Peyto Exploration & Development Corp. · TSX:PEY
Peyto Exploration & Development — Investor Presentation (December 2005)
74 slides from Peyto Exploration & Development's investor presentation, Dec 19, 2005
Slide 1: December 19, 2005
December 19, 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 102 million •NO CONVERTI
Slide 3: Business Strategy (1)
Business Strategy (1) Maximize our return on every dollar invested 9Avoid unnecessary risk 9Invest in predictable and repeatable projects 9Invest in projects which have a long economic life 9Target a high degree of ownership and control 9Create and maintain a low cost structure 3 12/19/2005
Slide 4: Business Strategy (2)
Business Strategy (2) Maximize our return on every dollar invested 9Avoid unnecessary risk LO P 9Invest in predictable and E V E repeatable projects & D N D W Ohave a&long economic life FIN Owhich 9Invest in projects U R E S ER V ON 9Target a high degreeE S T I R DU Cof ownership and control PRO 9Cr
Slide 5: A Solid Five Year History (1)
Finding & Developing Our Own Production A Solid Five Year History (1) Yearly Production Profiles 12,000 “Since we founded 2000 Net - $44MM Peyto in 1998, we have been a 2001 Net - $80MM 10,000 consistent leader in 2002 Net - $112MM the Canadian energy sector in profitability, 2003 Net - $139MM growt
Slide 6: A Solid Five Year History (2)
Finding & Developing Our Own Production A Solid Five Year History (2) Sundance Plant 5 yr Turnaround 00 2000 2001 2002 2003 ,0 25 1st Year Decline -26% -30% -32% -40% 2nd Year Decline -17% -18% -14% 3rd Year Decline -17% -12% 4th Year Decline -8% 00 2005 Drills ,0 20 Net Sales (boed) Trend Line 51%
Slide 7: Total Return
Total Return 250% 25000% “Peyto’s business strategy has lead to significant profitable growth and an 200% 20000% outstanding total return for its unitholders. When we started in October 1998 we had no track record, making Annual Return 150% 15000% Total Return the investment quite speculative. We ha
Slide 8: Characteristics of the Trust
Characteristics of the Trust • Low Payout Ratio • A range between 30-70% of funds from operations. In normal commodity price environments the target is 50%. • Distributions will be primarily interest & royalty income (55% Taxable in 2004) • Long Reserve Life • 17.2 years proven plus probable, 10.2 y
Slide 9: The Team
The Team • Don Gray President & CEO, Director “Our unique strategy allows us to have • Jennifer Sharp Administrative Assistant a much smaller team than the • Darren Gee Engineering, Vice President traditional E&P or Trust Co. The smaller • Neil Korchinski Engineering team helps ensure that we do not
Slide 10: 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 11: 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 12: Quarterly Distribution History
Quarterly Distribution History Percent Change Since Trust Conversion Production Per Distribution Unit Funds from Rate Production (boe/d/million Distribution Operations Production Payout Quarter ($/unit/month) (boe/d) units) Payout Ratio Rate $/unit per unit per unit Ratio Q3 03 $ 0.08 14,086 155 57%
Slide 13: Annualized Monthly Distribution / Unit Price (%)
Annualized Monthly Distribution / Unit Price (%) 7/ 2/ 20 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 8/ 0 3 2/ 20 9/ 0 3 2/ 2 10 00 /2 3 /2 11 0 03 /2 /2 12 0 03 /2 /2 0 1/ 03 2/ 20 2/ 0 4 2/ 20 3/ 0 4 2/ 20 4/ 0 4 2/ 20 5/ 0 4 2/ 20 6/ 0 4 2/ 20 7/ 0 4 2/ Distribution vs. Unit Price 20 8/ 0 4 2/ 20 9/ 0 4 2/ 2 10
Slide 14: Industry Comparison: Foundation, Results
Industry Comparison Foundation, Results Results Q3 2005 Year End 2004 Reserve Life (yrs) Revenue, before Operating Basic Cash Average Well Average hedging Netback Costs Costs Proven Proven + Productivity Weighted Company Name ($/boe) ($/boe) ($/boe) ($/boe) Producing Total Proven Probable (boe/d) Ra
