> Ok, I'm presuming the dividend in mid-April will come in at.... drum
> roll please, $1.45/share, eyeball estimate.

> I suspect a public dataset exists of inflation-adjusted crude prices/
> day, and the dividend is known for each subsequent end-of-period.
> Double-checking for shifts in the ratios that can be explained by
> volume changes, we can get in the neighborhood.

> My point is one should be able to (albeit crudely) predict this
> upcoming dividend ...

> I Googled for daily crude oil prices for over an hour and came up
> short, anyone have a clue where that data is handy to the public?

> Ok, I'm presuming the dividend in mid-April will come in at.... drum
> roll please, $1.45/share, eyeball estimate.

> My point is one should be able to (albeit crudely) predict this
> upcoming dividend ...

> The dividend is more than crudely predictable (and I appreciate the
> pun) based on historical WTI price, chargeable costs and taxes. There
> is a retired guy on another msg board that does it pretty regularly.

> I haven't done all the math, but I think $1.45 is going to be pretty
> generous. WTI has been in the $35-45 range for most of the quarter.

> On Mar 19, 2:46 pm, marcelwe...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Ok, I'm presuming the dividend in mid-April will come in at.... drum
> > roll please, $1.45/share, eyeball estimate.

> > My point is one should be able to (albeit crudely) predict this
> > upcoming dividend ...- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> For WTI prices:

> http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rwtcM.htm

> $40.84 average for just Jan and Feb.

> On Mar 20, 3:00 pm, steve.isak...@gmail.com wrote:

> > The dividend is more than crudely predictable (and I appreciate the
> > pun) based on historical WTI price, chargeable costs and taxes. There
> > is a retired guy on another msg board that does it pretty regularly.

> > I haven't done all the math, but I think $1.45 is going to be pretty
> > generous. WTI has been in the $35-45 range for most of the quarter.

> > On Mar 19, 2:46 pm, marcelwe...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > Ok, I'm presuming the dividend in mid-April will come in at.... drum
> > > roll please, $1.45/share, eyeball estimate.

> > > My point is one should be able to (albeit crudely) predict this
> > > upcoming dividend ...- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> Alright, using only the historic prices per month, kindly pointed out
> by Frank, I calculated a simple ratio of dividend for the three
> proceeding months of the dividend, over the average oil price for the
> same quarter.

> Just eyeballing the data, there is a downward trend over time in that
> ratio, so a slightly more sophisticated use of this limited data would
> be to estimate the 1Q 2009 ratio, biased to reflect the downward trend
> over time. But due to a recent crash, I don't have my statistical
> tools installed here, so we will just use the simple average, keeping
> in mind that our estimated ratio based on the historical average, will
> tend to be high.

> Applying the averaged ratios from 2008, to the first two months of
> 2009 ($40.4 average oil price), as if that price held constant into
> March, the ratio predicts a dividend of $1.0588 dividend in April
> 2009. 2008 data is probably the best crude estimate of the current
> ratio, since it uses data that is most proximate in time.

> If we go further back in the data and apply the ratios from the eight
> dividends of 2007 and 2008, we get a higher, $1.172 predicted dividend
> for 1Q 2009.

> Adding 2006 ratios into the estimate, predicts an even higher $1.216
> 1Q 2009 dividend.

> Either costs have increased, volumes have decreased, or the stock has
> been diluted, because for the past couple of years the ratios of
> dividend to oil prices has declined. I am sure someone knows better
> which, or if it is due to something else.

> Of course, we know prices have edged up over $50 during March, so our
> estimated pricing data is to some extent too low for actual 1Q 2009,
> and that will nudge this prediction toward the too low side. I am
> going to calculate this at the known, actual, and a predicted average
> for the quarter. If we assume a March 2009 average price of $46 (my
> guess, based on nothing in particular), we get, a first quarter 2009
> average of 42.267, and based on that, we derive:
> Using 2006-2008 data: $1.272
> Using 2007-8 data: $1.226
> Using 2008 only data: $1.108

> So I guess Steve is right, my first very crude guess was way high.

> Based on these calculations, I would make a new, slightly less crude
> guess of:
> Something just short of $1.11/share dividend
> based solely on this very limited model, and a guess about the final,
> actual average price of a barrel of oil in March of 2009.

