|Bid||14.66 x 0|
|Ask||14.68 x 0|
|Day's Range||14.49 - 14.70|
|52 Week Range||10.55 - 49.23|
|Beta (3Y Monthly)||-2.40|
|PE Ratio (TTM)||37.50|
|Earnings Date||Oct. 16, 2019|
|Forward Dividend & Yield||0.65 (4.48%)|
|1y Target Est||14.46|
CALGARY , Nov. 12, 2019 /CNW/ - Representatives of Kinder Morgan , Inc. (KMI), which owns a controlling interest in Kinder Morgan Canada Limited (KML), intend to participate in investor meetings at the ...
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Canada’s masses have spoken. Good luck to the energy industry interpreting what they said.Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party have secured a second term in power, albeit having lost their majority. That latter point is critical for Canada’s oil and gas producers and shippers, as is the wider redistribution of seats.If there’s one defining aspect to take away from Canada’s election, it’s the deepening of divisions. Energy likes to flow, but Canada has become a case study in bottlenecks. Alongside the tortured saga of the Keystone XL pipeline to take Albertan oil south, other pipelines have been delayed or, in the case of Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd.’s Trans Mountain expansion to British Columbia, bought out by Ottawa to get it done. Five years ago, oil sands output was forecast to rise above four million barrels a day by the mid-2020s. That’s been pushed back to the early 2030s(1), and even that looks optimistic. Discounts on Canadian oil, reflecting the higher costs of transporting it by rail rather than pipeline, now routinely exceed $10 a barrel.Canada happens to be a large oil producer that also has a strong movement to deal with climate change. An opinion poll released in early September found 69% of Canadians thought climate change should be a top priority for the next government — but that 58% thought oil and gas development should also be a top priority. Little wonder, then, that after a campaign defined largely by arguments over carbon taxes and pipelines, Canada has ended up without a clear winner.Even so, the result is a net negative for fans of the oil sands. Trudeau’s green credentials are tempered by, among other things, his backing for Trans Mountain. One of the more memorable press releases during the campaign was a mic-drop rebuttal of the Liberals’ climate plan by the New Democratic Party that read: “You. Bought. A. Pipeline.” Yet Trudeau may now rely on the likes of the NDP for crucial votes, providing leverage for a more assertive environmental agenda. Even if Trans Mountain survives, the likelihood of another major pipeline getting done just dimmed appreciably.Equally, while the Conservatives are spinning Monday’s election as a victory, having pushed Trudeau into a minority government and seemingly winning more votes, it looks largely hollow from the perspective of a place like Calgary. Yes, the Liberals were wiped out in the prairies. But then what else was expected, given the Conservatives’ pro-fossil fuel and low-tax manifesto? The fact remains they secured only about a third of the seats in an election where the incumbent was dogged by scandal and climate change was front and center. The Liberals, NDP and the Greens secured more than half the seats and the popular vote, while the Bloc Québécois — which also favors more stringent measures on carbon emissions — took another 11% of parliament. A future win for Conservatives will require securing support beyond its base, which demands a more nuanced approach on energy and climate issues.As we know, though, nuance is a rare commodity in politics right now, and Canada is no exception. The election exposed divisions between east and west and young and old, the latter a growing theme in the climate debate and democracies in general. The resurgence of the Bloc Québécois, along with the Liberals’ wipe out west of Ontario, raise the old demons of separatism, now with a climate-change dimension. Meanwhile, Trudeau finds himself battling several provincial governments over the imposition of a carbon tax. Conservatives clearly require a rethink, but it would be a mistake for climate-change activists to take Monday’s result as case closed. While Canada’s climate politics are quite different from those in the U.S., the clash between owners and employees of incumbent energy interests and those pressing for a Green New Deal (or a new, green deal anyway) straddles the border.All this means Canada’s energy producers remain in a bind. Like at least some of their peers elsewhere in North America and, especially, in Europe, they know the pressure to deal with climate change is growing even as their profits depend on satisfying current demand for fossil fuels. The uncertainty exemplified by the election result will serve to deter at least some investment, raising the cost of capital for oil and gas producers (which is the ultimate strategy behind those pipeline protests). Ownership of Canada’s oil sands, which have seen an exodus of foreign companies such as Royal Dutch Shell Plc, will likely consolidate further. And with growth prospects dimming, producers should move toward even bigger payouts to support valuation, in keeping with the broader trend in a less-loved energy sector.What energy producers will want to avoid above all else is the risk of more interventionist or prescriptive laws — a growing theme in climate politics as the window for taking action has narrowed. That argues against simply doubling down on the Conservatives’ current platform or disappearing down the rabbit hole of separatism. Indeed, the new balance of power in parliament raises an intriguing prospect. Given the bargains Trudeau must now strike to keep power, Canada’s energy producers might be better off if Conservatives entertained working with him on some issues rather than just sticking to their guns.(1) Forecasts as per the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.To contact the author of this story: Liam Denning at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Gongloff at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Liam Denning is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy, mining and commodities. He previously was editor of the Wall Street Journal's Heard on the Street column and wrote for the Financial Times' Lex column. He was also an investment banker.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Sale to Pembina Pipeline Corporation Remains on Track CALGARY , Oct. 16, 2019 /CNW/ - The Kinder Morgan Canada Limited (TSX: KML) board of directors has declared a dividend for the third quarter of 2019 ...
NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / October 16, 2019 / Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd. (TSX: KML ) will be discussing their earnings results in their 2019 Third Quarter Earnings to be held on October 16, 2019 at 4:30 ...
CALGARY , Oct. 10, 2019 /CNW/ - Kinder Morgan Canada Limited (TSX: KML) announces the following webcast and dial-in information for its 2019 third quarter earnings results: What: Kinder Morgan ...
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- As the fight for Marathon Petroleum Corp.’s future intensifies, collateral damage looms for an already battle-scarred asset class: master limited partnerships.Elliott Management Corp.’s call for splitting Marathon in three has garnered support from a couple of other shareholders now pushing CEO Gary Heminger to step down. Marathon’s board says it stands behind Heminger, but the persistent discount in the stock versus its sum-of-the-parts value should keep the issue of a corporate overhaul alive. While the future of retail arm Speedway looks like the most contentious area, Elliott’s suggestion of converting Marathon’s MLP, called MPLX LP, into a regular C-Corp and spinning it off looks less controversial.Such conversions have become commonplace. Problems with governance, debt, tax reform and general energy exposure have crushed MLP valuations, eroding their main reason for existing, namely as a cheap source of capital. MPLX now sports a distribution yield of about 9.5%. Converting to a C-Corp, as many others have done, would open up a wider pool of investors.That could be great for MPLX; less so for MLPs.I wrote here back in May about the shrinking MLP pool. Since then, a few partnerships have disappeared, including Andeavor Logistics LP, which was bought by MPLX. Meanwhile, Tallgrass Energy LP has received a buyout offer (of sorts), and Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd. should disappear by the end of the year. Plus, with Occidental Petroleum Corp. trying to pay off the debt from its acquisition of Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Western Midstream Partners LP also could be exiting the scene.Here are updated charts breaking down 83 North American energy infrastructure companies (not including utilities) into their respective groups, weighted by market cap and free float. The dominance of the C-Corps is pretty clear: An MPLX conversion would have a big impact. With a market cap of roughly $30 billion(1), MPLX represents about 11% of North American energy partnerships’ aggregate value. It’s also the largest member of the Alerian MLP Index. Assume MPLX converts and is spun off, plus Buckeye Partners LP(2), Tallgrass, Kinder Morgan Canada and Western Midstream all disappear. Under that scenario, C-Corps would jump from about 62% of the aggregate free float of energy infrastructure firms to more than two-thirds. Meanwhile, outside of C-Corps and the big four, we would be left with a long tail of 61 companies with a combined free float of just $48 billion, averaging less than $800 million each.And the dwindling ranks of the Alerian MLP index would thin further; MPLX, Tallgrass and Western Midstream account for a fifth of its weighting. The relative weighting of smaller partnerships with lower-quality midstream assets would increase. For example, all else equal, Genesis Energy LP, which houses everything from soda-ash production to pipelines to shipping, could enter the top 10 of the index’s holdings.A vicious cycle is at work here. As generalist investors have withdrawn, so MLP valuations have remained subdued despite some recovery in energy prices and continued growth in U.S. physical energy flows. This, along with governance concerns, persuades more partnerships to either sell out or give up on the structure, reducing the pool of available investments, which in turn leads to investment mandates and specialist funds migrating away.Earlier this month, large pension funds in Iowa and Oklahoma effectively eliminated asset allocations to MLPs, with Teachers’ Retirement System of Oklahoma noting a number of drawbacks, including an “extremely small universe of securities relative to other asset classes.” In his latest weekly roundup of the sector, Hinds Howard at CBRE Clarion Securities noted that after a year of trying to deal with weak performance and growing concentration, institutions are “throwing in the towel,” with allocations “being diverted to listed infrastructure strategies, private equity or just plain old global equities.” He adds:MLPs have lost the special designation as a separate allocation within real assets that the sector has enjoyed over the years. That fund flow headwind is the biggest impediment to midstream performance [for] the rest of 2019, especially if oil prices are going to remain a headwind.Of course, even if MLPs are shrinking in importance, the hard assets they own remain and can be invested in under other structures. BP Capital Fund Advisors LLC is touting the catchily named UBS E-TRACS NYSE Pickens Core Midstream Index ETN, which includes allocations to C-Corps, with a recent report subtitled: “Is your midstream exchange traded product still relevant?” Some funds have taken an holistic approach to energy infrastructure for years, notably the First Trust North American Energy Infrastructure Fund, which mixes partnerships with C-Corps and even utilities, and the Voya CBRE Global Infrastructure Fund, which extends beyond energy-related infrastructure.Looking at the relative performance, it isn’t hard to see why. And as more MLP constituents either change identity or leave altogether, more institutional money will follow.