While oil and water don’t mix, for the fracking industry... the two go hand-in-hand.
You see, while WATER is one of the oil industry’s biggest threats – it's also one of investors’ biggest opportunities.
Consider this: Each horizontal well in North America that uses hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, uses 2-6 MILLION gallons of sweet fresh water. And the entire North American industry will use an estimated 72 BILLION gallons in 2012.
The cost involved in handling that water could be in the billions of dollars within a couple years.
That's why a multi-billion dollar Water Services industry is emerging right now in the oil patch.
It’s a huge opportunity for some great capital gains — but changing regulations, and a very attentive mainstream audience questioning business practises which have been in effect for decades, will make it choppy water for investors.
“In 2008 there were 25 billion barrels of water handled (by the oil and gas industry) in the US—even at 60 cents a barrel it’s a multibillion dollar business,” says Jonathan Hoopes, President of GreenHunter Energy Inc. (GRH-AMEX). “With the big growth in unconventional since then, it’s likely another 5-6 billion barrels.”
GreenHunter is a pure play on the fast growing water market in the oil patch, along with companies like Heckmann Corp (HEK-NYSE), and Ridgeline Energy Services (RLE-TSXv; RGDEF-OTCQX). There are also many private technology companies with new water treatment processes.
Ridgeline is developing a water purification and recycling technology for the oil and gas sector. CEO Tony Ker says the industry is just beginning to put a formal cost structure on their water, and it’s not always easy to see through the mist to a simple business model.
“Customers in the oil and gas industry are finding their way into the water ind! ustry,&r dquo; he told me in a recent interview. “Two years ago customers didn’t know what the water business meant. At some point they knew they would have to clean and re-use it, but didn’t understand how to do it.
“Now we’re watching it form as we speak. Customers are now starting to define what the water business will be. Before, it had no shape or form. Now we’re seeing various companies put cost structure on the business; put costs on storage, treatment, transportation.”
In the Marcellus Shale, they say it costs $3 + per barrel (/bbl) to dispose of water — and $7-$10/bbl to haul it away. If a horizontal well uses 4.2 million gallons of water to frack (that would be a slightly bigger than average well, but it makes my math easy ;-)), then that’s 100,000 barrels (42 gallons=1 barrel).
If you get 30% of that back in the first year, that’s 30,000 barrels x $10+ per barrel hauling and disposal costs=$300,000 in water costs per well. But that’s $300,000 in water REVENUE for the right company. Then there’s another 30% of that water you get back over the life of the well—assuming costs are constant, that’s $600,000 in revenue.
And there are thousands of wells getting drilled in North America each year; more than 80% of them are now horizontal, and most of those require fracking. The dollar value of managing that water multiplies out fast.
GreenHunter is estimating that the 2011 water disposal market in the Marcellus alone was $1.3-$1.7 billion, and in 10 years the market will be $15-22 billion.
In the Eagle Ford shale play in Texas, they’re quoting a disposal fee of $0.80+/bbl and an average $3.00 – $6.00 /bbl hauling fee. And with an estimated 800 new oil & gas wells drilled there in 2011, the market just keeps getting bigger. In 2011 the water disposal market was estimated to be $500-$800 million, and in 10 years they are guesstimating that local market wi! ll be wo rth $6-9 billion.
The Bakken oil formation – they estimate – will be a $10.6 billion market within 20 years.
And there is just storing all that water until it is ready to be used. With the new pad drilling, where producers drill multiple wells that splay out in different directions from one pad, millions of gallons water can be stored in one spot for up to and over one year. Just storing that water has turned into a $150 million + business with incredible profit margins—in just one year. And it continues to have hyperbolic growth.
“I believe in two years you will see moderate sized water facilities of 50,000 to 100,000 barrels a day, that are permanent, that will process water for re-use,” says Dennis Danzik, a director of Ridgeline and the inventor of their water purification technology.
There are other major revenue sources as well. Sourcing water is a revenue business as municipalities and landowners in the western US sometimes sell their water to the industry for fracking.
Hoopes believes that regulation around water will develop to the point where producers and service companies will have to supply “cradle-to-grave” monitoring of water to prove it is either recycled or disposed of properly–which is great news for GreenHunter and Heckmann.
It’s clear to me in speaking with water company executives that their customer base, the producers, truly want to be green—and not just because it’s good for business. But everyone also says it has to make sense economically to recycle and re-use that water.
And when it comes to trucking out water to disposal wells or recycling at the well site, Hoopes says it will come down to simple economics:
“It will be the lowest cost option that wins.”
Ridgeline's Danzik agrees, saying that cost pressures in the US are intense. “Most of the companies entering the water sector have unreasonable pricing expectations.&rdqu! o;
I think there will be regulatory and public pressure for producers to recycle more water.
That will potentially be a HUGE market that somebody—or somebodies—is going to fill. But the low cost technology isn’t in the market…yet.
GreenHunter and Heckmann Corp (HEK-NYSE) — another pure play in the fast-growing water market — have more diversified water management systems, vs. more niche lines like Ridgeline. When I look at their financials I see EBITDA margins ranging from 15%-30%. (The niche players have bigger margins.)
But the water treatment business model could be more exciting, as it will likely be based on throughput—customers will get charged so much per litre, gallon or barrel of water put through whatever recycling system is used.