> After all, the Internet is all about stating something categorically,
> and regretting it, forever...

> On Mar 21, 9:52 am, frank1...@gmail.com wrote:

> > For WTI prices:

> >http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rwtcM.htm

> > $40.84 average for just Jan and Feb.

> > On Mar 20, 3:00 pm, steve.isak...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > The dividend is more than crudely predictable (and I appreciate the
> > > pun) based on historical WTI price, chargeable costs and taxes. There
> > > is a retired guy on another msg board that does it pretty regularly.

> > > I haven't done all the math, but I think $1.45 is going to be pretty
> > > generous. WTI has been in the $35-45 range for most of the quarter.

> > > On Mar 19, 2:46 pm, marcelwe...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > Ok, I'm presuming the dividend in mid-April will come in at.... drum
> > > > roll please, $1.45/share, eyeball estimate.

> > > > My point is one should be able to (albeit crudely) predict this
> > > > upcoming dividend ...- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> The tax and spend Alaskan Republicans raised taxes in 2006 and 2007
> from 15% earlier to 22.5%, then to 25% and a windfall profit tax was
> added that can take away up to 50% of the cash available for
> distribution. From the sec.gov website BPT 10-K filing:

> " (b)   The tax rate for the “progressivity” portion of the tax
> equals:

> 2006 Tax   2007 Tax

> (i) zero, if the simple average of the daily taxable values per barrel
> under (a) above for a calendar month is not greater than $40 per
> barrel; or    (i) zero, if the simple average of the daily taxable
> values per barrel under (a) above for a calendar month is not greater
> than $30 per barrel;

> (ii) 0.25% times the amount by which the simple average for each
> calendar month of the daily production tax values per barrel of oil
> under (a) above, exceeds $40 per barrel.    (ii) 0.4% times the amount
> by which the simple average of the taxable values per barrel under (a)
> above for a calendar month exceeds $30 per barrel if that average is
> not greater than $92.50 per barrel; or

>      (iii) the sum of 25% plus 0.1% times the amount by which the
> simple average of the taxable values per barrel under (a) above for a
> calendar month exceeds $92.50, except that such sum may not exceed
> 50%.

>   (c)   The amount of Production Tax chargeable against the Royalty
> Interest equals the taxable value per barrel under (a) above times the
> Royalty Production under the Conveyance, times a rate equal to the sum
> of the “progressivity” rate determined under (b) above plus the
> following percentage:

> 2006 Tax   2007 Tax

> 22.5%    25%

> " Retroactivity of Tax
>      Although both the 2006 Tax and the 2007 Tax are retroactive (to
> April 1, 2006, in the case of the 2006 Tax; to July 1, 2007, in the
> case of the 2007 Tax), in the Consensus Principles the parties agreed
> that the 2006 Tax and 2007 Tax would not be applied retroactively to
> payments by BP Alaska with respect to the Royalty Interest. Production
> Taxes charged against the Royalty Interest were the amount of Old Tax
> as calculated under the Conveyance for oil production during the
> period from April 1 to August 19, 2006, inclusive. For oil produced on
> August 20, 2006 through December 19, 2007, the Production Taxes
> charged against the Royalty Interest were the amount of 2006 Tax,
> determined as described above, for that production, and for oil
> produced on December 20, 2007 and thereafter the Production Taxes
> charged against the Royalty Interest are the amount of 2007 Tax,
> determined as described above. "

> On Mar 24, 10:34 pm, marcelwe...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Alright, using only the historic prices per month, kindly pointed out
> > by Frank, I calculated a simple ratio of dividend for the three
> > proceeding months of the dividend, over the average oil price for the
> > same quarter.

> > Just eyeballing the data, there is a downward trend over time in that
> > ratio, so a slightly more sophisticated use of this limited data would
> > be to estimate the 1Q 2009 ratio, biased to reflect the downward trend
> > over time. But due to a recent crash, I don't have my statistical
> > tools installed here, so we will just use the simple average, keeping
> > in mind that our estimated ratio based on the historical average, will
> > tend to be high.

