Fracking Ban: “Is President Obama About to Start a New Civil War?”

Checking out a teaser for Income & Dividend Report

By Travis Johnson, Stock Gumshoe, April 22, 2013

Irregulars Quick Take Paid members get a quick summary of the stocks teased and our thoughts here. Join as a Stock Gumshoe Irregular today (already a member? Log in)

One thing all newsletter teaser ad copywriters know for sure is that controversy gets attention.

You can predict the continuing slow decline of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency … or you can predict the END OF AMERICA.

And you can predict that the federal government will issue new regulations on hydrofracturing after the EPA reports on their latest study next year … or you can shout that President Obama is going to ban fracking and “Start a new Civil War.”

Obviously, predicting a new civil war, or the end of America, or the “One stock you need to own forever” is the way to go if you want to get the attention of a fickle email-reading public … it’s cheap to send email ads to all and sundry, but it’s also easy for readers to scan those ads for a moment and quickly lose interest if it doesn’t titillate or tease something really tasty.

So that’s what we’ve got today — an ad for Jim Nelson’s new Income & Dividend Report that gets our attention thusly:

“Is President Obama About to Start a New Civil War?

“In the next 12 months, an executive order from the president could change the course of American history and possibly spark an armed conflict on U.S. soil….

“When he strides to the White House podium to announce this executive order, 1.7 million Americans will immediately lose their jobs.

“The most important industry in the country will see its collective value chopped in half…

“The fragile American economy will collapse, and the stock market with it.

“Even worse, Obama’s decision will lead to a Civil War in one very specific part of the country — which I’ll reveal in a moment….”

There’s a long spiel after that, but basically it comes down to this: Nelson says he thinks “the most likely outcome” is that Obama will ban fracking, and that will spark a revolt in Texas that will turn into an armed revolt and a military intervention to stop fracking (and Texas splitting itself into five states, among other things).

Which is pretty crazy on the face of it, but there you have it. That’s the backdrop. And I suppose crazier things have happened, though not in my lifetime.

And what investment does he think will benefit from this?

The infrastructure MLPs.

Here’s the logic, in his words:

“The Only Winner From a National Fracking Ban….

“One very specific part of the American oil complex is likely to thrive…

“If you’re invested in this subsector, you could see your investment jump immediately if Obama signs a fracking ban.

“Over the first few months of the ban, you could potentially double or triple your money…

“So which oil sector actually stands to profit from this ban?

“Refineries and pipelines.

“If gas prices skyrocket to $10 per gallon or more — heck, even $6 per gallon will do the trick — refineries will collect a huge premium between the price of gas going out and the price of oil coming in.

“At the same time, pipelines connected to the remaining legal oil will also charge a premium for the newly expensive cargo.

“Now — you could play this situation by buying shares in one or two particular refinery and pipeline companies and trying to guess which one will thrive.

“Or you could follow my recommendation and get a stake in 23 different pipelines and refineries.”

I don’t understand why he believes that an immediate halt to fracking would cause gas prices to rise faster than crude oil prices, but apparently that’s the argument — likewise, it’s hard to see why a plan that shuts in production in many shale areas, thereby cutting US production of oil and gas substantially, would lead to more income for the infrastructure assets who move that oil and gas around the country.

There could be short-term benefits for some regions, there would be unstable pricing if something big like this were to happen (I don’t personally believe it will, given the reliance of all politicians on the industrial renaissance being made possible by cheap natural gas, which itself is made possible by fracking), but I don’t see how refiners or pipelines particularly benefit from dropping production volumes and rising prices …

… if fracking is halted, I’d look at oil sands producers, offshore rig owners and producers, and oil tanker owners to benefit in filling the gap from US oil production that would again start to fall (after growing for several years), and I’d look at coal to benefit from the dramatically rising natural gas prices that we would see. And, of course, you’d want to reconsider that plan to build a luxury apartment complex in Williston, ND … and short Cheniere Energy (LNG), since if we stop fracking we’re going to have to start importing natural gas again instead of planning to export it.

Lest you reflexively agree with Nelson that Obama is going to issue an executive order to halt fracking by next year, here’s his far more nuanced commentary from the State of the Union address a couple months ago:

“After years of talking about it, we are finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar – with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before – and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen.

“But for the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change. Yes, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late.

“The good news is, we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth. I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.