Slide 15: Industry Comparison: Foundation, Weighted Ranking
Industry Comparison Foundation, Weighted Ranking Weighted Ranking Q3 2005 Year End 2004 Reserve Life (yrs) Revenue, Ordinary before Operating Cash Average Well Average hedgiing Netback Costs Costs Proven Proven + Productivity Weighted Company Name ($/boe) ($/boe) ($/boe) ($/boe) Producing Total Prov
Slide 16: Industry Comparison: Foundation, Operating Costs
Industry Comparison Foundation, Operating Costs Q3 2005 Operating Costs $12 $9 $/boe $6 $3 $- ER N N AV UN PM N VE N PG N VK N PW N SH N BN N PG N BT N AE N ZA N CP N PT N N PW N HT N FE O U U U U U U U U U _U U U _U _U U _U U U YT X_ T_ F_ R_ E_ N_ T_ P_ F_ T_ T_ I_ E_ T_ F_ G N R AE PE Operating C
Slide 17: Industry Comparison: Proven Producing Reserve Life
Years - 2 4 6 8 10 PE YT ER O F_ U AE N T_ U PT N F_ U VE N T_ U PG N F_ U PW N T_ U VK N R _U Industry Comparison PW N I_ U FE N T_ U AV N N _U BN N P_ U ZA N R_ U Foundation, Proven Producing Reserve Life PG N X_ U SH N N_ 2004 Year End Proven Producing Reserve Life UN CP G _U HT N E_ U N AE _U PM
Slide 18: Industry Comparison: Proven + Probable Reserve Life
Years - 5 10 15 20 PE YT ER O F_ U AE N T_ U FE N T_ U AV N N _U PT N F_ U VE N T_ U PG N F_ U Industry Comparison PW N I_ U PW N T_ U BT N E_ U VK N R _U SH N N_ U Foundation, Proven + Probable Reserve Life BN N P_ U ZA N R_ U 2004 Year End Proven + Probable Reserve Life CP N G _U PG N X_ U HT N E_
Slide 19: Industry Comparison: Performance, Results
Industry Comparison Performance, Results Results Cost of New 2004 Reserves ($/boe) 2004 Recycle Ratio 2004 Reserve Growth Per Unit before future development costs Average Proven Proven + Proven Proven + Proven Proven + Weighted Company Name Producing Proven Probable Producing Proven Probable Produci
Slide 20: Industry Comparison: Performance, Weighted Ranking
Industry Comparison Performance, Weighted Ranking Weighted Ranking Cost of New 2004 Reserves ($/boe) 2004 Recycle Ratio 2004 Reserve Growth Per Unit before future development costs Average Proven Proven + Proven Proven + Proven Proven + Weighted Company Name Producing Proven Probable Producing Prove
Slide 21: Industry Comparison: Proven Producing Recycle Ratio
- 1 2 3 4 PE YT O VE T_ U N BN P _U N FE T_ U N AE T_ U PW N T_ U N PG F_ U N ER F_ U N ZA R Industry Comparison _U N SH N _U PG N X _U N H TE _U N PW I_ U N PT F_ U N Performance, Proven Producing Recycle Ratio C 2004 Proven Producing Recycle Ratio PG _U N AV N _U N AE _U PM N T_ U N BT E_ U N VK R
Slide 22: Industry Comparison: Proven Reserve Growth Per Unit
Industry Comparison Performance, Proven Reserve Growth Per Unit 2004 Proven Reserve Growth Per Unit 30% 20% 10% 0% NA PM N N ER N N N N N N N N N N N N N N PW N N N O _U _U _U U _U _U U U _U _U _U U U U U U _U U U YT I_ T_ F_ T_ E_ T_ T_ F_ T_ F_ N N P TE R X R PG AE PW PE BN SH PG PG FE VE AV ZA AE
Slide 23: Industry Comparison: Proven + Probable Reserve Growth
Industry Comparison Performance, Proven + Probable Reserve Growth Per Unit 2004 Proved + Probable Reserve Growth Per Unit 30% 20% 10% NA 0% AV N SH N ZA N UN UN UN PM N PG N BT N PW N UN PT N UN ER N VE N UN PG N PW N VK N HT O U U U U U U _U _U _U _U U U U YT X_ T_ F_ E_ R_ P_ T_ N_ F_ T_ E_ T_ I_
Slide 24: Industry Comparison: Sustainability, Results
Industry Comparison Sustainability, Results Results 2004 Annual Q3 2005 Proven Payout Adjusted Reserve Life (yrs) Q3 2005 Operating Reserve Reserve Average Distribution Costs Growth Per Proven Proven + Replacement Weighted Company Name Payout Ratio ($/boe) Unit Producing Proven Probable Cycle Rankin
Slide 25: Industry Comparison: Sustainability, Weighted Ranking