> > Applying the averaged ratios from 2008, to the first two months of
> > 2009 ($40.4 average oil price), as if that price held constant into
> > March, the ratio predicts a dividend of $1.0588 dividend in April
> > 2009. 2008 data is probably the best crude estimate of the current
> > ratio, since it uses data that is most proximate in time.

> > If we go further back in the data and apply the ratios from the eight
> > dividends of 2007 and 2008, we get a higher, $1.172 predicted dividend
> > for 1Q 2009.

> > Adding 2006 ratios into the estimate, predicts an even higher $1.216
> > 1Q 2009 dividend.

> > Either costs have increased, volumes have decreased, or the stock has
> > been diluted, because for the past couple of years the ratios of
> > dividend to oil prices has declined. I am sure someone knows better
> > which, or if it is due to something else.

> > Of course, we know prices have edged up over $50 during March, so our
> > estimated pricing data is to some extent too low for actual 1Q 2009,
> > and that will nudge this prediction toward the too low side. I am
> > going to calculate this at the known, actual, and a predicted average
> > for the quarter. If we assume a March 2009 average price of $46 (my
> > guess, based on nothing in particular), we get, a first quarter 2009
> > average of 42.267, and based on that, we derive:
> > Using 2006-2008 data: $1.272
> > Using 2007-8 data: $1.226
> > Using 2008 only data: $1.108

> > So I guess Steve is right, my first very crude guess was way high.

> > Based on these calculations, I would make a new, slightly less crude
> > guess of:
> > Something just short of $1.11/share dividend
> > based solely on this very limited model, and a guess about the final,
> > actual average price of a barrel of oil in March of 2009.

> > After all, the Internet is all about stating something categorically,
> > and regretting it, forever...

> > On Mar 21, 9:52 am, frank1...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > For WTI prices:

> > >http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rwtcM.htm

> > > $40.84 average for just Jan and Feb.

> > > On Mar 20, 3:00 pm, steve.isak...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > The dividend is more than crudely predictable (and I appreciate the
> > > > pun) based on historical WTI price, chargeable costs and taxes. There
> > > > is a retired guy on another msg board that does it pretty regularly.

> > > > I haven't done all the math, but I think $1.45 is going to be pretty
> > > > generous. WTI has been in the $35-45 range for most of the quarter.

> > > > On Mar 19, 2:46 pm, marcelwe...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > > Ok, I'm presuming the dividend in mid-April will come in at.... drum
> > > > > roll please, $1.45/share, eyeball estimate.

> > > > > My point is one should be able to (albeit crudely) predict this
> > > > > upcoming dividend ...- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> Et tu, Sarah Palin?

> On Mar 25, 6:11 am, frank1...@gmail.com wrote:

> > The tax and spend Alaskan Republicans raised taxes in 2006 and 2007
> > from 15% earlier to 22.5%, then to 25% and a windfall profit tax was
> > added that can take away up to 50% of the cash available for
> > distribution. From the sec.gov website BPT 10-K filing:

> > " (b)   The tax rate for the “progressivity” portion of the tax
> > equals:

> > 2006 Tax   2007 Tax

> > (i) zero, if the simple average of the daily taxable values per barrel
> > under (a) above for a calendar month is not greater than $40 per
> > barrel; or    (i) zero, if the simple average of the daily taxable
> > values per barrel under (a) above for a calendar month is not greater
> > than $30 per barrel;

> > (ii) 0.25% times the amount by which the simple average for each
> > calendar month of the daily production tax values per barrel of oil
> > under (a) above, exceeds $40 per barrel.    (ii) 0.4% times the amount
> > by which the simple average of the taxable values per barrel under (a)
> > above for a calendar month exceeds $30 per barrel if that average is
> > not greater than $92.50 per barrel; or

> >      (iii) the sum of 25% plus 0.1% times the amount by which the
> > simple average of the taxable values per barrel under (a) above for a
> > calendar month exceeds $92.50, except that such sum may not exceed
> > 50%.

