Peyto Exploration & Development Corp. · TSX:PEY
Peyto Exploration & Development — Investor Presentation (February 2005)
75 slides from Peyto Exploration & Development's investor presentation, Feb 15, 2005
Slide 1: February 15, 2005
February 15, 2005
Slide 2: Profile
Profile • Established - November 1998 • Market - PEY.UN, Toronto Stock Exchange • Expertise - Exploration & Development of Long-life Gas Reserves • Core Area of Operations – Sundance & Smoky/Kakwa, located in Alberta’s Central Deep Basin • Units Outstanding - Basic & Diluted 48,307,622 •NO CONVERTIB
Slide 3: A Unique Strategy
A Unique Strategy 9 Find, develop & produce natural gas in Alberta’s “In my opinion there are very few true finders in today’s oil patch. Central Deep Basin. Peyto’s strategy is unique. Most of today’s so-called finders are just good promoters. They use the romance of drilling to inflate 9 Focus on
Slide 4: Track Record: Six Years of Unmatched Profitable Growth
Track Record Six Years of Unmatched Profitable Growth Growth Rate PER UNIT Growth Rate Start End Compounded Over Six Compounded Over Six Year 12/31/1998 12/31/2004 Annually Year Period Annually Period Share Price (plus distributions) $0.23 $50.77 146% 21974% 146% 21974% Production (boe/d) 68 20,688
Slide 5: Industry Comparison: Performance, Annualized Return
Industry Comparison Performance, Annualized Return Annualized Return 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% PEYTO AVN_UN SHN_UN ERF_UN AET_UN PTF_UN AY_UN PGF_UN PW I_UN AE_UN -50% Five Year Return from Q4 1998 to Q4 2003 One Year Return from Q2 2003 to Q2 2004 5 2/16/2005
Slide 6: Characteristics of the Trust
Characteristics of the Trust • Low Payout Ratio • Approximately 50% of cashflow • Distributions will be primarily interest & royalty income (70% Taxable in 2003) • Long Reserve Life • 18.8 years proven plus probable, 10.6 years proven developed (December 31, 2003 Reserves) • Low Cost Structure • ope
Slide 7: The Team
The Team • Don Gray President & CEO, Director “Our unique strategy allows us to have • Roberto Bosdachin Vice President, Exploration a much smaller team than the traditional E&P or Trust Co. The smaller • Darren Gee Vice President, Engineering team helps ensure that we do not lose • Scott Robinson V
Slide 8: Corporate Governance
Corporate Governance • “We will be candid in our reporting, emphasizing the pluses and “Insiders currently own 22% of minuses important in appraising business value. Our guideline is to tell the Trust. From the beginning, you the business facts that we would want to know if our positions were we loo
Slide 9: A Unique Energy Trust Model
A Unique Energy Trust Model Foundation + Performance + Sustainability = Growth The Best Foundation It all starts with the foundation. Our foundation has the lowest operating costs, and the longest reserve life. It also delivers the highest netbacks. We operate over 95% of our current production, mor
Slide 10: Quarterly Distribution History
Quarterly Distribution History Percent Change Since Trust Conversion Production Per Distribution Unit Rate Production (boe/d/million Distribution Cashflow Production Payout Quarter ($/unit/month) (boe/d) units) Payout Ratio Rate $/unit per unit per unit Ratio Q3 03 $ 0.15 14,086 310 57% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Slide 11: Industry Comparison: Foundation, Results
Industry Comparison Foundation, Results Results Q3 2004 Year End 2003 Reserve Life (yrs) Ordinary Operating Cash Average Well Average Revenue Netback Cos ts Cos ts Proven Productivity Weighted Com pany Nam e ($/boe) ($/boe) ($/boe) ($/boe) Producing Total Proven Es tablished (boe/d) Ranking Peyto $