“Four years ago, other countries dominated the clean energy market and the jobs that came with it. We’ve begun to change that. Last year, wind energy added nearly half of all new power capacity in America. So let’s generate even more. Solar energy gets cheaper by the year – so let’s drive costs down even further. As long as countries like China keep going all-in on clean energy, so must we.

“In the meantime, the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence. That’s why my Administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits. But I also want to work with this Congress to encourage the research and technology that helps natural gas burn even cleaner and protects our air and water.”

So, as befits a politician, that reads to me as firmly down the middle of the road — more oil, more gas, more renewables, need for emissions reductions and climate change action … nary a word about groundwater and fracking, though I suppose that could become a far larger issue if the EPA does indeed issue a report that causes more people to worry about their water (or earthquakes). I have no idea what will happen … but it’s awfully hard to put a genie back in a bottle, particularly when that genie generates a lot of jobs in both red and blue states and cuts the energy bills of millions of registered voters.

But what is Nelson talking about? Well, from his description he must be recommending a fund that owns pipelines and refineries — a midstream infrastructure fund. There are both Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) and Closed End Funds (CEFs) that invest in these (as well as traditional mutual funds), about 25 of them if you ignore the traditional open-ended funds, and he doesn’t particularly clue us in as to which one he’s touting — though frankly, other than the slightly different strategies, levels of leverage, and management fees they all tend to move together, so if you want to buy a basket of midstream oil and gas assets like pipelines and refineries and storage facilities you’ll get similar results from most of ’em.

There is one major index for infrastructure MLPs, the Alerian index, and you can fairly easily trade it through an ETF with the ticker AMLP. It yields about 5.75% right now, and there are now 25 MLPs in the index and in the ETF. There aren’t really an refineries in this ETF, so that’s not a direct match, but there are plenty of refinery-related MLPs that have been spun out of their refining parents over the years (Tesoro Logistics, TLLP, owns the tanks and pipelines used by Tesoro, TSO, to collect crude oil and distribute refined products, for example).

There are also some slightly different but also quite concentrated ETFs out there, like the Global X Junior MLP ETF (MLPJ)– that’s got about 24 companies in the portfolio now, mostly smaller MLPs, or the new Yorkville ETF (YMLI) which equal weights 25 infrastructure MLPs that are screened for their payouts and distribution strength.

With any fund, whether a closed-end fund or an ETF, you lose the tax advantage of the MLPs that is a major reason for individual investors owning these assets — the fund is a corporation, so they don’t get to pass along tax deferral to you. If you buy an MLP you can defer taxes on most of the distributions, but if you own an MLP ETF you lose the headache of the partnership form (K-1) for taxes but also then owe taxes in the current year on the dividend you receive from the fund. (Most MLP distributions are largely return of capital, since accounting income is swamped by depreciation that far outpaces the cash these companies put toward maintenance, and expansion is done by raising new funds — cash gets pushed out the door to MLP unitholders, and the return of capital lowers your tax basis when you sell your shares but doesn’t incur an immediate tax liability).

Still, getting rid of the recordkeeping hassle of the MLPs, and of the worries about holding them in IRAs or other tax-advantaged accounts, is worth something, and the MLP ETFs have been quite popular … probably also because MLPs have so dramatically outperformed the broader market over the last 15 years. Given the increasing variety and strength of the ETFs in the sector, I’d avoid the wide variety of leveraged closed-end funds, in my experience their management fees tend to be huge and their performance not notably better than the sector as a whole, and almost all of them are trading at a substantial premium to their net asset value right now. You can scan the offerings currently available through the CEFConnect site here if you like (under “US Equity” there’s a button to choose just MLP-based funds).

Given that many of the MLPs are actively investing to expand into the hot shale areas like the Marcellus or the Bakken or the Eagle Ford to help improve transport of this new oil and gas, I’d be shocked if the sector did great in a fracking ban … those new gathering systems would then be worthless. But I’ll also be shocked if we see a federal fracking ban, I expect we’ll see more regulation of chemicals and more testing requirements over time, but that fracking will continue to thrive and that bans will be localized and pushed through by probably a small number of states and municipalities. Just my guess.

And I don’t personally own any MLPs right now, but they (the big interstate ones, at least) do tend to be very steady and reliable, and to increase those distributions — it’s a toll business, so as long as more oil and gas moves through the pipes (or the processing plants, or the storage facilities), the fees these companies collect can increase.

So thankfully, Nelson also pitches another income investment — one with a higher yield, and that is poised to benefit if fracking continues … here’s the spiel on that:

“I want income. I want companies that deliver steady profits over a long-term period. And I want to see them give large amounts of those profits back to shareholders.