With tens of billions of barrels of water being used, that could be the Holy Grail of the water sub-sector — a per gallon charge.
The reality is, however, that the growth in drilling in the major US shale plays is way ahead of how fast the water recycling/treatment industry can hope to develop. So the simple (but highly regulated) disposal of water through UICs/SWDs will be here for a long time.
Danzik adds that each oil and gas basin in North America has different needs; so solutions will obviously be different.
“Pennsylvania has water but no place to put it; Texas has no water but can dispose of it.”
“In the Marcellus, they’re in trouble, and that will increase as summer gets closer. In the North-east you have a real problem with disposal. The salt water disposal has been moved west; it has to be disposed of in western Ohio and Indiana and Virginia. They’re putting it in pits. They have to do something.”
“They (the producers) will have to pay full price per truckload, as much as $5,000 to $6,000. That will be the disposal charge. That will equal hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Again, that will ! be music to the ears of one lucky service provider in the new water sector… and their investors.
Longer term, Danzik sees the trucking industry as the most vulnerable to the changes happening in the fast growing water industry, as well-site water treatment increases market share (that’s his business, after all.)
It’s a variable, high-cost service, and local residents don’t like the traffic or the sight of literally hundreds of trucks delivering water tanks and water around their area.
Hauling or recycling water, storing or disposing of it—Hoopes says that the water business is growing so fast that for awhile, everybody in the space should be a winner.
“Everybody’s market share is a small percentage; this is not a winner take all scenario yet.
It’s too early. We’re all taking water management systems to a more mature status. I think there is a lot of potential to grow market share before we start butting heads too hard.”
By. Keith Schaefer
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Drafting Sound At-Work Social Media Policy
Employers have a few different options when it comes to regulating the use of social media like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn at work, but applicable laws and National Labor Review Board directives must be considered before taking any course of action. Employers may completely block the use of social media as well as monitor employee use, although employees must be notified of the policy. If employers do allow its use, specific guidelines should be drafted that pertain to posted content involving the company and other employees. For more on this continue reading the following article from JDSupra.
Facebook. LinkedIn. Twitter. These and other social media sites have created fast-paced opportunities for individuals to network and for information to spread. However, with these opportunities come potential hazards, particularly in connection with the workplace. By formulating social media practices and policies that comply with recently issued U.S. legal standards, U.S. employers have the ability to minimize, if not eliminate, the challenges posed by employee use of social media.
Social “NOT-working”
As the phrase suggests, the over 600 million Facebook users who log in to Facebook on a regular basis often do so from the office. Instead of focusing on their work, many social media users waste time keeping up to date with their Facebook “friends,” or “tweeting” their followers with details of what they ate for lunch. In sum, it is no secret that use of social media in the workplace is distracting and has the potential to greatly decrease worker productivity.
Employers are legally permitted to completely block employee access to social media sites at work. In fact, 29% of all U.S. employers have already adopted this practice, although most do so based on fears that hackers will invade company systems and wreak havoc, including loss of crucial data.
Companies that consider the ! practice of completely blocking employee access to social media sites at work as too drastic a measure may lawfully monitor employee use of social media at work, both in terms of the amount of time spent by a particular employee logged onto social media sites, and in terms of the content posted by the employee; provided that the employer clearly communicates to the employee the employer’s monitoring practice. The employee’s acknowledgement of this practice should be clearly documented in order to confirm that the employee’s expectation of privacy has been eliminated. As employers who have adopted such a system can attest, employees who know that their social media time and content is being monitored at work tend to spend very little time logging onto social media sites during work hours.
If either of the above options seems overly aggressive, an employer should, at a minimum, issue a policy informing employees that they are expected to use their discretion with respect to use of social media in the workplace, and that logging onto social media sites should be kept to a minimum during work hours.
Negative Posts
Social media has become a venue for individuals to express their opinions, thoughts and frustrations at an unprecedented pace to a vast number of people.
Consider, for example, the Walmart employee who came home after from work, after having had an altercation with his direct manager, and posted on Facebook derogatory comments about Walmart’s management and poor customer service.
The employee’s Facebook “friends,” including three co-workers, expressed their sympathy for the employee’s lousy day. Unfortunately for the employee, one Facebook “friend” was not sympathetic, printed out the negative posting and handed it over to Walmart’s management.
Whether Walmart was then entitled to take adverse employment action against the employee revolved around the ! question of whether the employee’s Facebook posting qualified as “protected concerted activity” under the National Labor Relations Act. As explained by the Associate General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) in a report issued on August 18, 2011: adverse employment action may not be taken against an employee when the content of employee speech made via social media was made between employees (of the same employer) in earnest discussion of the terms and conditions of employment as a means of facilitating group action on the part of such employees. This principle applies to both unionized and non-unionized employees.
In the above case, the post was made to a wide range of Facebook “friends,” rather than to only a restricted group of co-workers, and was characterized by an individual venting and expressing gripes, rather than by a call for group activity and constructive desire to improve the group’s working conditions. Therefore, even though some co-workers did happen to
respond sympathetically to the employee’s post, the NLRB held that the Walmart employee’s Facebook posting did not rise to the level of “protected concerted activity.” Walmart therefore had the right to take adverse employment action against the employee. Walmart, Case No. 17-CA-25030, 2011 NLRB GCM LEXIS 34 (July 19, 2011).