Slide 12: Industry Comparison: Foundation, Weighted Rankings
Industry Comparison Foundation, Weighted Rankings Weighted Rankings Q3 2004 Year End 2003 Reserve Life (yrs) Ordinary Operating Cash Average Well Average Revenue Netback Cos ts Cos ts Proven Productivity Weighted Com pany Nam e ($/boe) ($/boe) ($/boe) ($/boe) Producing Total Proven Es tablished (boe
Slide 13: Industry Comparison: Foundation, Operating Costs
Industry Comparison Foundation, Operating Costs Q3 2004 Operating Costs $14 $12 $10 $8 $/boe $6 $4 $2 $- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N TO _U U _U U _U U U _U U U U _U U _U _U _U T_ I_ _ F_ T_ F_ EY E_ Y_ R TE ET TF N P VN KR VE W M R FE ZA G N H A A P P A B P E B A P S P V P Operating Costs includ
Slide 14: Industry Comparison: Foundation, Proven Reserve Life
Years - 5 10 15 PE YT O ER F_ U N AE T_ UN PG F_ UN AV N _U N PW I_ UN PT F_ UN Industry Comparison VK R _U N Foundation, Proven Reserve Life AE _U N ZA R_ U N SH N_ UN FE T_ UN 2003 Year End Proven Reserve Life AY _U N BN P_ UN PM T_ UN PV E_ U N BT E_ UN 14 2/16/2005
Slide 15: Industry Comparison: Foundation, Established Reserve Life
Industry Comparison Foundation, Established Reserve Life 2003 Y ear End Established Reserve Life 20 15 Years 10 5 - N O N N N N N N UN N N N N N N UN N _U _U YT _U _U U U U U _U U _U U U U E_ F_ T_ T_ F_ I_ E_ F_ N_ P_ N PE AE AY R R T PW PM AE AV PV PG PT BT ER FE ZA VK SH BN 15 2/16/2005
Slide 16: Industry Comparison: Foundation, Well Productivity
Industry Comparison Foundation, Well Productivity 2003 Year End Well Productivity 120 “You can’t make a banquet out of someone else’s leftovers. Average Well Productivity (boe/d) This is true in oil and gas. Over the past ten years it has been 100 a sellers market. Most trusts rely on acquisitions t
Slide 17: Industry Comparison: Performance, Results
Industry Comparison Performance, Results Results Q3 2004 Annual 2003 Recycle Ratio 2003 Res erve Growth Per Unit Cos t of New 2003 Res erves ($/boe) Production Average Growth Per Proven Proven Proven Weighted Com pany Nam e Unit Producing Proven Es tablis hed Producing Proven Es tablis hed Producing
Slide 18: Industry Comparison: Performance, Weighted Rankings
Industry Comparison Performance, Weighted Rankings Weighted Rankings Q3 2004 2003 Recycle Ratio 2003 Res erve Growth Per Unit Cos t of New 2003 Res erves ($/boe) Annual Production Average Growth Per Proven Proven Proven Weighted Com pany Nam e Unit Producing Proven Es tablis hed Producing Proven Es
Slide 19: Industry Comparison: Performance, Production Growth Per Unit
Industry Comparison Performance, Production Growth Per Unit Production Growth Per Unit Q3 2004 vs Q3 2003 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% O N N N N N N N UN N N N N N N UN N _U _U YT _U _U U U U U _U U U U U U -10% E_ F_ T_ T_ T_ F_ E_ I_ F_ P_ N_ N PE AE AY R R PW PM AE AV PV PG PT BT ER ZA FE VK BN SH -20% -30
Slide 20: Industry Comparison: Performance, Proven Recycle Ratio
Industry Comparison Performance, Proven Recycle Ratio 2003 Proven Recycle Ratio 8 6 4 2 Recycle Ratio of 1, Breakeven Line or 0% Return 0 NA NA N UN N N N N UN N UN UN UN O N N UN N UN U U _U _U U U _U _U YT U R_ T_ F_ T_ I_ E_ F_ N_ T_ F_ P_ E_ AE AY PE R N PW AE PT BT ER PM FE ZA PG SH BN VK AV PV
Slide 21: Industry Comparison: Proven Reserve Growth Per Unit
Industry Comparison Performance, Proven Reserve Growth Per Unit 2003 Proven Reserve Growth Per Unit 60% 40% 20% NA NA 0% N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O _U _U _U _U U _U U U U U _U _U U U U U YT E_ I_ T_ T_ E_ F_ F_ T_ F_ N N P R R AE AY PE PW SH BN AE ZA FE AV PV PM ER PT BT PG VK -20% -40% -60%
Slide 22: Industry Comparison: Established Reserve Growth Per Unit
