Account Information

  • My Account

    Manage all your subscriptions, update your address, email preferences and change your password.

  • Help Center

    Get answers to common service questions, ask the analyst or contact our customer service department.

  • My Stock Talk Profile

    Update your stock talk name and/or picture.


Evaluating Whiting USA Trust II

By Elliott H. Gue on March 27, 2012

Whiting USA Trust II (NYSE: WHZ) went public on March 23, 2012. The trust’s initial public offering priced at $20 per unit–the midpoint of management’s projected range–and the stock finished its first full day of trading above $24 per unit.

Whiting USA Trust II is the second oil and gas trust spun off by Whiting Petroleum Corp (NYSE: WLL), an independent producer seeking to raise capital to support an ambitious drilling program in the Bakken Shale.

The exploration and production company listed its first royalty trust, Whiting USA Trust I (NYSE: WHX), in early 2008–about nine months before Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy and the stock market imploded. Nevertheless, the stock has generated a total return of about 75 percent since its first day of trading, compared to the S&P 500’s paltry 10 percent gain over the same period.

Whiting USA Trust II represents a royalty interest in oil and gas properties located in the Rocky Mountains, Permian Basin, Gulf Coast and Mid-Continent. The acreage covered by the trust includes 49 fields, the majority of which are mature, and 1,300 gross wells, all of which are in production.

More than 96 percent of these reserves are classified as proved, developed producing (PDP), indicating that these featur little production risk. Crude oil accounts for about 72 percent of the hydrocarbons extracted from the area of mutual interest, while natural gas accounts for 25 percent and natural gas liquids (NGL) make up the remaining 3 percent.

Investors in the trust are entitled to 90 percent of the net proceeds–the gross proceeds from the sale of commodities minus production, development and operating expenses–from the sale of oil, NGLs and natural gas produced in the area of mutual interest.

Whiting USA Trust II will terminate on Dec. 31, 2021, or when 11.79 million barrels of oil equivalent from these wells have been sold–whichever occurs last.

Whiting Petroleum has contributed hedges covering about 50 percent of the trust’s expected oil and gas production between April 1, 2012, and Dec. 31, 2014. The contracts feature a price floor of $80 per barrel and a ceiling of $122.50 per barrel. After these hedges expire, the trust’s cash flow and distributions will hinge on production levels and prevailing commodity prices.

Investors must remember that US royalty trusts aren’t operating companies; these pass-through entities can’t take on additional hedges or bolster production through acquisitions.

Valuing the Trust

When evaluating US oil and gas trusts, you should first consider the pass-through entity’s production mix and the outlook for commodity prices.

Our forecast calls for North American natural gas prices to remain depressed for at least the next two to three years, though an extraordinarily hot summer, a frigid winter or hurricane-related supply disruptions in the Gulf of Mexico could lead to temporary spikes to $4 per million British thermal units. Nevertheless, the ongoing flood of production from the nation’s prolific shale plays should overwhelm these short-lived tailwinds.

With oil prices likely to remain elevated as the global supply-demand balance tightens, Whiting USA Trust II’s oil-weighted production profile bodes well for its future cash flow and distributions.

We also prefer oil and gas trusts that can grow production dramatically in the near term. As I noted in the Jan. 25, 2012, issue of The Energy Letter, SandRidge Mississippian Trust II’s (NYSE: SDR) sponsor has agreed to augment the 67 producing wells on the trust’s underlying acreage by sinking 206 developmental wells before the end of 2015.

As these new horizontal wells come onstream, output from the properties covered by the trust will increase, resulting in higher quarterly distributions for unitholders. Check out this graph of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II’s targeted disbursements.

Source: SandRidge Mississippian II S1/A

Although this trust’s initial public offering won’t take place until early April 2012, similarly structured pass-through entities such as SandRidge Mississippian Trust I (NYSE: SDT) and Chesapeake Granite Wash Trust (NYSE: CHKR) have generated substantial returns in their short lives. In this low-yield environment, a growing quarterly distribution is bound to attract investors’ attention.

Whiting USA Trust II, on the other hand, lacks the potential upside associated with additional field development; the trust’s sponsor will act “as a reasonably prudent operator” and perform basic maintenance to support ongoing production. Whiting Petroleum’s 10 percent royalty stake in these wells incentivizes the firm to take these obligations seriously.

Nevertheless, management expects output from the trust’s underlying wells to decline at an annualized rate of 8.4 percent over the next decade.

The fledgling trust’s predecessor, Whiting USA Trust I, launched about four years ago and provides a reasonable preview of what investors should expect in terms of production. In the first quarter of Whiting USA Trust I’s existence, its underlying properties flowed 204,026 barrels of oil, compared to a quarterly average of 185,000 barrels in 2011.