Social Media Policy
Obviously, employers would rather not be faced with the unpleasantness of chastising employees for spending excessive amounts of time logged onto social media sites at work, or with the nasty business of considering whether to terminate a frustrated employee who simply failed to think through the implications of posting confidential or negative information in a public forum. A social media policy which clearly establishes guidelines and boundaries, and is unequivocally communicated to employees, enables employees to anticipate company expectations and ther! eby prev ent such predicaments in the first place.
However, a social media policy must be carefully drafted in order to comply with the NLRB’s recently issued directives, which prohibit employers from placing excessive restrictions on the content of employee social media postings. While each employer should create a social media policy tailored to the particular employer’s industry and workplace, the following are some bright line rules:
As a means of addressing the issue of employee social media use, an employer should:
1. Decide which social media practice will work best in the employer’s particular workplace:
acknowledgement from each employee that s/he has read and understands the
Policy.
3. Prior to taking any adverse employment action against an employee on account of
the content of his/her social media posting, consider whether the employee’s
comments:
Meira Ferziger is the head of the labor and employment practice at Schwell Wimpfheimer & Associates LLP and has significant experience in drafting policies, agreements, employee handbooks and guidelines in compliance with U.S. federal and state law. Meira functions as an integral part of the day to day operation of corporate clients by counseling them through their employment-related practices and decisions, and also advises clients as to employment issues that arise from corporate transactions, such as restructurings or acquisitions. She can be reached at meira@swalegal.com or at 646 328 0794.
This SWA ! publicat ion is intended for informational purposes and should not be regarded as legal advice. For more information about the issues included in this publication, please contact Meira Ferziger. The invitation to contact is not to be construed as a solicitation for legal work. Any new attorney/client relationship will be confirmed in writing.
Facebook. LinkedIn. Twitter. These and other social media sites have created fast-paced opportunities for individuals to network and for information to spread. However, with these opportunities come potential hazards, particularly in connection with the workplace. By formulating social media practices and policies that comply with recently issued U.S. legal standards, U.S. employers have the ability to minimize, if not eliminate, the challenges posed by employee use of social media.
Social “NOT-working”
As the phrase suggests, the over 600 million Facebook users who log in to Facebook on a regular basis often do so from the office. Instead of focusing on their work, many social media users waste time keeping up to date with their Facebook “friends,” or “tweeting” their followers with details of what they ate for lunch. In sum, it is no secret that use of social media in the workplace is distracting and has the potential to greatly decrease worker productivity.
Employers are legally permitted to completely block employee access to social media sites at work. In fact, 29% of all U.S. employers have already adopted this practice, although most do so based on fears that hackers will invade company systems and wreak havoc, including loss of crucial data.
Companies that consider the ! practice of completely blocking employee access to social media sites at work as too drastic a measure may lawfully monitor employee use of social media at work, both in terms of the amount of time spent by a particular employee logged onto social media sites, and in terms of the content posted by the employee; provided that the employer clearly communicates to the employee the employer’s monitoring practice. The employee’s acknowledgement of this practice should be clearly documented in order to confirm that the employee’s expectation of privacy has been eliminated. As employers who have adopted such a system can attest, employees who know that their social media time and content is being monitored at work tend to spend very little time logging onto social media sites during work hours.
If either of the above options seems overly aggressive, an employer should, at a minimum, issue a policy informing employees that they are expected to use their discretion with respect to use of social media in the workplace, and that logging onto social media sites should be kept to a minimum during work hours.
Negative Posts
Social media has become a venue for individuals to express their opinions, thoughts and frustrations at an unprecedented pace to a vast number of people.
Consider, for example, the Walmart employee who came home after from work, after having had an altercation with his direct manager, and posted on Facebook derogatory comments about Walmart’s management and poor customer service.
The employee’s Facebook “friends,” including three co-workers, expressed their sympathy for the employee’s lousy day. Unfortunately for the employee, one Facebook “friend” was not sympathetic, printed out the negative posting and handed it over to Walmart’s management.
Whether Walmart was then entitled to take adverse employment action against the employee revolved around the ! question of whether the employee’s Facebook posting qualified as “protected concerted activity” under the National Labor Relations Act. As explained by the Associate General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) in a report issued on August 18, 2011: adverse employment action may not be taken against an employee when the content of employee speech made via social media was made between employees (of the same employer) in earnest discussion of the terms and conditions of employment as a means of facilitating group action on the part of such employees. This principle applies to both unionized and non-unionized employees.
In the above case, the post was made to a wide range of Facebook “friends,” rather than to only a restricted group of co-workers, and was characterized by an individual venting and expressing gripes, rather than by a call for group activity and constructive desire to improve the group’s working conditions. Therefore, even though some co-workers did happen to
respond sympathetically to the employee’s post, the NLRB held that the Walmart employee’s Facebook posting did not rise to the level of “protected concerted activity.” Walmart therefore had the right to take adverse employment action against the employee. Walmart, Case No. 17-CA-25030, 2011 NLRB GCM LEXIS 34 (July 19, 2011).
