L.P., United Development Funding III, L.P., United Development Funding IV, United Development Funding Income Fund V, United Mortgage Trust, United Development Funding Land Opportunity Fund, L.P., and United Development Funding Land Opportunity Fund Investors, L.L.C. (collectively, the “Plaintiffs” or “UDF Funds”) filed a lawsuit in the County Court of Dallas County, Texas against J. Kyle Bass (“Bass”) and Hayman Capital Management, L.P., Hayman Offshore Management, Inc., Hayman Capital Master Fund, L.P., Hayman Capital Partners, L.P., Hayman Capital Offshore Partners, L.P., and Hayman Investments, LLC, all of which are hedge fund entities believed to be under the control of Bass (collectively with Bass, the “Defendants” or the “Bass Entities”). A copy of the Plaintiffs’ complaint can be found at the County Court of Dallas County, Texas website (https://courtsportal.dallascounty.org/DALLASPROD ), using the Case No. CC-17-06253-B.
The lawsuit alleges claims against Defendants for business disparagement, interference with contract, interference with prospective economic advantage and civil conspiracy. In general, the UDF Funds allege that the Bass Entities made false and disparaging statements – first anonymously on a third-party website and later in their own name on a proprietary website – about the business of the UDF Funds in order to destroy the UDF Funds’ business. The UDF Funds further allege that the Bass Entities profited from the resulting damage to the business of the UDF Funds because the Bass Entities had, prior to the publication of the false statements, established a large short position in the UDF Funds.
The UDF Funds allege that the false and disparaging statements include statements designed to convey that the UDF Funds were a Ponzi scheme, that
the UDF Funds had no genuine ability to carry on their business, that the UDF Funds’ insolvency would render their shares virtually worthless, that the UDF Funds’ real estate developments were not genuine developments, that the UDF Funds’ largest borrower was not an arm’s-length borrower and was also insolvent, and that investor proceeds were being misappropriated. The UDF Funds allege that all of these assertions were false and that, in truth, the UDF Funds were a family of successful real estate investment funds engaged in genuine real estate development with arm’s-length borrowers with a long track record of real estate development.
The lawsuit alleges that the UDF Funds suffered damage because the false statements of the Defendants caused, among other things, a sudden and severe loss of credit and reduction in capital that the UDF Funds relied on to carry on their business of lending to real estate developers for use in land acquisition and single-family home developments. The Plaintiffs seek damages for the loss of income that they suffered as a consequence, as well as damages for various other injuries and other costs caused by the false statements. However, no assurances can be given that the Plaintiffs will receive any damages as a result of the lawsuit, nor can any assurances be given regarding a timeframe for a resolution of the lawsuit.
Source:
https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=76194070
Marker:
United Development F (UDFI)
$3.50 0.0 (0.00%)
Volume: 4,405
*I was hoping todays news release was updated news regarding the financials. This was a curve ball. UDFI is going after Kyle Bass & Co.
I would have to agree what Bass did seemed more than bold it appeared to be down right wrong. We'll see if the courts agree.
Marker:
Tri-valley Bank (ram (TRVB)
$0.65 0.0 (0.00%)
Volume: 0
Baker Hughes latest US rig count data reveals +8 rigs were added this week for a total of 915. Year over year this is an increase of 327 rigs!
Source:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=79687&p=irol-rigcountsoverview
Marker:
Hi-Crush Partners LP (HCLP)
$9.625 up 0.325 (3.49%)
Volume: 773,620
Proxy Statement (definitive) (def 14a)
Date : 11/20/2017 @ 9:03AM
Source : Edgar (US Regulatory)
Stock : Blue Dolphin Energy Co. (QX) (BDCO)
Quote : 0.14 -0.01 (-6.67%) @ 2:33PM
https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=76131560
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS
To Our Stockholders:
*Notice is hereby given that an Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) of Blue Dolphin Energy Company, a Delaware corporation (referred to herein as “Blue Dolphin,” “we,” “us” and “our”), will be held on Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. Central Time at Blue Dolphin’s principal office located at 801 Travis Street, 21 st Floor, Houston, Texas 77002.