> >   (c)   The amount of Production Tax chargeable against the Royalty
> > Interest equals the taxable value per barrel under (a) above times the
> > Royalty Production under the Conveyance, times a rate equal to the sum
> > of the “progressivity” rate determined under (b) above plus the
> > following percentage:

> > 2006 Tax   2007 Tax

> > 22.5%    25%

> > " Retroactivity of Tax
> >      Although both the 2006 Tax and the 2007 Tax are retroactive (to
> > April 1, 2006, in the case of the 2006 Tax; to July 1, 2007, in the
> > case of the 2007 Tax), in the Consensus Principles the parties agreed
> > that the 2006 Tax and 2007 Tax would not be applied retroactively to
> > payments by BP Alaska with respect to the Royalty Interest. Production
> > Taxes charged against the Royalty Interest were the amount of Old Tax
> > as calculated under the Conveyance for oil production during the
> > period from April 1 to August 19, 2006, inclusive. For oil produced on
> > August 20, 2006 through December 19, 2007, the Production Taxes
> > charged against the Royalty Interest were the amount of 2006 Tax,
> > determined as described above, for that production, and for oil
> > produced on December 20, 2007 and thereafter the Production Taxes
> > charged against the Royalty Interest are the amount of 2007 Tax,
> > determined as described above. "

> > On Mar 24, 10:34 pm, marcelwe...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > Alright, using only the historic prices per month, kindly pointed out
> > > by Frank, I calculated a simple ratio of dividend for the three
> > > proceeding months of the dividend, over the average oil price for the
> > > same quarter.

> > > Just eyeballing the data, there is a downward trend over time in that
> > > ratio, so a slightly more sophisticated use of this limited data would
> > > be to estimate the 1Q 2009 ratio, biased to reflect the downward trend
> > > over time. But due to a recent crash, I don't have my statistical
> > > tools installed here, so we will just use the simple average, keeping
> > > in mind that our estimated ratio based on the historical average, will
> > > tend to be high.

> > > Applying the averaged ratios from 2008, to the first two months of
> > > 2009 ($40.4 average oil price), as if that price held constant into
> > > March, the ratio predicts a dividend of $1.0588 dividend in April
> > > 2009. 2008 data is probably the best crude estimate of the current
> > > ratio, since it uses data that is most proximate in time.

> > > If we go further back in the data and apply the ratios from the eight
> > > dividends of 2007 and 2008, we get a higher, $1.172 predicted dividend
> > > for 1Q 2009.

> > > Adding 2006 ratios into the estimate, predicts an even higher $1.216
> > > 1Q 2009 dividend.

> > > Either costs have increased, volumes have decreased, or the stock has
> > > been diluted, because for the past couple of years the ratios of
> > > dividend to oil prices has declined. I am sure someone knows better
> > > which, or if it is due to something else.

> > > Of course, we know prices have edged up over $50 during March, so our
> > > estimated pricing data is to some extent too low for actual 1Q 2009,
> > > and that will nudge this prediction toward the too low side. I am
> > > going to calculate this at the known, actual, and a predicted average
> > > for the quarter. If we assume a March 2009 average price of $46 (my
> > > guess, based on nothing in particular), we get, a first quarter 2009
> > > average of 42.267, and based on that, we derive:
> > > Using 2006-2008 data: $1.272
> > > Using 2007-8 data: $1.226
> > > Using 2008 only data: $1.108

> > > So I guess Steve is right, my first very crude guess was way high.

> > > Based on these calculations, I would make a new, slightly less crude
> > > guess of:
> > > Something just short of $1.11/share dividend
> > > based solely on this very limited model, and a guess about the final,
> > > actual average price of a barrel of oil in March of 2009.

> > > After all, the Internet is all about stating something categorically,
> > > and regretting it, forever...

> > > On Mar 21, 9:52 am, frank1...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > For WTI prices:

> > > >http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/rwtcM.htm

> > > > $40.84 average for just Jan and Feb.

> > > > On Mar 20, 3:00 pm, steve.isak...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > > The dividend is more than crudely predictable (and I appreciate the
> > > > > pun) based on historical WTI price, chargeable costs and taxes. There
> > > > > is a retired guy on another msg board that does it pretty regularly.

> > > > > I haven't done all the math, but I think $1.45 is going to be pretty
> > > > > generous. WTI has been in the $35-45 range for most of the quarter.

> > > > > On Mar 19, 2:46 pm, marcelwe...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > > > > Ok, I'm presuming the dividend in mid-April will come in at.... drum
> > > > > > roll please, $1.45/share, eyeball estimate.