Social Media Policy
Obviously, employers would rather not be faced with the unpleasantness of chastising employees for spending excessive amounts of time logged onto social media sites at work, or with the nasty business of considering whether to terminate a frustrated employee who simply failed to think through the implications of posting confidential or negative information in a public forum. A social media policy which clearly establishes guidelines and boundaries, and is unequivocally communicated to employees, enables employees to anticipate company expectations and ther! eby prev ent such predicaments in the first place.
However, a social media policy must be carefully drafted in order to comply with the NLRB’s recently issued directives, which prohibit employers from placing excessive restrictions on the content of employee social media postings. While each employer should create a social media policy tailored to the particular employer’s industry and workplace, the following are some bright line rules:
- Clearly communicate to employees whether social media use in the workplace will be unequivocally prohibited, monitored by the company, or discretionary within reasonable time limits. The main prerequisite from a legal standpoint is that the employee who is being monitored be made aware (and ideally sign an acknowledgement) of this practice, so that it is clear that the employee’s expectation of privacy has been eliminated.
- Provide clear boundaries with respect to prohibited social media content:
- No disclosure of confidential information about the company, co-workers, clients or customers.
- No posting on behalf of the company unless the employee is clearly authorized to do so.
- Do NOT excessively restrict the content of employee social media postings to the extent that “protected concerted activity” among the company’s employees would be prohibited. For example, a social media policy should not ban “inappropriate discussions” about the company, management, working conditions or co-workers.
- Caution that violation of the company’s social media policy may result in adverse employment action, up to and including termination of employment.
As a means of addressing the issue of employee social media use, an employer should:
1. Decide which social media practice will work best in the employer’s particular workplace:
- !
- Co mpletely eliminating employee access to social media sites;
- Monitoring employee use of social media (upon clearly acknowledged notice); or
- Permitting social media use within reasonable time limits.
acknowledgement from each employee that s/he has read and understands the
Policy.
3. Prior to taking any adverse employment action against an employee on account of
the content of his/her social media posting, consider whether the employee’s
comments:
- were posted on a public site accessible to a large number of people;
- disclosed confidential information about the company, its employees, customers or clients; or
- were directed at co-workers in a serious effort to discuss working conditions, or were simply a venue for the employee to vent personal frustration.
Meira Ferziger is the head of the labor and employment practice at Schwell Wimpfheimer & Associates LLP and has significant experience in drafting policies, agreements, employee handbooks and guidelines in compliance with U.S. federal and state law. Meira functions as an integral part of the day to day operation of corporate clients by counseling them through their employment-related practices and decisions, and also advises clients as to employment issues that arise from corporate transactions, such as restructurings or acquisitions. She can be reached at meira@swalegal.com or at 646 328 0794.
This SWA ! publicat ion is intended for informational purposes and should not be regarded as legal advice. For more information about the issues included in this publication, please contact Meira Ferziger. The invitation to contact is not to be construed as a solicitation for legal work. Any new attorney/client relationship will be confirmed in writing.
6 Stocks that Could Profit from the Natural Gas Revolution
I've received quite a few emails recently from my Scarcity & Real Wealthsubscribers regarding hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. It's clear that many of them have been reading up on the subject.
And they should. Because even with stricter regulatory burdens on the horizon, this could well be the most profitable and rewarding subsector of the entire energy universe.
In order to understand why, let me take you back a few years in order to understand where we once stood on the natural gas landscape.
"The era of inexpensive natural gas is over."
Back in 2005, Hurricane Rita struck the Texas coast, Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) released the Xbox 360 console, the Chicago White Sox won the World Series, and the United States seemed to be running out of natural gas. And they should. Because even with stricter regulatory burdens on the horizon, this could well be the most profitable and rewarding subsector of the entire energy universe.
In order to understand why, let me take you back a few years in order to understand where we once stood on the natural gas landscape.
"The era of inexpensive natural gas is over."
At least, that's what everybody thought.
Gas supplies were dwindling, and the only hope for meeting the U.S.'s growing need appeared to be purchases from overseas. In fact, liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports had surged nearly 30% the prior year, and companies were investing heavily in new import terminals.
In its annual report to shareholders, Chenier Energy (NYSE: LNG) boldly declared "the era of inexpensive North American gas is over." So investors and consumers braced for a day when domestic natural gas reserves ran dry and incoming tankers hauled in supplies from distant lands.
That day never came.
It turns out the United States isn't running out of natural gas -- it is actually swimming in it. It won't need to borrow from its neighbors. Quite the opposite. Stockpiles are overflowing with surplus supply that can be sold overseas. So those import terminals are now being converted to export facilities.
That's an amazing 180-degree turnaround in a relatively short period of time. So what happened? Did somebody suddenly discover the lar! gest gas reservoir this side of Qatar? Not exactly.
The credit for the natural gas revolution belongs almost entirely to one of the most controversial -- yet indisputably successful -- drilling techniques ever devised: hydraulic fracturing.
Whether you love it or hate it, one thing is for sure -- you better not ignore it.
A 100-Year Supply of Fuel
The Energy Information Agency (EIA) now believes there is a staggering 2,543 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas in the United States. The country burns about 25 trillion cubic feet a year, give or take. So that inventory means we have ample supply on hand to last for the next century.
Notice I emphasized the word "recoverable."
Much of North America's oil and gas is locked within geologically challenging formations such as the Barnett Shale in Dallas, the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, and the Eagle Ford Shale in south Texas, just to name a few.