Industry Comparison Performance, Established Reserve Growth Per Unit 2003 Established Reserve Growth Per Unit 60% 40% 20% NA NA 0% N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O _U _U _U _U U _U U U U U _U _U U U U U YT E_ I_ T_ T_ E_ F_ F_ T_ F_ N N P R R AE AY PE PW SH BN FE AE ZA AV PV PM ER PT BT PG VK -20%
Slide 23: Industry Comparison: Sustainability, Results
Industry Comparison Sustainability, Results Results “We have one of the lowest payout ratios, longest reserve Q3 2004 2003 Year End Payout Adjus ted Res erve Q3 2004 Annual Life (yrs ) lifes and the lowest operating Operating Production Average costs. We also have a re- Dis tribution Cos ts Growth P
Slide 24: Industry Comparison: Sustainability, Weighted Rankings
Industry Comparison Sustainability, Weighted Rankings Weighted Rankings Q3 2004 2003 Year End Payout Adjus ted Q3 2004 Annual Res erve Life (yrs ) Operating Production Average Dis tribution Cos ts Growth Proven Weighted Com pany Nam e Payout Ratio ($/boe) Per Unit Producing Proven Es tablis hed Rank
Slide 25: Industry Comparison: Sustainability, Payout Ratio
Industry Comparison Sustainability, Payout Ratio “Payout ratio is calculated by dividing the total cost of the distribution by the total cash flow. To calculate the Q3 2004 Payout Ratio payout ratio correctly you need to include the exchangeable shares and DRIP plans. Exchangeable shares and convert
Slide 26: Industry Comparison: Payout Adjusted Proven Reserve Life
Industry Comparison Sustainability, Payout Adjusted Proven Reserve Life Q3 2004 Payout Adjusted Proven Reserve Life 30 “In order to use reserve life as a measure of sustainability, you need to account for the payout ratio. If the trust is paying out all of it’s cashflow to the 25 unit holders then t
Slide 27: Industry Comparison: Overall Rankings
Industry Comparison Overall Rankings, Foundation, Performance, Sustainability Weighted Rankings Com pany Nam e Foundation Perform ance Sus tainability Overall Ranking Peyto 1 1 1 1 Focus 5 5 6 5 ARC 5 5 6 6 Acclaim 6 5 6 6 Zargon 7 7 5 6 Enerplus 6 7 6 6 Shinning Bank 6 6 8 7 Petrofund 7 6 7 7 Advan
Slide 28: Industry Comparison: Valuation, Discussion
Industry Comparison Valuation, Discussion Assigning a target or valuing an energy trust is a very subjective exercise. In the following slides we attempt to demonstrate that part of the valuation process is objective and should not be ignored by any investor. In our opinion, the best place to commen
Slide 29: Industry Comparison: Valuation, Methodology
Industry Comparison Valuation, Methodology • Reserve Life Index, RLI (years) RLI Example: Peyto(Q4, 2003) Proved + Probable reserves at year end 2003 = • Calculated by dividing the year end reserves by the year end 105,071,000 (boes) average production rate (Q4 annualized) Average year end annual pr
Slide 30: Industry Comparison: Valuation, Relative Rankings
Industry Comparison Valuation, Relative Rankings Proved Developed Producing Total Proven Total Proven + Probable “The tables below show the Debt Debt Debt Adjus ted Adjus ted Adjus ted relative valuations based on Cas h flow Res erve Im plied Cas h flow Res erve Im plied Cas h flow Res erve Im plied
Slide 31: Valuation, Proved Developed Producing Scenario
Industry Comparison Valuation, Proved Developed Producing Scenario “If you are trading at a premium (below the 0% discount line) to your Proven Developed Producing RLI the market is paying for some Proved Developed Producing Valuation growth. If you are trading at a discount to your Q4 2003 RLI, Q3
Slide 32: Valuation, Total Proven Scenario