> > > > > > My point is one should be able to (albeit crudely) predict this
> > > > > > upcoming dividend ...- Hide quoted text -

> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> Alright, using only the historic prices per month, kindly pointed out
> by Frank, I calculated a simple ratio of dividend for the three
> proceeding months of the dividend, over the average oil price for the
> same quarter.

> Just eyeballing the data, there is a downward trend over time in that
> ratio, so a slightly more sophisticated use of this limited data would
> be to estimate the 1Q 2009 ratio, biased to reflect the downward trend
> over time. But due to a recent crash, I don't have my statistical
> tools installed here, so we will just use the simple average, keeping
> in mind that our estimated ratio based on the historical average, will
> tend to be high.

> Having the benefit of hindsight, I get $44.13 for the average WTI
> price for the quarter. That is from what I belive is the 10-K method
> of averaging the daily closing price for the quarter. Compare with the
> 4th quarter of 2008 when the average price was $59.

> Factors I know of that would cause the downward trend in oil price :
> dividend ratio are the tax changes, "windfall" tax, and increases in
> the chargeable costs. The price has not been much higher than the
> first windfall threshold ($30) so that will have a lesser effect this
> quarter.

> On Mar 24, 9:34 pm, marcelwe...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Alright, using only the historic prices per month, kindly pointed out
> > by Frank, I calculated a simple ratio of dividend for the three
> > proceeding months of the dividend, over the average oil price for the
> > same quarter.

> > Just eyeballing the data, there is a downward trend over time in that
> > ratio, so a slightly more sophisticated use of this limited data would
> > be to estimate the 1Q 2009 ratio, biased to reflect the downward trend
> > over time. But due to a recent crash, I don't have my statistical
> > tools installed here, so we will just use the simple average, keeping
> > in mind that our estimated ratio based on the historical average, will
> > tend to be high.

> Having the benefit of hindsight, I get $44.13 for the average WTI
> price for the quarter. That is from what I belive is the 10-K method
> of averaging the daily closing price for the quarter. Compare with the
> 4th quarter of 2008 when the average price was $59.

> Factors I know of that would cause the downward trend in oil price :
> dividend ratio are the tax changes, "windfall" tax, and increases in
> the chargeable costs. The price has not been much higher than the
> first windfall threshold ($30) so that will have a lesser effect this
> quarter.

> On Mar 24, 9:34 pm, marcelwe...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Alright, using only the historic prices per month, kindly pointed out
> > by Frank, I calculated a simple ratio of dividend for the three
> > proceeding months of the dividend, over the average oil price for the
> > same quarter.

> > Just eyeballing the data, there is a downward trend over time in that
> > ratio, so a slightly more sophisticated use of this limited data would
> > be to estimate the 1Q 2009 ratio, biased to reflect the downward trend
> > over time. But due to a recent crash, I don't have my statistical
> > tools installed here, so we will just use the simple average, keeping
> > in mind that our estimated ratio based on the historical average, will
> > tend to be high.

> Steve:

> Using your figures, and the following formula:
> [Dividend 1Q2009] / [AvgClosePrice1Q2009] = [Dividend 4Q2008] /
> [AvgClosePrice4Q2008]

> We get this:
> [Dividend 1Q2009] / $44.13=$1.64/$59

> With this solution:
> Dividend 1Q2009 = $1.226664407

> Using the ratio from last quarter, and your figure for this quarter's
> daily closing prices, the dividend is predicted to come in at $1.2267 /
> share

> Thinking about this, I decided to looked at this investment from the
> perspective of the yield ([dividend]/[stock price]). It occurred to me
> that using the peak of the stock prices' peak just before dividend
> might give some insight into how the market has historically tended to
> price shares of this trust in terms of its expected upcoming dividend
> (I assume some smart analysts and the institutions who buy this issue,
> know these data better than I can... and before the ex-div date, these
> institutions will buy up shares until the price dips the yield down
> below some point below which further accumulation makes no investment
> sense).

> The bottom line is that after looking at the proximate, prior
> "peak" (a very subjective choice) over the previous 8 quarters,
> compared to actual dividends (which are ultimately based conclusively
> on actual prices/taxes/production, etc.), the current price for a
> share of BPT would predict a $1.88 dividend. This seems impossible
> given the price data, so the stock price looks quite high.

