-----------advertisement-------------

Free Software to Simplify Your Financial Life

I don't endorse products or newsletters -- but Personal Capital is one service that I really do use (along with half a million other people) ... you will know your finances better, and be able to plan more clearly and see if you're going in the right direction, AND it's free. Try Personal Capital today

---------------------------------------------

What’s “The Mysterious $400 Billion Cameron Parish Project?”

WP Greet Box icon
Welcome! If you are new to Stock Gumshoe, grab a free membership here and join us to get our free newsletter alerts with new teaser answers and debunkings. Thanks!
Not new? Please log in at top right of this page

“The Dept. of Energy’s Mysterious $400 Billion ‘Cameron Parish Project’

“In a muddy Louisiana bayou town, the US government is quietly sponsoring a breakthrough experiment set to solve one of the greatest energy problems of our time…

“But only a handful of companies have the green light to exploit it for huge gains…

“INSIDE: How the “Cameron Parish Project” could pay you $16,500 or more every year… for the next 20 years and beyond….”

The intro to this ad is perfect, it should be used for the “investment copywriting 101″ class for those who want to be hype-meisters … we’ve got a mystery, a government boondoggle, a limited number of companies in on the secret, and the promise of huge gains — including, of course, the mention of your big annual profit from this investment without any mention of what exactly you’d have to put up to enjoy those $16,500 gains.

If they’re going to hit all the bases like that, the least we can do is sleuth our way through the ad for you and name the companies they’re secretly recommending, no? That is, after all, why your friendly neighborhood Gumshoe rises with the sun each morning to toil in the deep, dank teaser mines beneath Gumshoe Manor.

The ad this time is from Sara Nunnally over at the newly renamed Contrarian Profits, who’s pitching her newsletter for potential subscribees (her letter is still called Macro Trader, by the way). She had her share of good picks and stinkers over the years like most of ‘em, but her (heavily teased) pick earlier in the year of Capstone Turbine (CPST) has indeed done well so far on the back of some new orders and a new wave of investor enthusiasm, so we’ll give credit where it’s due on that one.

What’s she teasing today? Here’s some more of the intrigue:

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 at top right)
“… Cameron Parish has been down on its luck for some time now…

“But all of that is about to change… quickly.

“You see, this remote community could soon be the source of billions of dollars in wealth…

“You might not be able to find it on a map, but what happens in Cameron Parish may singlehandedly dictate much of the world’s energy future.

“In a cove off the Gulf Coast, behind a large security gate, a mysterious project is being built under the watchful eyes of the US Department of Energy.

“The breakthrough experiment conducted inside the massive building will have sweeping ramifications for American foreign policy, international energy security and the financial markets.”

It’s like the beginning of a sci fi movie, no? You fly over the poor town and zoom in on the giant security gate at the end of the rural road, site of a massive, secretive government project — maybe that’s where they’re keeping the aliens now that everyone knows about Area 51.

But no, it’s not really secret — just not frequently in the headlines in most of the country. She’s talking about LNG Exports, and the LNG Liquefaction plant being built to export US natural gas to Europe and Japan.

Here’s more from the ad:

“This complex science is what turned Qatar from a desert outpost to the richest country in the world.

“But this technology had never been tried in the US.

“Until the Cameron Parish Project.

“Now the US companies that have this technology are on the verge of becoming kingmakers.

“But here’s the thing…

“The Dept. of Energy has kept a tight lid on this experiment – and the companies that can use this breakthrough technology for profit.

“Only two companies are currently approved to move forward.”

Well, that’s a little bit silly — the “complex science” is done all the time in the US, we just have historically done a lot more of the “gasification” of liquefied natural gas than we have the “liquefaction” of natural gas. The US has several plants for importing shipborne LNG on tankers, mostly from Trinidad, Qatar and Yemen — we just don’t use them much because natural gas prices in the US have been so low that we’re really only importing what we’re contractually obligated to buy.