These aren't new discoveries. In most cases, geologists and energy producers have known about these fields for decades. But knowing the gas is there and actually recovering it from two or three miles below the surface are two very different things. That's particularly true when the gas is trapped inside dense rock and can't move.
The productivity of a reservoir is determined largely by two factors: porosity and permeability. The more porous, the more empty space available to store oil and gas. And the more permeable, the easier fluid can flow through and be captured. Some prolific oil fields have porosities of 30%.
But shales are a whole different ballgame. In North Dakota's Bakken play, porosity is just 5% (95% rock). So while there is plenty of oil, bringing it to the surface is a daunting task. Oil men have been hunting in this region as far back as 1951. Most had nothing but dry holes to show for their efforts.
The same problem frustrated energy companies trying to tap into tight formations all around the! country . Hydraulic fracturing proved to be the answer to this vexing problem.
The facts on fracking
Fracking involves pumping high-pressure fluids deep below ground to fracture the rock and prop it open. The procedure creates a network of tiny cracks that can stretch hundreds of feet, providing a pathway for oil and gas to flow into the well bore.
In a nutshell, fracking helps artificially create the fissures and channels that Mother Nature put in conventional reservoirs. This technological breakthrough has made it possible to efficiently drain hydrocarbons from basins that were previously considered inaccessible and out of bounds.
Fracking has technically been around since the 1940s. But like most technologies, it has improved dramatically over time. The practice really took off about a decade ago when pioneers paired it with horizontal drilling in the Barnett Shale. The results were nothing short of amazing.
In just 10 years, Barnett production zoomed from nothing to five billion cubic feet (Bcf) of gas per day. Incidentally, it took just three years for fracking crews and producers to reach the same production milestone in Louisiana's Haynesville Shale -- so we continue to perfect the process.
Investment opportunities abound
Despite potential environmental drawbacks, there's no denying that hydraulic fracturing is a boon for the energy industry.
Shale gas now accounts for one-third of the nation's overall gas production, a 30-fold increase since 2000. And don't forget about oil. Following the widespread introduction of fracking, the Bakken Shale produced 113 million barrels in 2010. That's more in one year than the cumulative total from the prior 55 years combined.
That's what fracking can do.
No wonder just about every unconventional gas well undergoes multi-stage fracking services these days. And it isn't cheap. By some estimates, fracking can account for up to 30% of the total dri! lling an d completion cost of a well -- even more in busy shales. Yet companies still can't keep pace with demand.
Just look at Frac-Tech, which is partially owned by Chesapeake Energy (NYSE: CHK). Last year, the company reported that every one of its service units had been deployed in the field, without a day off, since November 2009. And through the first half of 2011, revenue surged 143% from a year earlier to crack the $1 billion mark.
And that's just in the United States. Don't think for a second that we're the only country with untapped shale resources. Bloomberg estimates that China holds 1,275 trillion cubic feet of shale gas reserves. And Canada holds vast supplies of oil and gas inside the Horn River basin and other spots.
Fracking is the key that unlocks these geologic treasure chests.
In the table below, I've listed a few prospects that warrant further research by investors.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Ironwood Gold Announces Appointment of Keith P. Brill to Board of Directors
SCOTTSDALE, AZ–(CRWENEWSWIRE) - Ironwood Gold Corp. (OTC.BB:IROG.OB) (”Ironwood” or the “Company”) wishes to announce that effective immediately, the Company is pleased to announce and welcomes the appointment of Keith P. Brill to the Board of Directors.
Mr. Brill brings financial acumen and extensive management experience from a career which includes financial management, analytics and operational advisory services most recently provided as the owner & managing director of the Brill Group, LLC. Previously he was the CFO/CIO for Amtrust Realty Corp. a commercial property firm based in New York with holdings in many major US cities. Prior to this, he was a management consultant with PA Consulting Group, Inc., a leading global consulting firm providing multinational Fortune 500 companies with consulting advice on topics including cost reduction, operational efficiency, and IT strategy. Mr. Brill has extensive experience in conducting ROI analysis, developing business cases, and providing strategic financial advice on major business transformation programs.
Mr. Brill received an International Master of Business Administration (IMBA) from the Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina in May 2005. He graduated from the South Carolina Honors College, University of South Carolina in May 2003 with a Bachelor of Science, magna cum laude, major in Economics and Finance, minor in Spanish.
Commenting on the appointment of Mr. Brill, Ironwood’s CEO Bezhad Shayanfar stated, “Keith’s financial expertise and numerous contacts in the financial arena will be of great benefit to Ironwood as we move ahead during a planned period of transition. We look forward to his input and approach to invigorating shareholder value.”
Additional details regarding the Company and its agreements are filed as part of the Company’s continuous public dis! closure as a reporting issuer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (”SEC”) EDGAR database. For more information visit: www.ironwoodgold.com.
ABOUT IRONWOOD GOLD CORP.
Ironwood Gold Corp. is a mineral exploration and development company building a portfolio of prospective properties containing known deposits of strategic precious metals in politically stable, mining-friendly North American districts with recognized production histories. For more information visit: www.ironwoodgold.com.