Quarterly Report (10-q)
Date : 11/16/2017 @ 3:04PM
Source :Edgar (US Regulatory)
Stock : Blue Dolphin Energy Co. (QX) (BDCO)
Quote : 0.15 0.01 (7.14%) @ 1:05PM
https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=76115395
O & G companies face a tough choice as to the type of Proppant they go with.
Not all sand is created equal.
Silica sands from the pits in Wisconsin and Arkansas produce top quality Proppant.
What makes the their silica preferrible for fracking over other sands across the country?
1) The consistent and preferred diameter of each tiny grain of sand.
2) The spherical shape of each pebble. i.e. its very round in shape which allows the oil to flow easier between the grains of sand.
3) Silica from Wisconsin & Arkansas has a higher crush tolerance. It can withstand the tremendous pressures much better the fracking process exerts.
Texas sand by comparison, when viewed under a microscope, tends to be rectangular in shape and when you put those tiny squares of rock under tremendous pressure it builds what could only be described as a "brick wall" making oil flow around the grains of sand very difficult.
The 2nd reason Texas sand is inferior is because it crushes easier under the tremendous pressures which is the whole point of fracking. The sand used must be very hard. Fracking grade sand is called "Proppant". It gets that name simply because it "props" open the cracks and fissures created in the rock when water and certain chemicals are forced down a well.
So why would some oil companies even consider going with Texas sand? Costs. $$$ shipping trainloads of sand comes with a hefty freight bill. That freight bill has to be passed down to the consumers. Therefore Texas sand is cheaper. It may not be as efficient as the Wisconsin & Arkansas silica but getting it in collosal quantities to the well site is much cheaper. Oil companies are sometimes willing to sacrifice the quantity of oil they can produce out of a well if they're saving millions on the front end costs. Its a toss up and it creates a dilemma each oil company must face in the end as to which Proppant is "best".
Make sense?
Oil surges 3.5 percent, at highest since mid-2015 on Saudi purge
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil prices rose 3.5 percent on Monday, hitting the highest since early July 2015, as Saudi Arabia’s crown prince cemented his power with an anti-corruption crackdown, while the U.S. rig count fell and markets continued to tighten.
Brent crude futures LCOc1 settled up $2.20, or 3.5 percent, to $64.27 per barrel.
U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude CLc1 rose $1.71, or 3 percent, to $57.35 a barrel.
Both benchmarks were at their highest since early July 2015.
“Whether it’s the purging of the Saudi ranks and oil rig counts ticking down and talk of OPEC extending cuts we’re seeing the volatility stretch this trading range,” said Rob Haworth, senior investment strategist at U.S. Bank Wealth Management.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman tightened his grip with the arrest of royals, ministers and investors, including billionaire Alwaleed bin Talal and the powerful head of the National Guard, Prince Miteb bin Abdullah.
The arrests, which an official said were just “phase one” of the crackdown, are the latest in a series of dramatic steps by Prince Mohammed to amass more power for himself at home.
“The crown prince has succeeded in consolidating his power,” said John Kilduff, partner at energy hedge fund Again Capital LLC, “This sort of cements his position and his position on reducing the global glut has been clear.”
Analysts for now do not see Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, changing its policy of boosting crude prices.
Prince Mohammed’s reforms include a plan to list shares of parts of state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco next year, and a higher oil price is seen as beneficial for its market capitalization.
Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said that while there is “satisfaction” with a production-cutting deal between the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and other producers led by Russia, the “job is not done yet.”
OPEC is expected to extend a cut of around 1.8 million barrels per day into the whole of 2018.
Also boosting oil prices, U.S. drillers cut eight oil rigs last week, the biggest reduction since May 2016.
Prince Mohammed’s reforms include a plan to list shares of parts of state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco next year, and a higher oil price is seen as beneficial for its market capitalization.
Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said that while there is “satisfaction” with a production-cutting deal between the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and other producers led by Russia, the “job is not done yet.”
OPEC is expected to extend a cut of around 1.8 million barrels per day into the whole of 2018.