Cooking with GasWe also have lots and lots of smaller scale liquefaction plants in operation, particularly those that prep gas for local shipment via tanker truck, or for fueling trucks that use natural gas engines like those from oft-teased Westport Innovations (WPRT) (some trucks use compressed natural gas, but the big long-haul trucks usually need liquefied natural gas for more energy density). It’s not a secret or unknown science, it’s just that liquefaction on a grand scale requires big, complex plants.

Oh, and yes, US companies haven’t generally been allowed to export natural gas via LNG Tanker, with small exceptions (there has been a LNG export terminal in Alaska for decades that sometimes ships to Japan and occasionally to other countries, though it’s tiny and I think it shut down for a while), but the US has been exporting natural gas via pipeline to Canada and Mexico for many years, and in increasing quantities.

But to get to the real customers who pay the highest prices, mostly Japan and South Korea, you need LNG export plants and tankers — you can’t reach Asia by pipeline. So US companies have been trying, since the shale gas boom began, to figure out how to buy gas at $4 in the US, liquefy and ship it, and sell it in Japan for $15 (or whatever the spread is at the moment — it’s always high, and particularly has been appealing in recent years because Japan’s shutdown of their nuclear power plants increased the demand for natural gas). That means getting approval to build new liquefaction plants and getting export licenses, since the government has kept a tight lid on gas exports in the interests of domestic prices (remember, low natural gas prices in the US are a huge boon for many industries, from agriculture to chemicals, so much so that low energy and input prices have spurred a wave of investment in new US chemical and manufacturing plants, and they also keep electricity prices and home heating prices lower … and every voter has an electric bill and likes the idea of “energy independence”).

So the approvals for these new plants have been very slow in coming, though that might change — it could have been that just getting the first plant or two approved will open the logjam to a wave of approvals of some of the other 20 or so proposed LNG export projects, we’ll see.

But anyway, this huge transition to cheap natural gas is being heavily promoted and teased both by newsletters and by the mainstream media — there’s talk of real “energy independence” in the foreseeable future (thanks also to Bakken oil), and there are lots of different ways that folks have pitched for profiting from that renaissance, whether it’s the natural gas transport and storage infrastructure (Chicago Bridge and Iron (CBI) and Chart Industries (GTLS)) or the use of natural gas in fertilizer (Agrium (AGU) and CF Industries (CF)) or in engines (Cummins (CMI) and Westport (WPRT)), well, you get the idea. What, then, is Nunnally’s way to profit from this?

Here’s some more from the ad:

“While the United States has imported natural gas for many years, we have NEVER exported it.

“Now there are companies trying to turn their existing import terminals into export terminals in order to capitalize on the huge global demand for gas from the United States.

“But it’s not that easy… not like flipping a switch.

“Converting these import terminals to export facilities is a highly complex process that takes billions of dollars and several years to do.

“Some companies are trying to build new terminals completely from scratch, which takes even more time and money.

“These terminals are massive facilities. They must cool huge amounts of natural gas to -260°F. It is only at this super-cold temperature that natural gas turns into liquid.

“And few companies in the energy industry have the kind of expertise to build or operate the terminals or the specialized tankers for shipping the gas.”

OK, so we know that’s an exaggeration — the US has been a net exporter of natural gas for at least a couple years now, just not much LNG. But the basic premise is true, we’re not a significant exporter of seaborne natural gas yet. And actually, we’re not an LNG exporter at all at the moment — I just checked, and that one LNG export facility, Nikiski in Alaska, again suspended exports in the Spring because there isn’t enough surplus local gas (from the Cook Inlet fields) to justify operations. If they find more gas there, more than Anchorage needs, they could resume again — this is the only plant that can currently operate that’s allowed to sell to Japan and China, the biggest customers, though I think anyone with a load of LNG could theoretically sell to South Korea since it’s now a free trade partner after that agreement was signed last year.

Pretty much all of the US LNG export activity over the last 50 years, whether permitting or licensing or actual exporting gas, has involved this one LNG plant in Alaska. That changed a couple years ago with the first permit issued for a new plant, and more recently the second permit was approved, so now we’re moving on to what Nunnally is actually teasing: The next wave of exporters. Here are her clues:

“‘Cameron Parish Project’ Company #1: A $7 Billion InfusionFrom Hungry Foreign Energy Giants

“This company just recently received approval from the Department of Energy to ship out natural gas abroad.