> To me this says two things, possibly:
> 1) the price for BPT has been driven up by a market suffering from a
> bout of doubt, and buyers are willing to pay higher and receive lower
> yields than usual over the past two years. The higher price is
> justified because there is less uncertainty with this kind of trust-
> based yield. After all, this issue can't NOT give dividends, unlike a
> lot of other issues where dividends are optional. If you are a
> dividend investor, BPT is more valuable than plain vanilla stock
> dividends.
> 2) to the extent that 1) is not a factor, the dividend could actually
> end up higher than predictions based on other methods, because
> dividend-affecting facts that are not accessible to the general public
> (actually "me").

> In other words, buyers may have driven the share price up because of
> uncertain times, and/or because the dividend may be higher that we
> know due to volume/taxes/prices or other factors that the
> institutional players have calculated in.

> And with my allotted 90 seconds to rebut...

> Analyzing the yield, dividend, cash flow, etc. is only meaningful if
> it is intended to calculate a real value for the shares, compared with
> the current price.  The method to calculate the dividend is explained
> in the 10-K, and all the data are publicly available. Any other method
> will be inaccurate.

> That said, I agree that the current share price is not supported by
> the current dividend, and the fat dividend yield is certainly drawing
> money that is inflating the price. We are going to get a haircut after
> the April dividend is announced and the stock screens start showing
> the yield based on the thinner April dividend. Then again, 6% may
> still look pretty good to people.

> As far as being more valuable than a "regular" stock to dividend
> investors... the uncertainty in the dividend comes from variability in
> the oil price. Also consider that the dividend distributions from the
> trust represent production of a finite resource - eventually the oil,
> and the distributions, will run out.

> On Apr 2, 2:44 pm, marcelwe...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Steve:

> > Using your figures, and the following formula:
> > [Dividend 1Q2009] / [AvgClosePrice1Q2009] = [Dividend 4Q2008] /
> > [AvgClosePrice4Q2008]

> > We get this:
> > [Dividend 1Q2009] / $44.13=$1.64/$59

> > With this solution:
> > Dividend 1Q2009 = $1.226664407

> > Using the ratio from last quarter, and your figure for this quarter's
> > daily closing prices, the dividend is predicted to come in at $1.2267 /
> > share

> > Thinking about this, I decided to looked at this investment from the
> > perspective of the yield ([dividend]/[stock price]). It occurred to me
> > that using the peak of the stock prices' peak just before dividend
> > might give some insight into how the market has historically tended to
> > price shares of this trust in terms of its expected upcoming dividend
> > (I assume some smart analysts and the institutions who buy this issue,
> > know these data better than I can... and before the ex-div date, these
> > institutions will buy up shares until the price dips the yield down
> > below some point below which further accumulation makes no investment
> > sense).

> > The bottom line is that after looking at the proximate, prior
> > "peak" (a very subjective choice) over the previous 8 quarters,
> > compared to actual dividends (which are ultimately based conclusively
> > on actual prices/taxes/production, etc.), the current price for a
> > share of BPT would predict a $1.88 dividend. This seems impossible
> > given the price data, so the stock price looks quite high.

> > To me this says two things, possibly:
> > 1) the price for BPT has been driven up by a market suffering from a
> > bout of doubt, and buyers are willing to pay higher and receive lower
> > yields than usual over the past two years. The higher price is
> > justified because there is less uncertainty with this kind of trust-
> > based yield. After all, this issue can't NOT give dividends, unlike a
> > lot of other issues where dividends are optional. If you are a
> > dividend investor, BPT is more valuable than plain vanilla stock
> > dividends.
> > 2) to the extent that 1) is not a factor, the dividend could actually
> > end up higher than predictions based on other methods, because
> > dividend-affecting facts that are not accessible to the general public
> > (actually "me").

> > In other words, buyers may have driven the share price up because of
> > uncertain times, and/or because the dividend may be higher that we
> > know due to volume/taxes/prices or other factors that the
> > institutional players have calculated in.

> At a yield of about 6%, investors buying today would get their initial
> investment back in dividends in about 12 years, plus whatever residual
> value the stock has at that point, plus the value of the future divs,
> less inflation.