Industry Comparison Valuation, Total Proven Scenario Total Proven Valuation Q4 2003 RLI, Q3 2004 Cash Flow Multiple 20% Discount Factor 10% 0% 12 PEY 10 Reserve Life Index, RLI, (Years) AET ERF 8 PGF -10% VALUED AT FET AVN AE PTF A DISCOUNT VKR PWI -20% 6 ZAR SHN BNP APF BTE -30% 4 -40% PVE PMT VALU
Slide 33: Valuation, Total Proven + Probable Scenario
Industry Comparison Valuation, Total Proven + Probable Scenario Total Proven + Probable Valuation Q4 2003 RLI, Q3 2004 Cash Flow Multiple 20 20% Discount Line 10% 18 PEY 16 Re se rve Life Inde x, RL I, (Years) 14 0% 12 ERF AET 10 PGF AVN FET 8 VALUED AT AE VKR PTF SHN PWI -10% A DISCOUNT BNP APF BTE
Slide 34: Track Record: Quarterly Performance
Track Record Quarterly Performance 2004 2003 2002 2001 Q3 Q2 Q1 Total Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Total Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Total Q4 Q3 Operations Production Oil & NGLs (bbl/d) 3,967 3,918 3,315 2,904 3,104 2,948 2,870 2,689 1,823 2,349 2,009 1,512 1,409 785 1,222 815 Natural gas (mcf/d) 91,782 87,753 78,597 65,015 73,013
Slide 35: Track Record: Production Growth
Track Record Production Growth 25,000 “We have been operating as a company for 25 quarters now. The first four quarters were focused on drilling and completing our initial wells. Since we 20,000 began producing from these wells our production has grown from the previous quarter for 20 consecutive Pr
Slide 36: Track Record: Per Share Production, Revenue & Cashflow
Track Record Per Share, Production, Revenue & Cashflow 500 $1.50 N et R evenue & C ashflow per share D aily Production per million shares 400 $1.20 300 $0.90 (boe/d) 200 $0.60 100 $0.30 - $- 99 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 Q Q Q Q Q
Slide 37: Yearly Capital Expenditures vs. Cashflow
Track Record Yearly Capital Expenditures vs. Cashflow “When we started in 1999, we had no cashflow. Our first $200 cashflow was a direct result of our grassroots investment in 400% low risk long life gas wells. Four years later, our cashflow has finally surpassed our capital expenditures.” Cashflow
Slide 38: Revenue: Gas & NGLs
Revenue Gas & NGL’s • Gas • Price Point AECO Hub • Wellhead price per mcf is equal to 1.17 (GJ/mcf) times the AECO price per GJ. • Natural Gas Liquids • Wellhead price for Peyto’s NGL’s is $6-$10 CDN/barrel less than the WTI price in CDN dollars. • Corporate Liquid Gas Ratio 45 - 47 bbls/mmcf (sales
Slide 39: Operating Costs
Operating Costs 2002 2003 Q1-3 2004 “We are focused on building and maintaining the best oil and $/boe $/boe $/boe gas trust. In order to do so you must control your operating costs. Our operating costs are the lowest in the industry for a Field Expenses $1.45 $1.99 $1.66 number of reasons. First, w
Slide 40: Operating Costs: Quarterly Track Record
Operating Costs Quarterly Track Record Four Year Trends Baytex = + 24% per year “Our track record shows that we can $10 ARC = + 16% per year maintain and continue to build a low operating cost company. Since we Bonavista = + 23% per year first reported operating costs lower Peyto = 0 % per year than
Slide 41: Reserves: December 31, 2004 Volume Summary
Reserves December 31, 2004 Volume Summary Sales Gas NGL's & Oil BOE's Category (BCF) (Mstb) (Mstb) Proven Producing 335 15,166 70,996 Proven Non-Producing 27 1,152 5,654 Proven Undeveloped 75 2,865 15,380 Total Proven 437 19,183 92,030 Probable Additional 181 7,326 37,477 Proved + Probable 618 26,50
Slide 42: Reserves: December 31, 2004 NPV Summary
Reserves December 31, 2004 NPV Summary Variable Price Economics NPV (millions of CDN dollars) Category 0% 5% 8% 10% Proven Developed 2,278 1,346 1,091 974 Proven Undeveloped 364 187 137 113 Total Proven 2,642 1,533 1,228 1,087 Probable Additional 1,035 449 315 259 Proven + Probable 3,677 1,983 1,543