Industry Comparison Sustainability, Weighted Ranking Weighted Ranking 2004 Annual Q3 2005 Proven Payout Adjusted Reserve Life (yrs) Q3 2005 Operating Reserve Reserve Average Distribution Costs Growth Per Proven Proven + Replacement Weighted Company Name Payout Ratio ($/boe) Unit Producing Proven Pro
Slide 26: Industry Comparison: Sustainability, Payout Ratio
Industry Comparison Sustainability, Payout Ratio Q3 2005 Payout Ratio 100% 75% 50% “Payout Ratio is calculated by taking the total value of the distribution including exchangeable shares and DRIP shares and then dividing it by the total amount of cash generated from operations after royalties, produ
Slide 27: Sustainability, Reserve Replacement Cycle (1)
Industry Comparison Sustainability, Reserve Replacement Cycle (1) Peyto Q3 2005 Example Funds From Operations ($/boe) $ 37.04 Distribution at 51% ($/boe) $ (17.04) Cash Available After Distribution ($/boe) $ 20.00 2004 PDP FDA ($/boe) $ (9.59) Cash Available After Distribution & Cost to Replace PDP
Slide 28: Sustainability, Reserve Replacement Cycle (2)
Industry Comparison Sustainability, Reserve Replacement Cycle (2) Q3 2005 Cash Available for Growth After Distributions & Cost to Replace Proven Producing Reserves ($/boe) $15 $10 $5 $- PW N N O PM N N VK N N N N N N BN N N N N N PG N N N UN _U U U YT _U _U U U U U U U _U U _U U U _U U T_ T_ F_ T_ I
Slide 29: Sustainability, Payout Adjusted Proven Producing Reserve Life
Industry Comparison Sustainability, Payout Adjusted Proven Producing Reserve Life Q3 2005 Payout Adjusted Proven Producing Reserve Life 25 “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 funds from operati
Slide 30: Overall Ranking, Foundation, Performance, Sustainability
Industry Comparison Overall Ranking, Foundation, Performance, Sustainability Weighted Ranking Company Name Foundation Performance Sustainability Overall Ranking Peyto 1 1 1 1 Vermillion 5 4 2 4 Bonavista 7 3 4 5 Focus 5 4 5 5 Penn West 6 7 2 5 ARC 5 6 4 5 Harvest 7 5 3 5 Enerplus 6 5 6 5 Zargon 7 6
Slide 31: Track Record: Quarterly Performance
Track Record Quarterly Performance 2005 2004 2003 Q3 Q2 Q1 Total Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Total Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Total Q4 Operations Production Oil & NGLs (bbl/d) 4,569 4,653 4,337 3,882 4,360 3,967 3,918 3,315 2,904 3,104 2,948 2,870 2,689 1,823 2,349 Natural gas (mcf/d) 108,460 106,866 103,043 88,842 97,968 91,782
Slide 32: Track Record: Production Growth
Track Record Production Growth 25,000 “Our production growth has been steady since we started producing from our Sundance gas plant in Q2 2000. All of this growth has come from taking the ideas the team generates and developing those ideas with the drill bit. Very similar to manufacturing a finished
Slide 33: Per Unit, Production, Revenue & Funds from operations
Track Record Per Unit, Production, Revenue & Funds from operations 250 $1.00 Net Revenue & Funds from Operations per uni Daily Production per million units (boe/d) 200 $0.80 150 $0.60 100 $0.40 50 $0.20 - $- 99 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 05 05 05 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1
Slide 34: Yearly Capital Expenditures vs. Funds from Operations
Track Record Yearly Capital Expenditures vs. Funds from Operations $400 400% CAPEX / Funds from Operations (%) Funds from Operations & CAPEX $300 300% (Millions of Dollars) $200 200% $100 100% $- 0% 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 E Year Funds from Operations CAPEX CAPEX / Funds from Operations 3
Slide 35: Revenue: Gas & NGL's
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 36: Operating Costs