“That’s why I’m so excited about this backdoor North Dakota play.

“It has a royalty stake in the Bakken fracking operations — and a vast asset base generating a consistent cash flow.

“And just like the pipeline and refinery companies I mentioned earlier, this company is required by law to pay 90% of its profits to shareholders.

“Even better, this company will send you a cut of its profits EVERY MONTH.

“Over the last five years, the company has returned 145% — and it’s currently yielding 8.8%.

“Those are great numbers…

“But if fracking continues and 24 billion barrels of Three Forks’ oil starts coming online, you can imagine how much fatter those dividend payments could be.

“If the EPA releases its study and Obama still decides to keep fracking — you could make a fortune over the long haul while collecting almost 9% income every year.”

So … we toss that one into the Thinkolator, and though it’s a wee bit rusty after a week of sand and saltwater we get a decent (not 100% sure) surmise out of the ol’ ‘olator — best solution running here is Vanguard Natural Resources (VNR).

There are only a few companies I’m aware of that have any kind of substantial exposure to the Bakken and pay a monthly dividend … and when you add on that the stock has to have provided returns of better than 100% over four years and sport a current income yield of 8.8% or thereabouts, it’s tough to make the clues fit anyone else.

Enerplus Resources (ERF) and Baytex (BTE), two former Canadian Trusts that converted to corporate form, both pay monthly dividends and have some Bakken exposure (ERF has more) — but BTE doesn’t have a high enough distribution to get it over 8%, and ERF has been very weak over the past five years so you can’t squeeze in a 100%+ gain for them (BTE and VNR both did pretty well recovering from the 2009 crash, ERF still hasn’t recovered). Also, though all three of these companies pay out far more than they “earn” in their distributions, Enerplus and BTE are taxed as corporations and their dividend “requirements” are self-imposed … Vanguard Natural Resources is a publicly traded partnership that has elected to be taxed like a MLP, so they have to distribute earnings to shareholders.

Which is splitting hairs — they don’t have any actual earnings, so they could get away with not distributing anything if they want to (depreciation and depletion, among other things, are non-cash charges that don’t cut into the distribution of cash flow but do cut into the accounting profits). Assuming they wanted the share price to crater. But they’re clearly focused on increasing the dividend at a gradual rate if they can, including operating an active hedging program to try to make their cash flow somewhat more predictable even with fluctuating commodity pricing. They switched over to a monthly dividend last August and they’ve raised the dividend once since then. The current yield is just about 8.4%.

VNR is a producing partnership — they operate oil and gas production facilities and distribute earnings to unitholders of the partnership, so it’s not technically a MLP but it works like one. Producing partnerships are inherently more volatile than midstream partnerships, because instead of a fee-based business or a spread-based business like refining, processing or transportation of petroleum products, your partnership actually owns oil fields (or pieces of ’em) and produces the oil and gas, so you have to deal both with reserves depletion (and replacement) and with fluctuating oil and gas prices that can, even with good hedging, make earnings very bumpy. Other partnerships that fall into this category include longtime investor favorite Linn Energy (LINE — though they’ve been beaten up a bit over their accounting lately) and Legacy Resources (LGCY), and there are a few more in this list from the Dividend Detective.

We’ve only looked at one other teaser for Nelson’s Income & Dividend Report in its relatively short life, so if you’ve tried it out yourself feel free to click here to review it for your fellow investors — we did cover Nelson quite a few times back when he was helming the Lifetime Income Report for Agora Financial, so you can see some info about his past ideas (and subscriber opinions) here.

So … we come up for air after vacation without a lot of certainty, perhaps tomorrow will lead to more black and white revelations and opinions. Are you interested in getting exposure to a basket of infrastructure MLPs? Or in buying just one producing MLP with a stronger yield? Let us know with a comment below.

Related Gumshoe Articles

“Energy’s $40 Billion Killer App”

Checking out Zachary Scheidt's dividend tease that "Creates new natural gas fields"

10 Comments Read More

What’s Zach Scheidt’s “New Buried Treasure” from the “Ten Hills Technique?”

Checking out the natural gas "reverse mining" tease from Contrarian Profits

11 Comments Read More

Leave a Reply

36 Comments on "Fracking Ban: “Is President Obama About to Start a New Civil War?”"

avatar

c14824
Member
0
c14824
April 22, 2013 9:13 pm

This is all petroleum company propaganda tom ruin our envirtonment!