Notice Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
This news release contains “forward-looking statements” as that term is defined in Section 27A of the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Statements in this press release which are not purely historical are forward-looking statements and include any statements regarding beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions regarding the future. Such forward-looking statements include, among other things, the development, costs and results of new business opportunities. Actual results could differ from those projected in any forward-looking statements due to numerous factors. Such factors include, among others, the inherent uncertainties associated with new projects and development stage companies. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this news release, and we assume no obligation to update the forward-looking statements, or to update the reasons why actual results could differ from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Although we believe that any beliefs, plans, expectations and intentions contained in this press release are reasonable, there can be no assurance that any such beliefs, plans, expectations or intentions will prove to be accurate. Investors should consult all of the information set forth herein and should also refer to the ri! sk facto rs disclosure outlined in our annual report on Form 10-K for the most recent fiscal year, our quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and other periodic reports filed from time-to-time with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD
Do Smokers Know How Much They Spend on Cigarettes?
The average smoker burns through 13 to 16 cigarettes a day, or four to six packs a week. That adds up. The average smoker forks over at least $1,500 a year, while here in New York City, it's closer to $3,300.
But because smoking, like takeout food and store-made coffee, hits our wallets in a series of small purchases, it can be easy to overlook how much you're spending. Still, it has a psychological impact: One of many reasons governments implement cigarette taxes is to reduce smoking among price-conscious consumers.
It works: Research shows that people smoke less as cigarettes get more expensive. As tobacco giant Philip Morris (PM) stated in its 10-Q for the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 3, 2008, "Tax increases are expected to continue to have an adverse impact on sales of tobacco products by our tobacco subsidiaries, due to lower consumption levels."
Smokers will have a lot to ponder in coming months, as the Department of Health and Human Services implements its new packaging policy requiring warning labels that include graphic photos of the health damages caused by smoking. In the meantime, we wanted to know how sensitive smokers are to the price of their cigarettes, so we hit the streets of Manhattan during lunchtime to find out.
But because smoking, like takeout food and store-made coffee, hits our wallets in a series of small purchases, it can be easy to overlook how much you're spending. Still, it has a psychological impact: One of many reasons governments implement cigarette taxes is to reduce smoking among price-conscious consumers.
It works: Research shows that people smoke less as cigarettes get more expensive. As tobacco giant Philip Morris (PM) stated in its 10-Q for the Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 3, 2008, "Tax increases are expected to continue to have an adverse impact on sales of tobacco products by our tobacco subsidiaries, due to lower consumption levels."
Smokers will have a lot to ponder in coming months, as the Department of Health and Human Services implements its new packaging policy requiring warning labels that include graphic photos of the health damages caused by smoking. In the meantime, we wanted to know how sensitive smokers are to the price of their cigarettes, so we hit the streets of Manhattan during lunchtime to find out.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Why Did My Stock Just Die?
The markets dropped yesterday as the supercommittee for deficit reduction couldn't reach a compromise, meaning that $1.2 trillion in spending cuts kicks in -- in 2013! So the politicians punted responsibility till after the upcoming elections, and your stock took a nosedive, but don't panic. First, let's see whether it had good reason to fall. Sometimes, panic-fueled drops can make excellent buying opportunities. Here's the latest crop of cratered stocks that could provide a possibility for profit:
With the Dow falling almost 250 points yesterday, or 2.1%, stocks that went down by even larger percentages are pretty big deals.
Muddying the waters
It's no fun owning a stock accused of financial shenanigans -- just ask me, I own Bio-Reference Labs (Nasdaq: BRLI ) , which was the target of a two-part Street Sweeper expose. Now, though, Focus Media is facing what appears to be some nitty-gritty, down-in-the-numbers analysis alleging that the company has engaged in fraud.
Short-selling firm Mudd! y Waters took aim at the Chinese media outfit and declared it was "fraudulently overstating" its numbers while insiders were running the company for their own benefit. Specifically, Muddy Waters alleges Focus Media overstates the number of LCD screens in its network by 50% while overpaying for a string of acquisitions that it then wrote down on its financial statements as a means of hiding losses.
Focus Media certainly isn't the only Chinese company to face allegations of fraud. Muddy Waters itself has questioned several, including Orient Paper and Spreadtrum Communications (Nasdaq: SPRD ) , about their financials. Earlier this month, Citron Research, another high-profile short-seller, attacked Chinese Internet company Qihoo 360 Technology (NYSE: QIHU ) -- an attack that Qihoo didn't hesitate to fight back on.
Although 94% of those CAPS members rating Focus Media think it would outperform the broad market averages, its low two-star rating suggests they believe there are better places for your money. The most recent comments highlight the Muddy Waters report, underscoring one fund manager's view that "if I see a sell recommendation from Muddy Waters, I'm going to sell and ask questions later."
Add Focus Media to your watchlist to watch as it fights back -- if it can -- against the allegations.
Can we outsource losses?
A week after Chinese IT outsourcing specialist VanceInfo Technologies was punished by the market for rehiring the auditor who has been at the heart of some of those scandalized Chinese companies -- Deloitte was the auditor for Longtop Financial -- it posted some encouraging third-quarter results that helped boost shares by more than 40%. The market did beat back the stock somewhat, perhaps in light of the Focus Media allegations. Call it a tarnished halo effect, as I found no company-specific news to account for the drop.
Or may be it fell in sympathy with Sify Technologies, which was beaten down over the widening scope of the MF Global bankruptcy. As the amount of investor losses at the trading firm mounts to $1.2 billion, investors are worried about the relationship Sify has with MF Global in a joint venture in India.