Source:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil/oil-surges-3-5-percent-at-highest-since-mid-2015-on-saudi-purge-idUSKBN1D603A
Marker:
Hi-Crush Partners LP (HCLP)
$10.50 up 0.2 (1.94%)
Volume: 2,681,723
Oil surges 3.5 percent, at highest since mid-2015 on Saudi purge
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil prices rose 3.5 percent on Monday, hitting the highest since early July 2015, as Saudi Arabia’s crown prince cemented his power with an anti-corruption crackdown, while the U.S. rig count fell and markets continued to tighten.
Brent crude futures LCOc1 settled up $2.20, or 3.5 percent, to $64.27 per barrel.
U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude CLc1 rose $1.71, or 3 percent, to $57.35 a barrel.
Both benchmarks were at their highest since early July 2015.
“Whether it’s the purging of the Saudi ranks and oil rig counts ticking down and talk of OPEC extending cuts we’re seeing the volatility stretch this trading range,” said Rob Haworth, senior investment strategist at U.S. Bank Wealth Management.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman tightened his grip with the arrest of royals, ministers and investors, including billionaire Alwaleed bin Talal and the powerful head of the National Guard, Prince Miteb bin Abdullah.
The arrests, which an official said were just “phase one” of the crackdown, are the latest in a series of dramatic steps by Prince Mohammed to amass more power for himself at home.
“The crown prince has succeeded in consolidating his power,” said John Kilduff, partner at energy hedge fund Again Capital LLC, “This sort of cements his position and his position on reducing the global glut has been clear.”
Analysts for now do not see Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, changing its policy of boosting crude prices.
Prince Mohammed’s reforms include a plan to list shares of parts of state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco next year, and a higher oil price is seen as beneficial for its market capitalization.
Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said that while there is “satisfaction” with a production-cutting deal between the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and other producers led by Russia, the “job is not done yet.”
OPEC is expected to extend a cut of around 1.8 million barrels per day into the whole of 2018.
Also boosting oil prices, U.S. drillers cut eight oil rigs last week, the biggest reduction since May 2016.
Prince Mohammed’s reforms include a plan to list shares of parts of state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco next year, and a higher oil price is seen as beneficial for its market capitalization.
Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said that while there is “satisfaction” with a production-cutting deal between the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and other producers led by Russia, the “job is not done yet.”
OPEC is expected to extend a cut of around 1.8 million barrels per day into the whole of 2018.
Source:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil/oil-surges-3-5-percent-at-highest-since-mid-2015-on-saudi-purge-idUSKBN1D603A
I don't. Its true there are more vehicles on the road than ever. Based on that it would seem that demand would have to be on the rise however progressively improving mpg's over the past 30 years..combined with switches to alternative fuels such as nat gas, flex fuels, electric cars, etc etc have mitigated demand.
Barring some huge unforeseen geo-political event I personally don't see the hay days of $100 oil ever returning. I think we're looking at the top end for the foreseeable future in the mid-$50 range.
Fracking changed everything. The US is no longer a hostage to the Saudi's.
Supply continues to far outweigh demand.
Storage at Cushing, OK is pushing to new highs.
http://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/news/2017/6/7/747-million-barrels-and-counting-a-look-at-the-latest-estimates-of-us-crude-storage-capacity
Texas Frac Sand In Demand
Millions of pounds of sand are pumped down each shale well in the hydraulic fracturing process, and while Wisconsin Northern White is still dominant, it is now used in only two-thirds of US fracs. That’s a lot of displaced market share, sources told Mergermarket. Regional Texas sand mines have become an attraction as companies bank on “Permian headlines” and a diversity of sand types.
Tens of new mines are starting up in Texas and surrounding states, with sand that varies in quality but is closer and logistically simpler to procure. Vista Sand, Preferred Sands, Unimin, Black Mountain, Hi-Crush Partners, US Silica and Alpine Silica are some private and public companies with Permian Basin mines slated to be producing by the first quarter of 2018.
Those operators plan to bring at least 40 million tons of new sand supply online by the end of next year. But in an uncertain oil price environment with constantly changing demand dynamics, sources told Mergermarket they believe that at least some of the new entrants will become acquisition targets.