“So it’s building an export terminal on the shores of Louisiana.

“But get this…

“Three international energy giants are so eager to cash in on the globe’s ravenous appetite for natural gas that they signed deals to invest $7 BILLION into this company’s liquefied natural gas project.

“In exchange, these two Japanese conglomerates and this giant French energy player will receive all of the natural gas from the company’s Louisiana project.

“The project is forecast to yield 12 million tons of liquefied natural gas annually for 20 years.”

And the other stock she teases? Clues for you:

“Cameron Parish Project’ Company #2: America’s First-Ever Natural Gas Exporter

“The second opportunity I want to share with you is a bit more conservative than the first.

“That’s because this company was the first to gain government approval to export liquid natural gas overseas, a market that until now has been dominated by Russia and Qatar.

“And as this company has gotten further along in the process, its stock has started to rise.

“However, this company stands to collect gobs of income from the contracts it’s already signed for the next 20 years, thanks to its position as a first mover.

“It’s inked six major contracts with natural gas giants in Britain, Spain, South Korea and India, and most of these deals have terms of 20 years or more. That’s not even including the big 20-year deals it’s already signed with Chevron and Total.

“And the company has plans for the development of a second liquefaction plant in Corpus Christi, Texas.

“It’s an ideal location because of how close it is to South Texas’s Eagle Ford Shale, a massive oil and gas field set to surpass North Dakota’s Bakken this year in terms of oil growth rate.

“Investment banking giant Blackstone recently snapped up a huge $2 BILLION worth of this company’s shares.

“Better still, because both of these exporters have locked in these long-term contracts at specified rates, they’re immune to fluctuations in price that wreak havoc on others in the energy world.

“So whether natural gas prices move up or down… the profits for these companies will keep rolling in.”

What are our two companies?

Well, it won’t surprise you to learn that yes, the two companies she’s teasing are two of the US companies who are first out of the gate to get permits to build LNG export plants in the modern (shale gas) era: #1, Sempra Energy (SRE) and #2, Cheniere Energy (LNG, or CQP for the Master Limited Partnership)

Sempra Energy is a Southern California utility company, so most of its business is boring regulated utility stuff — which means that when you add on their other projects like this potential 2017-ish LNG export facility, you get … a really expensive-looking utility, with a forward PE of less than 20 and a yield of just under 3%. Not horrible, but not a utility that would jump out of the pack for you unless you were really bullish on San Diego or you think this LNG project of theirs is going to be a gold mine. To be fair, they have plenty of other projects too, including some South American and Mexican investments in utility and natural gas midstream assets to go along with their California utilities — you can get a pretty good picture of the company from their recent investor presentation here.

There’s a pretty good NY Times article explaining the LNG export project here if you’d like more detail. Not a bad company, but the LNG project is not going to move the needle in any positive way for at least five years. Unless they sell it in some kind of windfall deal if it becomes far more valuable between now and when it’s anticipated that it could begin production.

And Cheniere Energy is pretty much just a LNG liquefaction export pure play, and they are the first company to receive that approval to build a LNG export facility — the Sabine Pass facility, which is actually owned by Cheniere’s controlled subsidiary Cheniere Energy Parntners, a MLP (ticker CQP). Since Nunnally talks about this being relatively more conservative, it’s possible she’s talking about CQP here instead of LNG, CQP is larger and does have a current distribution yield of about 5.6% … but I have no idea where that cash is coming from. They are currently estimating that CQP should have distributable cash flow of about $3 per share once trains 1-4 are operating at Sabine Pass, but that won’t be for a few years, and presumably they’re going to have to keep borrowing money to pay out the distribution if they’re going to pay out the current $1.70 a share for the next couple years, in addition to the other debt they’re taking on the fund the Sabine Pass project. The fact that Nunnally notes Blackstone is a major investor points us to the MLP, of which Blackstone controls about 20%, but the talk about their next project, the Corpus Christi Liquefaction plant that they’re proposing, points us to the parent — the MLP is not yet involved in Corpus Christi as far as I can tell.