Operating Costs “We are focused on building 2002 2003 2004 and maintaining the best oil and gas trust. In order to do so you $/boe $/boe $/boe must control your operating costs. Our operating costs are the lowest in the industry for a Field Expenses $1.45 $1.99 $1.78 number of reasons. First, we pro
Slide 37: Operating Costs: Track Record
Operating Costs Track Record “Our track record shows that we can $10 maintain and continue to build a low Fourth Quarter Operating Costs ($/boee) operating cost company. Since we first reported operating costs lower $8 than $2.00/boe, we have increased our production over seven fold and managed to k
Slide 38: 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 39: 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 40: Reserves: Performance Ratios
Reserves Performance Ratios Proved Total Proved + Performance Ratios Developed Proved Probable Reserve life index (years) 2004 average production – 18,689 boe/d 11.2 13.5 19.0 Q4 2004 average production – 20,668 boe/d 10.2 12.2 17.2 Finding, development and acquisition costs before future developmen
Slide 41: 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 42: 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 43: Cardium Gas
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 44: "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 2005 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
Slide 45: 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 are the only company that has not Alberta acquired our way in. The table below ranks the the top five companies with respect t
Slide 46: Central Deep Basin Land Map
Central Deep Basin Land Map • Over 184,000 net Cutbank acres (289 net Smoky/Kakwa sections) • 98% of Developed Leland Land is Operated Sundance “Over the past four years Peyto’s Deep Basin land holdings have grown faster than any other producer Wild Hay operating in the area.” 46 12/19/2005
Slide 47: Is every acre of land the same?
Industry Comparison Is every acre of land the same? 2004 Year End Proven Reserves per Developed Acre 2,000 “In oil and gas mineral rights are acquired, otherwise known as land, in order to produce the reserves. Is land something Proven Reserves per Developed Acre (boe/acre) you can compare from one
Slide 48: 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 49: Gas Plant & Gathering System: Smoky/Kakwa
Gas Plant & Gathering System Smoky/Kakwa Smoky/Kakwa Gas Plant z 35 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 49 12/19/2005
Slide 50: 2004 Drilling Activity & Capital Expenditures
2004 Drilling Activity & Capital Expenditures z Drilling Activity z Gross wells, 110 z Net wells, 82 z 99% conversion (spud to tied in) z Capital Expenditures (2004) z Total $231MM z Drill & Complete $168MM z Tie ins & Facilities $50MM 50 12/19/2005
Slide 51: Outlook 2005
Outlook 2005 • Capital Expenditures ($320 - $360 million) • Drill & Re-Enter New Gas Locations • Expand Gas Gathering & Processing Capacity • Expand Undeveloped Land Base • Expand 3-D & 2-D Seismic Database • Acquire Partner Working Interests 51 12/19/2005
Slide 52: A Trust Worthy Gas Company
A Trust Worthy Gas Company • Long Life Predictable Natural Gas Reserves • Premium Quality Natural Gas & Liquids • Low Total Cost Structure • High Netbacks • Predictable & Repeatable Gas Business Model 52 12/19/2005
Slide 53: Notes: Table of Contents
Notes Table of Contents • Gas & Liquids Marketing • Corporate Insurance • Compensation • Distribution History • Major Share Placements • Reasons for Trust Reorganization • Financing (2004 - 1997) • Employees • Directors 53 12/19/2005
Slide 54: Product Marketing: Philosophy