Jake
Guest
0
Jake
April 28, 2013 11:14 am

We have been, are, and shall remain (for many years to come) direct beneficiaries of the petrochemical cornucopia that is integral to our economy, energy supply and standard of living.

KennyG
Guest
0
KennyG
April 22, 2013 9:49 pm
It might be worth checking a bit firther into your statement that “With any fund, whether a closed-end fund or an ETF, you lose the tax advantage of the MLPs that is a major reason for individual investors owning these assets — the fund is a corporation, so they don’t get to pass along tax deferral to you. If you buy an MLP you can defer taxes on most of the distributions, but if you own an MLP ETF you lose the headache of the partnership form (K-1) for taxes but also then owe taxes in the current year on… Read more »
mick
Guest
0
mick
April 26, 2013 10:53 pm
Travis: My bet is that fracking will continue as big business owns governments and always gets its way. That’s why even the machine gun massacre of children did nothing to change gun laws….well nothing that means anything, and even those changes are being watered down. So do you really think that fracking is going to end. The fact that this process is reputed to destroy the water table and leave valuable farmland next to useless does not seem to matter. I mean who cares about food production because you can go buy imported food can’t you. And then you won’t… Read more »
Jake
Guest
0
Jake
April 28, 2013 12:31 pm
Fracking will continue because it works and America needs the resources, profits and taxes. This is a huge net benefit for America. Re your rambling political commentary, I hope you are simply being provocative in order to initiate a debate in this forum. I will therefore respond accordingly. Big government – and the corruption, waste, fraud and abuse it directly enables – is a huge part of the problem. Too many politicians and bureaucrats deliberately and willfully work hand in hand with big business, big labor, and myriad special interest groups including so called “non-profits” – yes including “big environment”… Read more »
hipockets
Irregular
998
April 29, 2013 3:15 am
@Jake — I think Mick meant “assault rifle” instead of “machine gun”. I know that this isn’t the right forum to say this, but I have to tell you that NO ONE that I know wants to pass a law that would infringe upon a person’s right to own a gun or guns. But EVERYONE I know would like to see a law that balances that right with some common sense about what types of guns (and magazines and bullets) a non-police-officer or non-armed-forces-person can own. What would a sane non-police-officer or non-armed-forces-person do with an assault rifle, anyway? If… Read more »
Louie
Guest
0
Louie
April 29, 2013 6:13 am
According to Wikipedia, “In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicide deaths, and 11,078 firearm-related homicide deaths in the United States.[7]” So with more gun control, more people would have to jump off buildings and bridges to kill themselves, instead of using a gun. Do you think gun control would prevent suicides? The percentage of gun homicides is lower in the U.S. than many countries. And if you were really concerned about human life, you’d be fighting for the 1 million babies killed, with knives instead of guns. “#2 When you total up all forms of abortion, including those caused by… Read more »
hipockets
Irregular
998
April 30, 2013 10:38 pm
Well, shucks! My common sense got up and left me! As pointed out above, we all have the right to express our thoughts. But, depending on the arena we are in (or in this case, the website we are visiting) sometimes it is not appropriate to do so. That’s the point I started out to make, in a subtle way. But I got carried away, and in so doing violated the “try to be appropriate” golden rule. I’d really like to express my views on abortion here, but it isn’t the place. I’m here to learn abut stocks and investing.… Read more »
SigSilber
Guest
0
SigSilber
April 22, 2013 11:00 pm
Fracking has little to do with GHG emissions. I have emailed you some information on that. The EPA has now issued a draft report that shows fugitive emissions are half of what was previously estimated. The impact on groundwater due to fracking is very difficult to establish given that the shale formations tend to be a mile below aquifers. Well integrity and proper above ground procedures are important whether fracking, horizontal drilling or conventional approaches are used. I seriously doubt Obama will ban fracking. Full disclosure of what is in the fracking fluid makes sense and from what I know… Read more »
S Gallagher
Guest
0
S Gallagher
April 23, 2013 1:11 am

I think that some CEFs can and do pass through tax benefits. An easy way to start checking is to look at the name of the fund. Does it have the words MLP Fund in it’s name. If so, they will in all likelyhood have as a portion of their dividend a Return of Capital.

chitownflex
Member
0
chitownflex
April 23, 2013 1:26 am

Travis,
This one had me laughing a bit. Anything to push an idea I guess.
And by-the-way, I only shed a few tears this week.
Welcome back, glad you made it home safely..

Cheers!