> Dividend is announced:

>   $0.9918 per unit. Ex-div 4/9, payable 4/17.

> Cheers!

> On Apr 8, 11:15 am, marcelwe...@gmail.com wrote:

> > At a yield of about 6%, investors buying today would get their initial
> > investment back in dividends in about 12 years, plus whatever residual
> > value the stock has at that point, plus the value of the future divs,
> > less inflation.- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

> Steve:

> Thanks for your rebuttal! Frankly, the more I look at this, the more
> the numbers dampen my enthusiasm for this issue as a buy-and-hold! (I
> guess I have too much time on my hands...)

> At a yield of about 6%, investors buying today would get their initial
> investment back in dividends in about 12 years, plus whatever residual
> value the stock has at that point, plus the value of the future divs,
> less inflation.

> Correct me if I be wrong, but unless oil is bubbling up from somewhere
> else into the PB oilfields, and production goes longer than expected,
> investing in this trust will probably be a net loss to new investors,
> not to mention not a decent return, for anyone buying today for the
> long haul, because 12 years is probably a bridge too far for this oil
> field?  Even if the field is longer-lived, nobody knows for sure, and
> this is part of the risk you speak of...

> You're missing the point. Is BPT depleting? Yes, but so is the rest of
> the world. At the current production decline rate and domestic
> consumption rate of oil, Mexico will cease to export oil after 2014.
> In 1999 Britain was a major oil exporter but after 2006 became an oil
> importer. So what we are seeing is the proverbial "double whammy"
> where not only are barrels of oil taken of the market because of
> depletion, but former oil exporting countries are becoming competitors
> for oil sold on the international markets. Just take a look at this
> graph athttp://www.theoildrum.com/files/image002.gifwhich shows
> Britain's exports and production of oil. Currently, Britain can supply
> a significant portion of its domestic consumption, but as time passes
> Britain will need to import more and more oil just when most oil
> exporters are declining in their oil exports. Seehttp://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/brown/2008/0108.htmlfor
> more information.

> On Apr 8, 12:15 pm, marcelwe...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Steve:

> > Thanks for your rebuttal! Frankly, the more I look at this, the more
> > the numbers dampen my enthusiasm for this issue as a buy-and-hold! (I
> > guess I have too much time on my hands...)

> > At a yield of about 6%, investors buying today would get their initial
> > investment back in dividends in about 12 years, plus whatever residual
> > value the stock has at that point, plus the value of the future divs,
> > less inflation.

> > Correct me if I be wrong, but unless oil is bubbling up from somewhere
> > else into the PB oilfields, and production goes longer than expected,
> > investing in this trust will probably be a net loss to new investors,
> > not to mention not a decent return, for anyone buying today for the
> > long haul, because 12 years is probably a bridge too far for this oil
> > field?  Even if the field is longer-lived, nobody knows for sure, and
> > this is part of the risk you speak of...

> The decrease in the projected lifespan (or, increase in depletion if
> you prefer) is due to two things:

> 1. Decreased investment by BP in production because of decreased
> revenues. The recoverable oil in a field is not simply a yes/no
> proposition - further production is harder to get, so it costs more.
> There is an oil company that actually produces the oil. Because they
> are in it to make a profit, they are making decisions about the
> investment required for the next level of marginal production and
> whether that is justified by the revenue it will generate. Lower oil
> prices obviously mean there is less revenue available to increase
> production.

> 2. Plans for gas and oil pipelines out of Alaska. Note the 10-K's
> reference to "lower reservoir pressure" (you have read the 10-K,
> right?). This pressure comes from the natural gas, little of which is
> currently sold off because it is impractical to transport. The
> proposed new pipeline will make it practical to sell the gas,
> resulting in lower oil production.http://alaska-gas-pipeline.blogspot.com/2008/04/alaska-gas-canadian-t...

> And, a bonus 3. Backlash from Alaska's new, massively regressive
> production tax (the 2006 tax changes). Production in Alaska is
> suffering because the resulting profits are taxed away rather than
> going to the company.http://sbecouncil.blogspot.com/2008/08/lessons-from-alaskas-windfall-...

> As usual, John posts about his pet peak oil theory, ignoring North
> Slope realities that impact our dividends.