Slide 43: Reserves: Performance Ratios
Reserves Performance Ratios Performance Ratios Proved Developed Total Proved Proved + Probable Reserve life index (years) 2004 average production – 18,689 boe/d 11.2 13.5 19.0 Q4 2004 average production – 20,688 boe/d 10.2 12.2 17.2 Reserve replacement ratio 2004 3.6 4.3 4.6 Note: Other performance
Slide 44: Performance, Proven NPV Gain on 2003 Investments
Industry Comparison Performance, Proven NPV 10 Gain on 2003 Investments Proven NPV 10 Gain on 2003 Drilling & Acquistion Investments 300 “The AIF now requires companies to reconcile the annual change in the Proven NPV. When you add up all the NPV that was created by the capital program 200 (extensio
Slide 45: National Instrument 51-101 Cautionary Statements
Reserves National Instrument 51-101 Cautionary Statements The Canadian Securities Administrators have implemented new standards of disclosure for reporting issuers engaged in upstream oil and gas activities effective December 31, 2003. The new disclosure standards referred to as National Instrument
Slide 46: Reserves: Long Life vs. Short Life
Reserves Long Life vs. Short Life Long Life Production 1,600 • Typically deeper reservoirs, with large definable areas and Short Life – Water Drive no associated water. “Peyto has been 1,400 engineered around • Production profile is predictable and flattens over time. Long Life Reserves.” • Long Lif
Slide 47: Cardium Gas: Greater Edson Area Trend
Cardium Gas Greater Edson Area Trend Cardium Gas 9Low Risk Development Play 9Liquid Rich, High Heating Value Gas 9Predictable Production Profile 9Long Life Reserves 1 Cardium Gas Producers On production before 1991 z 32 wells on production before 1991 z 32 wells still producing today z No Cardium We
Slide 48: "Old" Analog Cardium Producers
“Old” Analog Cardium Producers on Production before 1991 RLI Reserve Life Based on Index based on Current Gas First first Year Rate Ultimate Rate and Produced Year Avg and Cum Gas Current Time On Exponential Remaining Ultimate Reserve Remainin On Prod Last Prod To Date Gas Rate Produced TD Rate Prod
Slide 49: General Area of Operations Map
General Area of Operations Map From the start, Peyto has focused it’s efforts exclusively in the Deep W6 W5 W4 Basin. Of the five most active companies in the Deep Basin, we Alberta are the only company that has not acquired our way in. The table below ranks the the top five companies with respect t
Slide 50: Central Deep Basin Land Map
Central Deep Basin Land Map • Over 156,000 net Cutbank Smoky/Kakwa acres (244 sections) • Average Interest Leland 80% Sundance • 98% Operated “Over the past four years Peyto’s Deep Basin land holdings have grown faster than any other producer Wild Hay operating in the area.” 50 2/16/2005
Slide 51: Gas Plant & Gathering System: Sundance
Gas Plant & Gathering System Sundance Sundance Gas Plant z 110 mmcf/d Compression, 110 mmcf/d Refrigeration z Constructed & Installed April 2000 z expanded four times over two years z 100% PEYTO Owned & Operated z Direct, Firm Access to TCPL z Joint Venture & Third Party Processing Revenue PEYTO Gas
Slide 52: Gas Plant & Gathering System: Smoky/Kakwa
Gas Plant & Gathering System Smoky/Kakwa Smoky/Kakwa Gas Plant z 25 mmcf/d Compression, 40 mmcf/d Refrigeration z Constructed & Installed February 2004 z 100% PEYTO Owned & Operated z Direct, Firm Access to TCPL z Joint Venture & Third Party Processing Revenue PEYTO Gas Plant 52 2/16/2005
Slide 53: 2003 Drilling Activity & Capital Expenditures