The local sand has been displacing high quality Northern White sand, generally mined in Wisconsin and delivered by train to the Southwest and other oil-producing regions. That’s because cheaper oil prices have producers looking for ways to cut costs.
Northern White was the industry standard, used in 100% of hydraulic fracturing (frac) jobs up until a few years ago, said Emerge Energy Services VP Robby Myers. Emerge supplies Northern White, and this year acquired a mine under construction near San Antonio.
An industry banker said regional sand is continuing to gain market share, and many of the new entrants will become targets.
The more established suppliers of Northern White, including Emerge, Hi-Crush Partners, Fairmount Santrol, Unimin, US Silica, and Smart Sand, are likely to be buyers, although low oil prices have stressed some of their balance sheets, the banker said.
Wood Mackenzie analysts Robert Clarke and Jonathan Garrett said the jury is still out on the precise role for regional sands, which vary in quality but generally have a lower crush resistance, meaning they do not stand up as robustly to high well pressures. They also have characteristics which can clog up the well and interfere with flow, said Select Sands CEO Zigurds Vitols. But multi-stacked pay opportunities mean that different types of sand could prove useful in different parts of the same well, said Clarke.
Companies that do not diversify by acquiring or building will risk cyclical ups and downs in demand for their sand, as well as potential logistical bottlenecks, said the banker. For example, Hi-Crush Partners CEO Bob Rasmus noted on its 3 August earnings call that its February acquisition of privately held Permian Basin Sand gives it "flexibility."
Even in Canada, where higher well pressures require sand with a high crush resistance, sand companies are anticipating the need for diversification. Calgary-based Source Energy Services CEO Brad Thomson told this news service that its oil and gas customers may begin to demand local sand, and in that case, Source could look to acquire a local mine.
Demand question
With new Permian Basin sand coming online, single-mine operators there could become distressed if oversupply pinches prices, said Emerge's Myers and the banker. Emerge believes some distress could come out of Permian oversupply, and would consider acquiring there, this news service reported. It takes time, expertise and capital to build a new mine, and it is difficult to time the market exactly, explained Myers: "In the industrial world you don’t just build a factory and new production line" quickly.
Sand companies have banked on an increasing demand curve due to longer laterals, increasing rig count and higher sand intensity per stage, but signs point to a leveling off. Halliburton CEO Jeff Miller said on its 24 July earnings call that the company had seen a decline in average sand pumped per well "for the first time in years."
In the end, M&A could be driven by distress and oversupply, but more than that it will be driven by companies that see the benefit to "exposure to different qualities of sand in different parts of the country," said Clarke. Scale is also an important consideration, he said.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mergermarket/2017/09/14/texas-frac-sand-in-demand/
Marker:
Hi-Crush Partners LP (HCLP)
$10.30 up 0.2 (1.98%)
Volume: 1,582,470
Finding ways to take advantage of the natural resources, already present on the properties, and move beyond just collecting royalties is opportunistically brilliant. I'm excited to see this water business developed.
Present on the land, in varying amounts, are the 2 most necessary items drillers require in enormous quantities to get the most oil out of the ground.
One is water (and the disposal thereof)..and the other is proppant grade sand.
The most productive fracking method today now requires 6X the amount of proppant drillers used just a few years ago. That means to frac a single well in the Permian basin now requires enough proppant to fill a freight train 120 hopper cars long. I find that hard to imagine really but that is the reality.
Will frac grade proppant be the next available natural resource TPL developes?? I would have no way of knowing.. but I do know frac grade proppant is big business and it begs the speculative question - why not!
Marker:
Texas Pacific Land T (TPL)
$413.37 up 7.02 (1.73%)
Volume: 8,906
Pecos Terminal
The Partnership also previously announced the commencement of operations at its new Pecos, Texas terminal, the first unit train capable terminal with silo storage in the Southern Delaware Basin. Hi-Crush is actively delivering sand via rail to the Pecos terminal, which includes 20,000 tons of vertical silo storage on-site, from its two Union Pacific-connected Northern White facilities in Wisconsin. On October 3, 2017, Hi-Crush began loading customer trucks for delivery to support local completions activity.