\- With graphics by Elaine He (1) All data are as at the market close on September 26, 2019.(2) IFM Investors agreed to buy Buckeye for $11.1 billion (including assumed debt) in May 2019, with completion expected by the end of the year.To contact the author of this story: Liam Denning at email@example.comTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Gongloff at firstname.lastname@example.orgThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Liam Denning is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy, mining and commodities. He previously was editor of the Wall Street Journal's Heard on the Street column and wrote for the Financial Times' Lex column. He was also an investment banker.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
NYSE: PBA) today announced that it has agreed with Kinder Morgan Canada Limited (TSX:KML.TO - News) ("KML") to amend and restate the previously announced arrangement agreement dated August 20, 2019 (the "Arrangement Agreement") to include the preferred shares of KML in the arrangement transaction pursuant to which Pembina will acquire KML (the "Transaction"). If requisite approval by the holders of KML preferred shares is obtained, upon closing of the Transaction, each outstanding KML preferred share of a series will be exchanged for one preferred share of Pembina with the same commercial terms and conditions as that series of KML preferred shares. The inclusion of KML preferred shares in the Transaction is subject to approval by at least 66 2/3 percent of the votes cast by holders of KML preferred shares, voting together as a single class, present in person or represented by proxy at the special meeting of the holders of KML preferred shares to be held to approve the Transaction, but is not a condition to closing of the Transaction.
NYSE: PBA) (Pembina) to amend and restate the previously announced arrangement agreement dated August 20, 2019 to include the preferred shares of KML in the arrangement transaction. If requisite approval by the holders of KML preferred shares is obtained, upon closing of the transaction, each outstanding KML preferred share of a series will be exchanged for a preferred share of Pembina with the same commercial terms and conditions as that series of KML preferred shares. The inclusion of KML preferred shares in the transaction is subject to approval by at least 66 2/3% of the votes cast by holders of KML preferred shares, voting together as a single class, present in person or represented by proxy at the special meeting of the holders of KML preferred shares to be held to approve the transaction, but is not a condition to closing of the transaction.
Kinder Morgan (KMI) announced that it agreed to sell the US portion of Cochin Pipeline and its 70% stake in Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd. to Pembina Pipeline.
NYSE: PBA) (Pembina) under which Pembina has agreed to acquire all of the outstanding common equity of KML (including the 70 percent majority voting interest held by Kinder Morgan Inc. (NYSE: KMI)), subject to the terms of the arrangement agreement between KML and Pembina. On closing, KML shareholders will receive .3068 shares of Pembina for each KML share. Based on yesterday's closing price for Pembina, the total consideration to be received by KML common shareholders is valued at $15.12 per KML share, which represents a 38 percent premium to yesterday's KML closing price.
This news release refers to adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization ("adjusted EBITDA") and adjusted cash flow from operating activities per share ("adjusted cash flow per share"), which are financial measures that are not defined by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").
CALGARY , Aug. 9, 2019 /CNW/ - Representatives of Kinder Morgan , Inc. (KMI), which owns a controlling interest in Kinder Morgan Canada Limited (KML), intend to participate in investor meetings at the ...
It's easy to match the overall market return by buying an index fund. While individual stocks can be big winners...
After some major downgrades this week, should investors look at Aphria Inc. (TSX:APHA)(NYSE:APHA), Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd. (TSX:KML), and this other stock?