2003 Drilling Activity & Capital Expenditures z Drilling Activity z Gross wells, 79 z Net wells, 65 (82% Average WI) z 96% conversion (spud to tied in) z Capital Expenditures (2003) z Total $139MM z Drill & Complete $110MM z Tie ins & Facilities $23MM 53 2/16/2005
Slide 54: Outlook 2005
Outlook 2005 • Capital Expenditures ($260 - $300 million) • Drill & Re-Enter New Gas Locations • Expand Gas Gathering & Processing Capacity • Expand Undeveloped Land Base • Expand 3-D & 2-D Seismic Database • Acquire Partner Working Interests 54 2/16/2005
Slide 55: A Trustworthy Gas Company
A Trustworthy Gas Company • Long Life Predictable Natural Gas Reserves • Premium Quality Natural Gas & Liquids • Low Total Cost Structure • High Netbacks • Predictable & Repeatable Gas Business Model 55 2/16/2005
Slide 56: Notes: Table of Contents
Notes Table of Contents • Gas & Liquids Marketing • Corporate Insurance • Compensation • Distribution History • Major Share Placements • Reasons for Trust Reorganization • Financing (2004 - 1997) • Employees • Directors 56 2/16/2005
Slide 57: Gas Marketing (1)
Gas Marketing (1) Daily Volume Aeco Price ($/GJ) Peyto W ellhead Price ($/mcf) Season Period Hedged Type GJ's/d mcf/d Floor Ceiling Floor Ceiling Summer 04 April 1, 2004 to October 31, 2004 Fixed 10,000 8,547 $5.64 $5.64 $6.60 $6.60 April 1, 2004 to October 31, 2004 Costless Collar 10,000 8,547 $5.0
Slide 58: Gas Marketing (2)
Gas Marketing (2) Summer (April 1, 2004 - October 31, 2004) Winter (November 1, 2004 - March 31, 2005) $11 $11 $10 $10 Peyto Net Hedged Price ($/mcf) Peyto Net Hedged Price ($/mcf) $9 $9 $8 $8 $7 $7 $6 $6 $5 $5 $4 $4 $3 $3 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 $11 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 $11 Peyto AECO Spot Pri
Slide 59: Liquids Marketing
Liquids Marketing Daily Volume Price Period Hedged Product Type (bbls) ($CDN/bbl) February 1, 2004 to March 31, 2004 NY MEX WTI Light Crude Fixed 1,000 $43.08 A pril 1, 2004 to June 30, 2004 NY MEX WTI Light Crude Fixed 1,000 $41.28 July 1, 2004 to September 30, 2004 NY MEX WTI Light Crude Fixed 1,0
Slide 60: Corporate Insurance
Corporate Insurance • General Liability (including pollution) $10 Million • Property (gas plants, wellsites, office) $40 Million • Operator’s Extra Expense (well control) $10 Million • Directors and Officers $10 Million Note: Peyto does not carry any Business Interruption insurance to cover the loss
Slide 61: Compensation
Compensation • Base G&A estimated to be a low $0.25/boe “The principal behind our bonus is to reward performance which benefits the unitholder. We are • Market Based Bonus Criteria confident that our bonus is fully aligned to the unitholders. In very simple terms, for every • rewards employees based
Slide 62: Bonus Criteria: Reserve Based Component
Bonus Criteria Reserve Based Component • Rules • At the time of payout, a share of the bonus is allocated, based on performance, to employees and key consultants. • Each year an independent engineering firm calculates the incremental value of the trust’s proven producing reserves using the same cons
Slide 63: Bonus Criteria: Market Based Component
Bonus Criteria Market Based Component • Rules • At time of grant, a share of the bonus is allocated to employees and key consultants. • Rights vest equally over a three year period. • The size is not to exceed 7% of total units outstanding. • In December of each year all vested rights are automatica
Slide 64: Bonus Criteria: Market Based Component
Bonus Criteria Market Based Component Average Grant Number of Vesting Date Price Rights 31-Dec-05 $ 16.81 1,000,000 31-Dec-06 $ 27.11 621,300 Total Unvested Rights O/S 1,621,300 Total Units O/S 48,395,122 Total Rights as a Percentage of Units O/S 3.4% 64 2/16/2005
Slide 65: Distribution History