LNG’s revenue is very low from other segments of their business, and they’re probably going to be losing money at least until their facility starts exporting in about 30 months, with continuing huge capital investments for the several years after that as they finish building the facility (“Trains” 1 and 2 are expected to start by late 2015 and are about 30% built, 3 and 4 just started, 5 and 6 are envisioned and all six have gas sales deals in place — a train is a processing line for the gas, going from purification to compression to condensation, etc., then to loading of the tankers). You can see Cheniere’s investor presentation here.

Given the fact that both of these large and interrelated companies are wholly dependent on the Sabine Pass liquefaction and export facility and its 2015/2016 startup and profitability over the following several years, and that the first installment of this massive project is only 30% done right now, I’d be hard pressed to call this a conservative investment. They have gas sale agreements with partners for the first 20 years, but I assume the profitability of those agreements will depend on the gap between US domestic natural gas prices and European/Asian LNG import prices remaining very high — currently it costs something like $6 to liquefy gas and ship it to Asia, and $4 or $5 to liquefy and ship to Europe, so presumably the gap needs to remain substantial for LNG or CQP to be very profitable in the next decade or two (that’s on top of the price of the actual gas in the pipeline in the US — so you need to sell for more than $10 in Japan to make a profit, no problem currently with prices around $15 there). That might benefit LNG and CQP in the early days, since they’ll presumably be exporting meaningful quantities before anyone else in the US, but it’s possible that other projects around the world (there are several big gas exporting projects planned in Australia and Oceania, closer to Japan and Korea, as well as probably more from the Middle East and Africa) or other US export projects will narrow those Asian LNG premiums over time.

I have a hard time getting super excited about either of these at current prices, frankly, I’m more comfortable with the service companies and the companies that benefit more directly and immediately from current low US gas prices … but I have not looked that closely at these stocks today — to the extent that I don’t even really understand why Cheniere has any cash flow at all right now, so I could be missing something. If you see something to like in LNG, CQP or SRE, or have other LNG-related ideas you’d like to share, feel free to toss your thoughts out to Gumshoe Nation with a comment below.

Print this

Email This Email This

31 Responses to What’s “The Mysterious $400 Billion Cameron Parish Project?”


  1. Travis, I echo your lack of excitement about this old news.
    I also think sentences such as “That is, after all, why your friendly neighborhood Gumshoe rises with the sun each morning to toil in the deep, dank teaser mines beneath Gumshoe Manor” ought to be incorporated into every Gumshoe Writing 101 class.

    Like(0)

  2. You mentioned the only existing North American export LNG plant in Cook Inlet Alaska. As you said, they have mothballed the plant because there isn’t enough ngas locally to heat the local homes in the winter, much less export to Japan. BUT there is hope. Cook Inlet has been getting gas from wells drilled in the 70′s. Exploration and drilling stopped then because the North Slope was so prolific that all the rigs left for the big upside there. So Cook Inlet was left with existing wells and production. Everything was ok but 30 years later, the production has finally dropped to dangerous levels. Cook Inlet is not hooked up to any regional or national pipelines. They are stranded. So Alaska implemented some very generous incentive programs to get drillers back to Cook Inlet. They are paying up to 60% of the costs to drill the wells AND producers are getting a BIG premium to produce ngas up there, in the $6 to $7 range per mcf most of the year but in the $20 range in the dead of winter.

    There is an Aussie company drilling in Cook Inlet now called Buccaneer Energy, BCC.ax/BCGYF. They got in early and assembled a big package of prospects in Cook Inlet. They also refurbished a jackup rig because there were no offshore drilling rigs in Cook Inlet to explore the lucrative prospects there. The State contributed $30million to the refurb, they were so anxious to get a drill rig up there. They had a hard time getting the rig certified but they finally did it. Buccaneer is a high risk speculation. They have been underfunded and have a huge sharecount of 2.5 billion shares+. BUT many of their prospects were drilled in the 70′s so they are less risky. AND they recently announced a US public company has signed an LOI to form a JV with Buccaneer for up to $200million in drilling costs to drill up to 8 wells. If that deal gets signed, Buccaneer gets a free ride on the 8 wells, while giving up 49% of their high working interest. Buccaneer currently has 2 ngas wells producing around 10 mmcfpd.