John Harris
Guest
0
John Harris
April 23, 2013 12:48 pm
I too seriously doubt fracking will be banned anytime soon and certainly not by Obama. I think Travis is right however that we may see more regulation and as Sigsilber says the disclosure required for what’s in the fluid. I am hoping that does happen and might give an advantage to companies that make fluids without some of the problems attributed to water based fluids like that company GasFrac that went in the toilet after at least I bought it. I rode that baby all the way down thinking it would recover and still hold it praying for someone to… Read more »
sagenot
Guest
0
sagenot
April 23, 2013 1:24 pm

After the gun owning liberals scorned the Obama gun regulations, I imagine something similar will happen if His Highness should shoot himself in the foot again by suggesting a fracking ban. I’ve found that it’s best TO SHORT OBAMA, & let the market reward me over time. Hopefully one day the Speaker of the House will get some guts & serve Impeachment Papers on Obama. God knows he deserves nothing less. It took a lot less to serve Nixon & later Clinton with Impeachment Papers, who does Obama think he is?

pcolajoe
Guest
0
pcolajoe
April 24, 2013 8:14 pm

So you get your beliefs from emails? Why don’t you leave this country if you can’t support it?

captschnuff
Member
0
captschnuff
April 28, 2013 8:36 pm

Not an adherent of the Kool-Aid cohort , for sure.

John M. Chenosky, PE
Guest
0
John M. Chenosky, PE
April 23, 2013 2:07 pm
Who made the comment that the last 15 years have had 12 of the hottest years on record? I hope it isn’t you Travis because that is hogwash. If you have been quoting the NY Times or the Huff Post the “bastions of environmental religion” you need to get your science from http://www.wattsupwiththat.com. The winner of science websites four years running and the authority on AGW Cult Religion and TRUTH IN SCIENCE. Other websites are referenced including ClimateAudit org. The author is the authority in dispelling the fraud by Climate “Scientists” who don’t follow the Scientific Method, the accepted method… Read more »
Jake
Guest
0
Jake
April 28, 2013 4:16 pm
Travis appears to be quoting directly from Obama’s State of the Union speech. And as with too many other politicians and “big government” advocates, Obama rarely if ever allows pesky facts and actual hard science get in the way of his agenda. As a practicing chemical engineer, with a global clientele and chemical production plants installed worldwide, I have learned that most of our fellow human beings simply do not have the expertise or inclination to understand even the basic core science and key facts behind the politically driven “show” that masquerades as an “environmental agenda”, particularly with respect to… Read more »
hipockets
Irregular
998
April 29, 2013 1:41 am
@Jake — As you pointed out, all of the several glacial periods took place over thousands of years. The Milankovitch cycles (which were probably ONE of the major causes of climate change and perhaps the predominant one) also took — and is now taking — place over thousands of years. The fact that we now see notable changes in just a few decades (mainly those after the industrial revolution started) makes me believe that us homo saps are doing something wrong. Getting back to the reason for subscribing to The Stock Gumshoe — learning about stocks — can you recommend… Read more »
7805gum
Member
0
7805gum
April 24, 2013 2:47 pm

Have held several of the larger MLP’s for about 3 years. I don’t even open the the K-1 envelope. Our CPA has programs to handle the calculations. They didn’t even raise their fee. Also hold AMLP just to know how it does. It does O.K. but not as good as holding the actual MLP’s. Recently reviewed the AMLP portfolio for a client and found I match most of their top ten. Also just bought Too.
Have fun!

SigSilber
Guest
0
SigSilber
April 26, 2013 11:48 pm

Fracking is not dangerous. People who do not know what they are talking about are dangerous. People who are proud of how little they know about something and then spout off are pathetic.

olwreckdiver
Guest
0
olwreckdiver
April 27, 2013 10:31 pm

Armijo:
A: You’re a moron
B: You know NOTHING about chemistry, oil, OR the environment!
C. See A!

KennyG
Guest
0
KennyG
April 28, 2013 11:57 am

I hope personal attacks such as this one are routinely moderated, as there would seem to be no place on a forum like this for comments by an individual such as this “olwreckdriver” that add absolutely nothing to the conversation, and simply make personal attacks on other posters, yet post absolutely nothing of value themselves.
JMHO of course

macrobody
Member
0
macrobody
April 28, 2013 8:18 am

I guess I missed it somewhere but what does MLP stands for?