The graph below tracks management’s production estimates for Whiting USA Trust II’s royalty interest.

Source: Whiting USA Trust II S-1/A

Based on these production estimates, the trust’s distributions have two upside catalysts: Rising commodity prices or a slower-than-anticipated decline rate on the trust’s wells. Although we expect oil prices to remain range-bound in the near term, growing demand in emerging markets and challenges bringing incremental supply growth online should send oil prices higher in coming years. US natural gas prices could also strengthen over the long term as new sources of demand emerge.

Output from the wells in which Whiting USA Trust II has an interest could also surprise to the upside.

At the time of Whiting USA Trust I’s initial public offering in 2008, management estimated that the trust would terminate in 2017 after achieving the production milestone established in its prospectus. In the intervening years, output from these fields has outstripped this initial forecast; based on updated reserve reports, Whiting USA Trust I should reach this milestone on Nov. 30, 2015. At the time of termination, unitholders won’t receive any additional money or income from the sale of assets; distributions will cease at this time, and the trust will no longer exist.

Whiting USA Trust II has removed the possibility of an early termination by instituting terms that will ensure that the pass-through entity will continue until at least Dec. 31, 2021, even if production from the underlying wells reach their targeted output earlier.

What’s a reasonable market value for Whiting USA Trust II?

Let’s use the dividend discount model (DDM), a classic valuation method that reflects one of finance’s core principles: the time value of money, or the idea that $1 today is worth more than a $1 in the future. This general increase in the price of goods and services means that rational investors would regard $1 paid a year later as less valuable than $1 received today.

Opportunity cost also factors in to the equation. That is, if you lend someone $100 today, you give up the chance to invest that $100 in a portfolio of stocks or bonds or to put that $100 in a savings account. You would seek some sort of return on the loan as compensation.

The DDM assumes that a stock is worth the net present value (NPV) of its future dividend payments to shareholders. This approach requires an estimate of how much a company will pay in dividends over the holding period and to discount the total based on a desired annualized rate of return. The sum of all these discounted payments represents the security’s current value.

This valuation technique has a number of shortcomings. First and foremost, predicting the dividends a company will pay in the future is rife with uncertainty and subject to significant error.

Selecting an appropriate discount rate is another challenge. You usually increase the discount rate for a stock that entails more risk or volatility, a decision that reduces the security’s NPV. The required discount rate should also vary with prevailing interest rates. When 10-year US Treasuries yielded almost 7 percent in early 2000, few investors would have taken on the additional risk involved in holding a stock expected to offer a 6 percent annualized return. However, the prospect of a 6 percent annualized return is far more enticing today, with 10-year US government bonds yielding less than 2 percent.

Unlike operating companies that can grow through acquisitions, trusts have a finite life span and hold royalty interests in specified oil and gas wells. Whereas an operating company might grow production by drilling more aggressively or targeting another oil- or gas-bearing formation, trusts are bound by the terms laid out in their prospectus.

Whiting USA Trust II’s most recent S-1/A statement doesn’t offer detailed distribution forecasts through its projected termination date in 2021, though the document includes several clues.

In 2011 the trust’s properties yielded 1.41 million barrels of oil and 2,885 million cubic feet of natural gas, which would have amounted to a full-year total distribution of $3.53 per unit. Management estimates that the wells in which Whiting USA Trust II holds a royalty interest will produce 1.259 million barrels of oil and 2,228 million cubic feet of gas, which would represent production declines of 10.7 percent and 22.8 percent, respectively. Despite the decline in output, management expects the full-year distribution to increase to $4.02 per unit, largely because of higher price realizations on oil output.

I recalculated the trust’s 2011 pro forma distributions using commodity price assumptions for 2012. On that basis, 2011 distributions would have been about $4.33 per unit, had commodity prices in 2011 been as high as they’re projected to be in 2012. This calculation take into account considerably lower natural gas prices in 2012. In other words, on a constant-commodity-price-basis, the trust’s distributions are expected to decline about 7.2 percent.

Whiting USA Trust II’s S-1/A statement estimates that production from the underlying wells will decline at an average annual rate of 8.4 percent over the next decade.

When evaluating an oil and gas trust, I consider conservative and aggressive forecasts of its future distributions, especially in instances where details are scarce.

My conservative case assumes that Whiting USA Trust II’s disbursements will decline at an average annual rate of 9.5 percent over the next 10 years; my aggressive forecast calls for a 7 percent annualized decline in the payout to unitholders. The first scenario factors in a discount rate of 7.5 percent discount rate, while the aggressive forecast includes a discount rate of 6.5 percent.

My conservative model estimates the trust’s market value at $20.25 per unit, while my aggressive valuation scenario yields a value of $23 per unit.