    Here is the website with info: http://www.buccaneerresources.com/

    Obviously I own the stock and am pretty excited about the prospects but it is high risk. They have several hundred million in reserves but have only just begun to prove them up with their first offshore well that being tested now.

    Like(0)

  3. ah, the shrimp-laden bayous of Louisiana are ready for exporting gas, or at least for hyping. if there are so many issues over the safety and viability of gas liquefaction plants or the conversion of gas-de-liquefaction facilities to reverse the process that the government has to build the plants behind high security walls to protect the area from disasters, surely they are not a simple-minded slam-dunk sure way to make easy fast money?
    Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor, is keen to also find foreign companies to invest in gas in his state. Even French. Even Russians. So there may be competition to the USA firms. From major players.
    If you want to make money from natural gas moving around the world and other energy infrastructure a-building you want to buy into a stock which is not from Chicago and doesn’t make bridges out of iron but has a more American-sounding name than Cheniere or Sempra!

    Like(0)

    • Dennis, there is also the Gorgon Project off NW West Australia already completed. This has been a big, expensive exercise and could not be undertaken by minnows. The Japan market is established and is far closer to the Timor Sea than the Gulf of Mexico. Gas tankers have a much higher daily rate than oil tankers, so how much longer/more expensive to travel via Panama?

      Woodside Petroleum has a p/e of 16 and a div of 4.7% [100% franked for Australian tax payers]. It is paying that now and is considered a utility stock, rather than an oiler but it does produce oil too. And the Aussie has dropped to USD 90c.

      Like(0)

  4. They are drilling in Australia,Cedar point field. Linc energy,tic.lnc.yf nasd. Also,New Zealand,tag oil tic,tao,if and tic. NZ.erf..

    Like(0)

    • Can you tell me more about Linc Energy? I know they are based in Brisbane and they trade in Australia. on the ASX in the one to two (AUS) dollar range but the ADR ‘s trade over the counter in the USA in the high teens (USD). Why the large difference…it is not the exchange rate.

      Like(0)

      • Linc answer was posted on another thread
        go to hotcopper.com to get more detailed info
        the price difference is in Australia its one share and on other exchanges its a parcel of shares
        good luck
        have a look at Santos as well

        Like(0)

        • Two shares of LINC energy trade in the USA…….LNCYF and LNCGY (ADR) where 1 LNCGY = 10 LINC Aussie share’s. LNCYF on the OTC represents a 1 shares to 1 LINC aussie share with the exchange rate adjusted price. Buy the ADR shares, it’s a better value, and what the market maker’s trade, and it’s more liquid on the USA daily market.

          Like(0)

  5. It is worth noting that virtually all of Cheniere’s LNG has already been sold or under contract for the future. I would expect that their value will climb when these shipments begin, I believe in early 2015. It seems that every country in the world is looking for shale gas with China reported to have the largest potential reserves. Exxon will come online in Papua New Guinea next year and add considerable more capability with recent acquisitions there. I suspect that the LNG export boom will diminish over a very few years because of the massive amounts of gas being found and planned for export.

    Like(0)

  6. Which midstreams are supplying the “bayou” with GN2? I also appreciate Travis’ reason for waking sentence!

    Like(0)

  7. I agree with your idea that, via Lng, the US nat gas glut may soon become the international glut, the results when everyone jumps into the hottest field at the same time. These are the ones that you want to sell on the news, i.e., they’re up and shipping at capacity.