The Indian IT specialist was flying high earlier this month after its own third-quarter results came in strong, and as its enterprise segment -- Sify's largest -- experienced 7.5% growth from the year-ago period. While its smaller commercial and consumer segment that houses its broadband access and cyber cafe business withers, which could be problematic for Internet portal Rediff.com (Nasdaq: REDF ) , the main engine of growth for Sify was still intact.
Like Focus Media, both VanceInfo and Sify have strong CAPS community support (90% and 91%, respectively) that they will outperform the broad market averages. Yet, both also sport low ratings just like the outdoor advertiser, meaning whatever hopes they had for their future were tepid at best.
Tell us on the CAPS pages of both VanceInfo Technologies and Sify Technologies if you think they'll bounce back from here, and follow their progress by adding them to the Fool's free portfolio tracker.
Ready for a resurrection
Just because your stock has taken a beating, that doesn't mean it's going to roll over and die. Markets are�known for overreacting. A closer look on�Motley Fool CAPS�at what's happened to your stock can give you an edge over other investors who just react to the market's lead. With CAPS, you can decide for yourself whether your stock ready to come back from the dead.
Stock | CAPS Rating (out of 5) | Monday's Change |
|---|---|---|
| Focus Media (Nasdaq: FMCN ) | ** | (39.5%) |
| VanceInfo Technologies (NYSE: VIT ) | ** | (18.4%) |
| Sify Technologies (Nasdaq: SIFY ) | ** | (15.8%) |
Muddying the waters
It's no fun owning a stock accused of financial shenanigans -- just ask me, I own Bio-Reference Labs (Nasdaq: BRLI ) , which was the target of a two-part Street Sweeper expose. Now, though, Focus Media is facing what appears to be some nitty-gritty, down-in-the-numbers analysis alleging that the company has engaged in fraud.
Short-selling firm Mudd! y Waters took aim at the Chinese media outfit and declared it was "fraudulently overstating" its numbers while insiders were running the company for their own benefit. Specifically, Muddy Waters alleges Focus Media overstates the number of LCD screens in its network by 50% while overpaying for a string of acquisitions that it then wrote down on its financial statements as a means of hiding losses.
Focus Media certainly isn't the only Chinese company to face allegations of fraud. Muddy Waters itself has questioned several, including Orient Paper and Spreadtrum Communications (Nasdaq: SPRD ) , about their financials. Earlier this month, Citron Research, another high-profile short-seller, attacked Chinese Internet company Qihoo 360 Technology (NYSE: QIHU ) -- an attack that Qihoo didn't hesitate to fight back on.
Although 94% of those CAPS members rating Focus Media think it would outperform the broad market averages, its low two-star rating suggests they believe there are better places for your money. The most recent comments highlight the Muddy Waters report, underscoring one fund manager's view that "if I see a sell recommendation from Muddy Waters, I'm going to sell and ask questions later."
Add Focus Media to your watchlist to watch as it fights back -- if it can -- against the allegations.
Can we outsource losses?
A week after Chinese IT outsourcing specialist VanceInfo Technologies was punished by the market for rehiring the auditor who has been at the heart of some of those scandalized Chinese companies -- Deloitte was the auditor for Longtop Financial -- it posted some encouraging third-quarter results that helped boost shares by more than 40%. The market did beat back the stock somewhat, perhaps in light of the Focus Media allegations. Call it a tarnished halo effect, as I found no company-specific news to account for the drop.
Or may be it fell in sympathy with Sify Technologies, which was beaten down over the widening scope of the MF Global bankruptcy. As the amount of investor losses at the trading firm mounts to $1.2 billion, investors are worried about the relationship Sify has with MF Global in a joint venture in India.
The Indian IT specialist was flying high earlier this month after its own third-quarter results came in strong, and as its enterprise segment -- Sify's largest -- experienced 7.5% growth from the year-ago period. While its smaller commercial and consumer segment that houses its broadband access and cyber cafe business withers, which could be problematic for Internet portal Rediff.com (Nasdaq: REDF ) , the main engine of growth for Sify was still intact.
Like Focus Media, both VanceInfo and Sify have strong CAPS community support (90% and 91%, respectively) that they will outperform the broad market averages. Yet, both also sport low ratings just like the outdoor advertiser, meaning whatever hopes they had for their future were tepid at best.
Tell us on the CAPS pages of both VanceInfo Technologies and Sify Technologies if you think they'll bounce back from here, and follow their progress by adding them to the Fool's free portfolio tracker.
Ready for a resurrection
Just because your stock has taken a beating, that doesn't mean it's going to roll over and die. Markets are�known for overreacting. A closer look on�Motley Fool CAPS�at what's happened to your stock can give you an edge over other investors who just react to the market's lead. With CAPS, you can decide for yourself whether your stock ready to come back from the dead.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Glencore International, Xstrata Could Make the Next Biggest Deal in Global Commodities
Commodities supplier Glencore International (PINK: GLCNF) could be on the cusp of a multibillion-dollar bet on commodities with mining company Xstrata PLC (PINK: XSRAF).