Distribution History Distribution Distribution Number of Month per Unit Units O/S Total Distribution Jul-03 $ 0.15 45,395,122 $ 6,809,268 Aug-03 $ 0.15 45,395,122 $ 6,809,268 Sep-03 $ 0.15 45,395,122 $ 6,809,268 Oct-03 $ 0.15 45,395,122 $ 6,809,268 Nov-03 $ 0.15 45,395,122 $ 6,809,268 Dec-03 $ 0.15
Slide 66: Major Share Placements
Major Share Placements Is s ue Shares Price Proceeds Des cription Year (000's ) ($/s hare) (000's ) Initial Capitalization, Founders and Public 1998 13,100 $ 0.16 $ 2,118 Right Offering 1999 6,550 $ 0.32 $ 2,096 Private Placem ent to Outs ide Party 1999 4,360 $ 0.55 $ 2,398 Private Placem ent to Out
Slide 67: Reasons for the Trust Reorganization
Reasons for the Trust Reorganization 9 Creates a more tax efficient capital structure. 9 Maintains our unique entrepreneurial environment. 9 Allows for the continued growth of our capital investments without compromising the quality. 9 Gives all shareholders the ability to allocate the distributed c
Slide 68: Financing (2004)
Financing (2004) • 2004 • $230,000,000 Revolving Line of Credit from Bank • 2003 year end review, increased to $230,000,000 Revolving Line of Credit with the Bank of Montreal, CIBC, National Bank of Canada and the Union Bank of California • $300,000,000 Revolving Line of Credit from Bank • 2004 mid
Slide 69: Financing (2003)
Financing (2003) • 2003 • $180,000,000 Revolving Line of Credit from Bank • Increased to $180,000,000 Revolving Line of Credit with the Bank of Montreal, CIBC, National Bank of Canada and the Union Bank of California • $29,813,189 Private Placement Share Issue (1,939,700 shares $15.37/share) • Priva
Slide 70: Financing (2001-2002)
Financing (2001-2002) • 2001 • $50,000,000 Revolving Line of Credit from Bank • Moved from $25,000,000 Revolving Line of Credit with the National Bank of Canada to a $50,000,000 Revolving Line of Credit with the Royal Bank of Canada. • $60,000,000 Revolving Line of Credit from Bank • Increased from
Slide 71: Financing (2000)
Financing (2000) • 2000 • $2,700,000 Convertible Debenture issued to Paramount Resources Ltd. • Bears interest at 3% per annum; Convertible at $0.60/share over five year term. Redeemable after July 1, 2000 if trading price above $0.84/share. Issued January 2000 • $7,958,000 Takeover of Largo Resourc
Slide 72: Financing (1999)
Financing (1999) • 1999 • $267,000 Private Placement • Issued 1,485,000 shares at $0.18/share, January 1999 • $2,073,037 Shareholder Rights Offering • Issued 6,554,335 shares, November 1999 • $2,500,000 P&NG Purchase from Paramount Resources Ltd. • Originally Farmed in on two suspended Paramount wel
Slide 73: Financing (1997-98)
Financing (1997-98) • 1997 (before Peyto Management) • $250,000 Private Placement to JCP Founders • Issued 2,500,000 shares at $0.10/share March 1997 • $250,000 JCP IPO • Issued 1,250,000 shares at $0.20/share December 1997 • 1998 October 23, 1998 Peyto Starts at $0.08/share • $254,000 Private Place
Slide 74: Employees
Employees Don T. Gray, President & CEO, Director Founder of PEYTO, Professional Engineer up to December 31, 2002, 15 years of oil & gas reservoir, evaluation & exploitation engineering experience, B.Sc. Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University Roberto Bosdachin, Vice President, Exploration (P.Geo
Slide 75: Directors
Directors Don T. Gray, Co-founder, CEO & President,since 1998 “We have four independent Board members, one Board member who is a consulting Landman to Peyto and one Board member that is part of the Rick Braund, Co-founder, Landman, since 1998 management team. Our Chairman of the board is an independ
Peyto Exploration & Development — Investor Presentation (February 2005) on 6ix