"We are excited to have completed construction on schedule and started operations at our third Permian Basin terminal," said Mr. Rasmus. "The completion of Pecos augments our existing capabilities in the Permian, which include our Odessa and Big Spring terminals in the Midland Basin, and extends our advantage in the region while complementing our leading network of owned and operated logistics assets. Together with our recently completed in-basin Kermit facility, these assets provide our customers with flexibility and diversity across sand product, and enhance surety of supply by mitigating potential logistical bottlenecks in these highly active areas. In addition, PropStream, our last-mile containerized delivery solution, allows us to supply our sand directly into the blender hopper at the well site reliably, efficiently, and safely. Controlling the entire logistics chain is a differentiator for Hi-Crush, particularly in an environment of significant growth, and will allow us to profitably and sustainably grow our business over the long-term."
PropStreamTM
Hi-Crush has seven PropStream crews currently operating in the Permian Basin and Marcellus and Utica plays, with the expectation to grow the total number of crews to nine or more by the end of 2017.
Marker:
Hi-Crush Partners LP (HCLP)
$10.175 up 0.075 (0.74%)
Volume: 708,753
Kermit Facility
As announced previously, the Partnership commenced operations at its Kermit facility in July 2017. The facility is the first to produce and sell in-basin frac sand in the Permian, and has an annual production capacity of 3.0 million tons. Of this nameplate capacity, 90% is currently contracted with customers, including several large, blue-chip E&P companies under long-term, fixed-price arrangements. The Kermit facility expands Hi-Crush’s industry-leading production and logistics capabilities in West Texas and significantly improves customer service while reducing delivered costs to the well site.
"The opening of our Kermit facility is a game-changer for our Permian Basin operations," said Ms. Fulton. "The facility expands our product portfolio, while its proximity to significant Permian Basin activity enables substantial efficiency improvements in the delivery of sand to the well site".
Marker:
Hi-Crush Partners LP (HCLP)
$10.075 down -0.025 (-0.25%)
Volume: 687,188
Hi-Crush Partners LP (NYSE:HCLP), "Hi-Crush" or the "Partnership", today reported third quarter 2017 results.
Revenues for the third quarter of 2017 totaled $167.6 million on sales of 2,456,195 tons of frac sand. This compares to $135.2 million of revenues on sales of 2,112,516 tons of frac sand in the second quarter of 2017. The limited partners' interest in net income was $29.8 million for the third quarter of 2017, resulting in $0.33 basic and $0.32 diluted earnings per limited partner unit.
Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization ("EBITDA") for the third quarter of 2017 was $41.8 million, compared to $26.8 million for the second quarter of 2017. EBITDA adjusted for earnings from equity method investments ("Adjusted EBITDA") was $41.7 million in the third quarter of 2017, compared to $26.5 million for the second quarter of 2017. Distributable cash flow attributable to the limited partners for the third quarter of 2017 was $37.5 million compared to $22.9 million for the second quarter of 2017.
"The impressive third quarter performance we announced today is a direct result of our Mine. Move. Manage. operating strategy, and is underpinned by ongoing strength in oil and gas completions activity in the U.S.," said Robert E. Rasmus, Chief Executive Officer of Hi-Crush. "Over the last several months, we completed several critical projects, including the construction and commencement of operations at our Kermit facility and Pecos terminal in the Permian Basin. These projects enhance and extend our ability to service customers through our growing and integrated production and logistics network. Our sales volumes improved to approximately 2.5 million tons for the third quarter, in-line with guidance, and marking the highest quarterly volumes recorded in Hi-Crush history. We remain relentlessly focused on execution, and our results are the outcome of our team’s efforts and success. Our execution, combined with our capital return strategy to our unitholders, is driving significant value for Hi-Crush and its unitholders.
Marker:
Hi-Crush Partners LP (HCLP)
10.0 ? -0.1 (-0.99%)
Volume: 643,328