Product Marketing Philosophy Peyto’s marketing strategy is designed to smooth out short term fluctuations in the price of both natural gas and natural gas liquids through future sales. It is meant to be methodical and consistent and to avoid speculation. This forward price averaging gives stability
Slide 55: Product Marketing: Gas
Product Marketing Gas Look Forward Average Average Energy Volume Volume Price Price Volume Price Year Season Month (GJ/d) (E3m3/d) (MMscfd) ($/GJ) ($/mcf) (MMscfd) ($/mcf) Apr 70,000 1,686 60 $ 6.79 $ 7.94 50 $ 9.29 May 70,000 1,686 60 $ 6.79 $ 7.94 49 $ 9.36 Jun 70,000 1,686 60 $ 6.79 $ 7.94 49 $ 9
Slide 56: Product Marketing: Liquids
Product Marketing Liquids Oil Hedges Hedge Price Year Month Volume (bbl/d) Volume (m3/d) ($CDN/bbl) A 1,400 223 53.28 M 1,400 223 53.28 J 1,400 223 53.28 J 1,300 207 56.50 2005 A 1,300 207 56.50 S 1,300 207 56.50 O 1,350 215 55.46 N 1,350 215 55.46 D 1,350 215 55.46 J 1,300 207 58.56 F 1,300 207 58.
Slide 57: 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 58: Compensation
Compensation • Base G&A estimated to be a low $0.25/boe “The principle 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 59: 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 60: 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 61: Bonus Criteria: Market Based Component (1)
Bonus Criteria Market Based Component (1) Average Grant Number of Vesting Date Price Rights 31-Dec-05 $ 12.36 2,153,667 31-Dec-06 $ 17.16 1,345,267 31-Dec-07 $ 24.27 1,216,266 Total Unvested Rights O/S $ 16.36 4,715,200 Total Units O/S 101,993,139 Total Rights as a Percentage of Units O/S 4.6% Histo
Slide 62: Bonus Criteria: Market Based Component (2)
Bonus Criteria Market Based Component (2) “Before we converted to a trust the market based bonus maximum was set at 10%. As a trust the maximum level $20 10.0% was set by the board at 7%. Since conversion to a trust, the Converted to percentage of the market performance that the market a Trust based
Slide 63: Distribution History
Distribution History Distribution Distribution Number of Month per Unit Units O/S Total Distribution Jul-03 $ 0.075 90,790,244 $ 6,809,268 Aug-03 $ 0.075 90,790,244 $ 6,809,268 Sep-03 $ 0.075 90,790,244 $ 6,809,268 Oct-03 $ 0.075 90,790,244 $ 6,809,268 Nov-03 $ 0.075 90,790,244 $ 6,809,268 Dec-03 $
Slide 64: Major Share Placements
Major Share Placements Issue Shares Price Description Year (000's) ($/share) Initial Capitalization, Founders and Public 1998 26,200 $ 0.08 Rights Offering 1999 13,100 $ 0.16 Private Placement to Outside Party 1999 8,720 $ 0.28 Private Placement to Outside Party 1999 1,000 $ 0.43 Private Placement t
Slide 65: Reasons for the 2003 Trust Reorganization
Reasons for the 2003 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 distribu
Slide 66: Financing (2005)
Financing (2005) • 2005 • $4,500,125 Private Placement Share Issue (87,500 shares $51.43/share) • Private placement of Trust Units to employees and consultants. Shares were priced based on the ten day weighted average prior to the reserve report. The total proceeds from the private placement represe
Slide 67: 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 68: 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 69: 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 70: 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 71: 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 72: 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 73: Officers
Officers Don T. Gray, President & CEO, Director Founder of PEYTO, Professional Engineer up to December 31, 2002, 17 years of oil & gas reservoir, evaluation & exploitation engineering experience, B.Sc. Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University Darren Gee, Vice President, Exploitation (P.Eng.) Prof
Slide 74: 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 (December 2005) on 6ix