Jake
Guest
0
Jake
April 28, 2013 11:02 am

Master Limited Partnership

Ronrico
Guest
0
Ronrico
April 28, 2013 9:07 am

I was as confused as anyone here about all these political questions until I watched the documentary that made sense out of all the problems we are facing today. Spend an
enlightening half hour and watch http://vimeo.com/63749370

Ron K
Guest
0
Ron K
April 28, 2013 12:59 pm

In the “Fracking Ban” article there is this line,: “worries about holding them (MLP’s) in IRAs or other tax-advantaged accounts”. What are the worries that is talked about? Is the “worry” the hassle of setting one up? If I already have an IRA is the “worry” circumvented? Or are there other problems with holding MLP’s in an IRA?

Thank you,

Ron
rjkrjk@hotmail.com

KennyG
Guest
0
KennyG
April 28, 2013 2:21 pm
@Ron K.. Google UBTI. It is Unrelated Business Taxable Income, and MLP’s [as well as some other types of partnership structures] can generate UBTI. Although it is not prohibited in an IRA, it can, once it reaches certain thresholds, become a major reporting headache inside an IRA type vehicle. If the IRA generates gross UBTI income of $1,000 or more during the tax year, the IRA must file Form 990-T by April 15 of the following year, just like individual tax returns. In addition, UBTI is one of those cases where income within an IRA is actually destined to be… Read more »
hipockets
Irregular
998
April 29, 2013 1:06 am

@KENNYG — Many, many thanks for answering Ron’s question about MLPs and IRAs. I needed the information, but did not know I did! :>) And thanks, Ron, for ansking the question.

Ron K
Guest
0
Ron K
April 29, 2013 2:50 pm

Ken, excellent answer. Are there any ways that you know of where for example, an ETF invests in MLPs so that the ETF can be held in an IRA, paperwork is eliminated (not really eliminated but done by the ETF) and is treated (and taxed) only once when removed from the IRA (having the govt. see the ETF as just another stock like instrument in the IRA)?

Thanks,
Ron

KennyG
Guest
0
KennyG
April 29, 2013 5:56 pm
Ron: There are several [and maybe many others as well] ETF’s as well as “C” Corp investments that are designed to allow you to invest “indirectly” and avoid the entire K-1 and UBTI issue. As an example [and I am not endorsing any of these, and I am in fact long some of them], there is AMLP, which is an “ETF” type vehicle that invests in a basket of MLP’s and provides you a 1099 at the end of each year [see my earlier post from the 22nd of April near the beginning of the comments thread]. There are also… Read more »
baygreen
Member
32
April 28, 2013 8:01 pm
That was great do you go left or right, there are 4,000 confirmed fracking jobs done right where the keystone should go through , but Warrens/Obama oil train are getting an extra $10.00 a barrel extra on his train not the big oil and the big oil pays more in taxes than they make in profit. Warren salary does not fit that write off , and the gun laws are great for the second amendment. What country is Chicago, they broke the all time murder rate this year and the Mayor called Obama and asked for help just a speech… Read more »
black jack
Guest
0
black jack
September 4, 2013 7:02 am
rambotrader
Member
4
rambotrader
September 4, 2013 8:57 am
Here in Australia we are having the same issues as the US. The fracking industry here wants to frack under some of the most productive in the country despite the obvious dangers to contamination and water table. We have the usual promises that the process is alright but many recall the disasters miners have left in the past. When miners have what they want they leave and damage or cleanups are the responsibility of the suckers who let them do it. One only needs to look at the environmental record of Chevron around the world to see this. It strikes… Read more »
sassykind
Member
27
sassykind
October 24, 2013 12:15 pm
I’m also from Australia and am very much against fracking. I know from US reports that there has been water and environmental consequences where fracking has been carried out….and It’s NOT just water that is used in the process!!!! There are a fairly wide variety of chemicals involved as well and this is where the true danger lies. In Australia most, or at least a lot, of our water outside urban areas comes from “ground water” or our Artesian Basin and , if either of these sources of water are contaminated in any way we are up the spout! But… Read more »
mick
Guest
0
mick
October 24, 2013 6:40 pm
Spot on Sassykind. Australians are being sold out by both sides of politics who are more interested in raking in the money by any means than acting responsibly and, perish the thought, in the interests of the nation. The shear fact that governments have and continue to sell off everything to foreigners tells a compelling tale. Prime freehold farming land is now being flogged off to foreign governments. To what bad place is this all taking us. At least Americans do not permit this latest treasonous act. You have to take your hat off to Obama: trying to do the… Read more »
wpDiscuz