Switzerland-based Xstrata announced today (Thursday) that Glencore approached the company for an all-share offer in a "merger of equals." Glencore already owns 34% of Xstrata and wants to buy the remaining shares, worth $35 billion (21.9 billion pounds) based on Wednesday's closing price.
The result would be a global commodities giant with an $80 billion market value.
"The combined business of Glencore and Xstrata would be greater than the sum of its parts," Charles Cooper, a mining analyst at Oriel Securities, told The New York Times. "Any deal would put the new company in the same category as the major players like Rio Tinto or BHP Billiton."
The deal would be the most significant to the mining sector since BHP and Billiton joined in 2001 to form BHP Billiton Ltd. (NYSE ADR: BHP), the largest mining company by market capitalization.
Switzerland-based Xstrata announced today (Thursday) that Glencore approached the company for an all-share offer in a "merger of equals." Glencore already owns 34% of Xstrata and wants to buy the remaining shares, worth $35 billion (21.9 billion pounds) based on Wednesday's closing price.
The result would be a global commodities giant with an $80 billion market value.
"The combined business of Glencore and Xstrata would be greater than the sum of its parts," Charles Cooper, a mining analyst at Oriel Securities, told The New York Times. "Any deal would put the new company in the same category as the major players like Rio Tinto or BHP Billiton."
The deal would be the most significant to the mining sector since BHP and Billiton joined in 2001 to form BHP Billiton Ltd. (NYSE ADR: BHP), the largest mining company by market capitalization.
Glencore International with Xstrata: A Mining Superpower
Glencore is the world's largest publicly traded commodities supplier. It went public in May 2011 in London's biggest-ever initial public offering (IPO), worth roughly $10 billion. The company said when it filed for the IPO it planned to use the cash for acquisitions.
Xstrata is a leading producer in seven commodities, according to its Web site. It's the world's fourth-largest metals and mining company, and has a market capitalization of about $50 billion.
Glencore International wants to expand its business from the low-margin metals processing it currently focuses on. The deal would give Glencore access Xstrata's profitable coal, copper, and nickel mines all over the world and create a well-rounded industry leader ! in a bul lish sector.
"Glencore being such a dominant trader and marketer of commodities, and Xstrata being such a strong operator of difficult assets, I think it creates enormous value," Prasad Patkar, who helps manage about $1 billion at Platypus Asset Management Ltd., told Bloomberg News. "On one end you have great mining expertise, on the other you've got great marketing expertise. Two and two together should make five."
A Glencore International-Xstrata entity would have more diversification than other global commodities players, with copper and coal being its biggest earnings drivers.
Under M&A rules in the United Kingdom, Glencore must announce a firm intention of an Xstrata offer by March 1. Previous Xstrata merger attempts have failed to materialize, but analysts think this one is different.
"This may be the rare case where a nil premium merger of equals in which shareholders of both companies share the synergies is possible and maybe even sensible and likely," Jefferies Group Inc. (NYSE: JEF) analyst Christopher LaFemina said in a note Thursday. "A deal like this would never be easy, but now is as good a time as any for it to happen."
The news will likely ignite more M&A activity in the metals and mining sector. Miners are loaded with cash and want to capitalize on China's industrial growth. Global mining deals hit $98 billion last year, according to Bloomberg data.
Glencore International closed with a 6.52% gain Thursday in London trading; Xstrata ended up 10.43%.
News and Related Story Links:
Xstrata is a leading producer in seven commodities, according to its Web site. It's the world's fourth-largest metals and mining company, and has a market capitalization of about $50 billion.
Glencore International wants to expand its business from the low-margin metals processing it currently focuses on. The deal would give Glencore access Xstrata's profitable coal, copper, and nickel mines all over the world and create a well-rounded industry leader ! in a bul lish sector.
"Glencore being such a dominant trader and marketer of commodities, and Xstrata being such a strong operator of difficult assets, I think it creates enormous value," Prasad Patkar, who helps manage about $1 billion at Platypus Asset Management Ltd., told Bloomberg News. "On one end you have great mining expertise, on the other you've got great marketing expertise. Two and two together should make five."
A Glencore International-Xstrata entity would have more diversification than other global commodities players, with copper and coal being its biggest earnings drivers.
Under M&A rules in the United Kingdom, Glencore must announce a firm intention of an Xstrata offer by March 1. Previous Xstrata merger attempts have failed to materialize, but analysts think this one is different.
"This may be the rare case where a nil premium merger of equals in which shareholders of both companies share the synergies is possible and maybe even sensible and likely," Jefferies Group Inc. (NYSE: JEF) analyst Christopher LaFemina said in a note Thursday. "A deal like this would never be easy, but now is as good a time as any for it to happen."
The news will likely ignite more M&A activity in the metals and mining sector. Miners are loaded with cash and want to capitalize on China's industrial growth. Global mining deals hit $98 billion last year, according to Bloomberg data.
Glencore International closed with a 6.52% gain Thursday in London trading; Xstrata ended up 10.43%.
News and Related Story Links:
- Money Morning:
Glencore IPO – A Fairly Good Start - Money Morning: Special Report: How to Buy Silver
- Money Morning:
Gold Price Outlook 2012: Miners Will S! hine as Prices Soar - Bloomberg News:
Glencore Offers to Buy Out Rest of Xstrata - The New York Times:
Glencore and Xstrata in Talks for $80 Billion Deal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