    Like(0)

  8. By the time the train get to Phoenix she’ll be crying, they are so far behind in Sabine Pass and giving EPD a hard time who has the underground support hook ups right away’s it will have given the rest of the world who is not sleeping on there gas.The line goig to Alaska is still possible when the $ signs and the tree huggers agree to starve. There is Veresen who has a pipeline from Canada to Oregon coast for gas if Obama would sign the dotted line they are job ready. For those that don’t know VERESEN FCGYF they are a little couple Bil$ Comp. with an .08 divy a month for years that also has the Aliance pipe lint to Chicago Fort Chicago that is, ILL. been a good steady play for a long time. they have a couple power divisions, and low volume but they pay monthly like the clock .08 and they got some Bakken to. The Al Capone across the border just kidding good company with loyal employee’s and a couple Billion strong. If they get that Oregon pipeline permit they will be the only one on west coast besides way up north. Oregon wants it Obama won’t sign. But they are still a good play and low key.

    Like(0)

  9. Here in Australia we have long and well established LNG production, trains and export terminals and ships shipping LNG to mostly Japan and near neighbours.
    The problem for us locals is that because the producers get such high prices on the international market they restrict supplies to the local market or make them bid for gas. The gas only costs them a few cents, such is the massive supply pouring out of the ground so you can bet that once the US export business gets going domestic prices will rocket up too just like here. Why do you think they are so anxious to get the export terminals built?

    Like(0)

  10. It seems to me after reading this and all the commits that the only good investment would be the gas shipping co.’s. Of course it may be hard at this point to find just who will be doing all the shipping. I made some nice returns a shipping back a few years ago, but that don’t really mean much at this point.
    Best of investing to all.

    Like(0)

    • That’s generally where I’ve preferred to be invested, in the LNG Tankers — but they are not necessarily going to rocket quickly, they still mostly are on long-term charters and the fleet is being built more quickly than the expected big LNG terminals are being put online, so there’s likely to be a glut of vessels at some point that will have to equalize as more liquefaction and gasification terminals are built. Should be a very interesting 3-5 years for the sector.

      Like(0)

  11. I lived in Vallejo, California in 2002-2003 during the time an LNG Plant was proposed for its port. In spite of Vallejo’s need for a more diversified and modern economic infrastructure, the residents rose up against the promoters, as they feared for an accident that could cause an explosion to rival –or exceed!– the wartime one in Halifax Harbour. I don’t know how many have been killed to date in LNG explosions, but here’s one list: http://www.laohamutuk.org/Oil/LNG/app4.htm.

    This is not a new technology, and it has a lot of inherent dangers, especially from human errors. Another site, http://timrileylaw.com/LNG.htm, has photos of the very first LNG plant built in the USA in 1941, but completely destroyed in the Cleveland Disaster of 1944, which destroyed an entire square mile of housing, destroyed 79 homes, 2 factories, 217 cars, 7 trailers, left 680 homeless, injured 225 and killed 131. The world-wide track record of LNG is not one to inspire confidence in its so-called benefits.

    Like(0)

  12. I got a cold call from a boiler room yesterday about Cheniere. Somebody is definitely putting money into promotion lately.

    Like(0)

  13. I think there is money to be made but all these hypes into bad companies makes me wonder why? How can they sell newsletters and make money by recommending lousey companies? Anyone have a nice yielding safe LNG stock to recommend? I am at a loss with all the hype.

    Like(0)

  14. It puzzles me that some company like GasFrac (GSFVF),
    which has a waterless process to recover natural gas & crude, does not attempt to enter North China, with its apparent huge potential for gas, but shortage of potable water. Anyone
    have a rationale?

    Like(0)

  15. LNG sector is apparantly hot again ASX:LNG up again this a.m. in AU.
    Ken Moors touting New Breed of 11 companies that will benefit most in sector.
    LNG producers, shipping, equipment – anyone have a best ideas on this?
    Best-Ben

    Like(0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

What These Icons Mean

  • The user who posted this comment is a Stock Gumshoe Premium Member (also known as an "IRREGULAR").
  • This user regularly writes articles for Stock Gumshoe. They may or may not be the author of the current article.
  • This user's comments have been "liked” by at least a few members of the Stock Gumshoe community.
  • This user has commented widely, with input that has been liked enough to earn a two-thumbs-up rating from other readers.
  • This is the highest rating a user can get. They are among the most respected commentors of our community.