Historically, oil and gas trusts tend to trade at levels that outstrip my aggressive valuations in their first year or two as a publicly traded entity, likely because investors are attracted to the stocks’ elevated yields. Whiting USA Trust II’s trading history could follow this pattern. If the trust hits its first-year distribution target, the stock would yield 17.5 percent at current prices. This sky-high distribution yield should prove popular with investors, even though the trust’s quarterly payouts will likely decline as production from the underlying wells declines.

Based on the trust’s structure and my valuation model, Whiting USA Trust II is a good buy if the stock dips to less than $22 per unit.

Stock Talk — Post a comment Comment Guidelines

Our Stock Talk section is reserved for productive dialogue pertaining to the content and portfolio recommendations of this service. We reserve the right to remove any comments we feel do not benefit other readers. If you have a general investment comment not related to this article, please post to our Stock Talk page. If you have a personal question about your subscription or need technical help, please contact our customer service team. And if you have any success stories to share with our analysts, they’re always happy to hear them. Note that we may use your kind words in our promotional materials. Thank you.

You must be logged in to post to Stock Talk OR create an account.

Create a new Investing Daily account

  • - OR -

* Investing Daily will use any information you provide in a manner consistent with our Privacy Policy. Your email address is used for account verification and will remain private.

Stock Talk

  1. avatar
    Jay Smith Reply February 28, 2013 at 10:42 AM EST

    Very good analysis

  2. avatar
    bud reveley Reply July 2, 2012 at 9:48 AM EST

    great analysis. are you still positive on WHZ?

  3. avatar
    Frank Reply June 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM EST


  4. avatar
    Cal Wagner Reply March 31, 2012 at 7:08 PM EST

    This article states “The acreage covered by the trust includes 49 fields, the majority of which are mature.” I understand a “mature well” is defined as “still producing but well past it’s peak production.” Please clarify what is meant by “mature” field(s). Are the “mature” fields/acreage already well past primary production and into decline? What is the average age of the 1300 gross (production) wells in this acreage?

    Also stated, “Investors in the trust are entitled to 90 percent of the net proceeds . . .” which “. . . could also surprise to the upside.” But what happens to the initial investment? Presumably, “At the time of termination, unitholders won’t receive any additional money or income from the sale of assets; distributions will cease at this time, and the (Whiting) trust (II) will no longer exist.” So is the investment sacrificed/given to Whiting Petroleum Corp (WLL) in trade/exchange for “90%”
    of the estimated but uncertain potential of “net proceeds,” whatever that happens to be? In this case, at the time of termination of the trust, the invested value must be subtracted from the accumulated long-term “net proceeds” to obtain truthful net earnings. Will appreciate the author’s (or anyone’s) response.

  5. avatar
    Bill Cabrera Reply March 31, 2012 at 4:42 PM EST

    I am remiss in not mentioning that the EPA ruling is really the coupe de grace in the war on coal that the Obama administration has been waging since his election. Notwithstanding foreign demand from China, etc., my understanding is the only way this could get undone is by Congressional action which is most unlikely with a Progressive Senate (at least pending results in November).

  6. avatar
    Edward Reply March 31, 2012 at 7:14 AM EST

    Thank You. You have tackled a very complicated topic – which as a valuation model applies to many industries – and rendered very intelligent insight into the process of evaluating future cash flows, projected, analyzed and discounted into the future. You explain the steps and lay out the process in a very concise and intelligent manor. Congratulations. P.S. I am encouraged to respond because lately I have read so many articles which ended with my realization that I just finished reading absolutely nothing.

    • avatar
      Eduardo Reply April 23, 2012 at 6:14 PM EST

      I fully agree with my English-namesake Edward’s comments on this article. A dash (or more) of clarity is hard to come by in many expert (¿?) posts on evaluating prospects for investments of this kind close their IPOs.

  7. avatar
    jeffrey c mensh Reply March 30, 2012 at 3:42 PM EST

    I am a current subscriber to multiple letters. We have seen PVR hit 2 million shares today, obviously mostly on the sell side. The stock has dropped from 27 7 weeks ago to 21+ today. And, it doesn’t appear that the selling is over in light of most of the other MLP’s rising. Big volume and big losses in stock value don’t generally bode well. Does this continue as Mr. Gue’s favorite at this point, and, if so what is the problem that has dropped the stock by over 20+%.

    • avatar
      Bill Cabrera Reply March 31, 2012 at 3:31 PM EST

      Unfortunately, it seems most of the selling is due to the new EPA rules for coal fired plants (wherein they will need to meet same emissions as nat gas fired plants). I too sold my PVR figuring to lock-in my 20% gain before it evaporates as did 35% of my investment in Knightsbridge Tankers when they recently ran in to operational issues.

      It would be good to get an updated perspective from the KCI team.