# EPX - Ethane Pipeline Income Fund



## System (12 September 2010)

The Ethane Pipeline Income Fund (EPX) has been established to provide investors with predictable cash flows with a moderate investment risk profile.

The Fund's principal asset is a 1,375km high pressure ethane pipeline, purpose build to transport ethane from the gas processing facility at Moomba in South Australia to Sydney, New South Wales.

http://www.ethanepipeline.com.au


----------



## kr1zh (12 January 2012)

*Ethane Pipeline Income Fund (ASX: **EPX**)*

Share price: $1.64
Yield: 12% (unfranked) in 2012.
The Ethane Pipeline Income Fund owns a 1375-kilometre high-pressure gas pipeline, which was purpose built to carry ethane gas from a gas-processing facility at Moomba, in South Australia's Cooper Basin, to a petrochemical plant at Botany Bay in Sydney. The pipeline was commissioned in 1996 and its technical life was estimated in the 2006 prospectus to be more than 60 years.
Its return on equity is forecast to rise, as are its dividends, with the fund free of debt by the end of 2012.

Source: http://www.asx.com.au/resources/investor-update-newsletter/201201-best-dividend-stocks-for-2012.htm


----------



## Huskar (7 March 2012)

kr1zh said:


> *Ethane Pipeline Income Fund (ASX: **EPX**)*
> 
> Share price: $1.64
> Yield: 12% (unfranked) in 2012.
> ...




Yes a great little company with one asset which just keeps paying out those dividends. The recent rerating indicates it is not such an unknown stock as it used to be!

Happy investing


----------



## pavilion103 (11 December 2012)

Potential breakout?


----------



## sydboy007 (21 May 2013)

*EPX - Ethane Pipe Trust*

have had this on my radar for a while as a yield play in my SMSF

Recently the price has drop from 1.9X to bouncing around 1.76-1.80 which seems to provide a yield of around 10% based on past distributions - quidance is for the June distribution to be similar for the previous qtr.

I've been doing some digging around and can't find any news to explain the sudden drop.  I know they are still waiting for Quenos to finalise their ethane supplies post 2014, but Quenos seems to be the only supplier of particular types of plastics in Australia so I'd assume they're relatively safe.

EPX is a one trick pony in that they only have one customer, but the supply contract does run till 2030, though moves from a capacity based pricing to capacity & volume based from 2015 so there is some downside risk should Quenos move some production from Botany to Victoria.

Just keep getting mesmerised by the 10% yield at the current price


----------



## So_Cynical (21 May 2013)

*Re: EPX - Ethane Pipe Trust*



sydboy007 said:


> have had this on my radar for a while as a yield play in my SMSF
> 
> Recently the price has drop from 1.9X to bouncing around 1.76-1.80 which seems to provide a yield of around 10% based on past distributions - quidance is for the June distribution to be similar for the previous qtr.
> 
> ...




Been watching since 2007, could of got em crazy cheap in the GFC but didn't.

Anyway as you say the business is a one trick pony and its an all or nothing trick at that...still for anyone that bough EPX cheap the yield has been brilliant.


----------



## jjbinks (9 July 2013)

does anybody know why the price fell from 1.9-->1.7 in march.


----------



## galumay (9 July 2013)

jjbinks said:


> does anybody know why the price fell from 1.9-->1.7 in march.




It went ex-div in late march??


----------



## jjbinks (10 July 2013)

galumay said:


> It went ex-div in late march??






But its fallen much more than just dividends amount and hasn't really recovered considering the frequency of dividends


----------



## So_Cynical (16 April 2014)

Been watching EPX since 2007, in today at 0.745 and hoping for the best as always...as mentioned previously EPX is a one trick pony, 1 suppler 1 customer and just the 1 asset and not even 1 employee.

EPX trading today at a new 5 year low down over 12% again, Market cap today of about 51 million values their 1400 km pipeline at just 36K per kilometre, i imagine the cost to replace the pipeline could be perhaps 5 times that figure. Even with the new contract pricing and the reduced flow, a 25% + divided cut would still see a gross yield of over 11%

10 year chart below
~


----------



## Ves (16 April 2014)

Without knowing a great deal,  hasn't Qenos (the sole customer) come out and said that they are in talks with other suppliers of ethane and have not yet decided whether to renew the contract with the Ethane Pipeline after 31 December 2014?  It is a long-term agreement, but it is cancellable with 12 months notice.

Also noting that from October 2013 the supply agreement charges changed to be based on volume transported through the pipeline,  and this means that revenue will be more volatile (see 8% decrease in volume announced last week).

Market increasingly more and more fearful about the customer concentration risk and higher volatility in earnings.


----------



## skc (16 April 2014)

Ves said:


> Without knowing a great deal,  hasn't Qenos (the sole customer) come out and said that they are in talks with other suppliers of ethane and have not yet decided whether to renew the contract with the Ethane Pipeline after 31 December 2014?  It is a long-term agreement, but it is cancellable with 12 months notice.
> 
> Also noting that from October 2013 the supply agreement charges changed to be based on volume transported through the pipeline,  and this means that revenue will be more volatile (see 8% decrease in volume announced last week).
> 
> Market increasingly more and more fearful about the customer concentration risk and higher volatility in earnings.




Just goes to highlight how short sighted the market was for a long time when it traded at $2.40. That was 7% yield which you could have got in any number of infrastructure / utility stock... yet people piled into something that has a single asset serving a single customer.

Anyway... if Qenos walks away, does revenue and profit fall to $0?  What's their plan B? What if they just dig up the pipe and sell it as scrap... would that worth anything?

And if... Qenos say sign on for another 3 years. How much would the future cash flow worth then? 

It's a problem that I can't even frame around, let alone calcuate a value. Any reference to historical prices should be thrown out of the window imo.


----------



## Ves (16 April 2014)

skc said:


> Just goes to highlight how short sighted the market was for a long time when it traded at $2.40. That was 7% yield which you could have got in any number of infrastructure / utility stock... yet people piled into something that has a single asset serving a single customer.
> 
> Anyway... if Qenos walks away, does revenue and profit fall to $0?  What's their plan B? What if they just dig up the pipe and sell it as scrap... would that worth anything?
> 
> ...




It’s not just Qenos walking away voluntarily, it is also the fact that if Qenos cannot negotiate reasonable prices on ethane then will not transport as much volume wise,  and if it gets really bad,  considering the way that manufacturing in Australia is going there is no guarantee of any longevity, closure of the plant in Botany Bay etc.
This is called not being able to control your own destiny – and it investors should demand higher returns to compensate for the higher risk!

That’s the rub with stocks like this that own one piece of infrastructure and have very limited, or sole customers,  you cannot expect it to bear fruit, completely risk-free forever.   And if you cannot make reasonable estimates on the life-span, and any fluctuations in between, it’s really hard to value at all as you said.  Qenos have also said the Botany Bay plant will be shut for major maintenance in 2015,  so throughput will be much lower than the minor disturbance from maintenance this year.

After briefly reading the 2013 annual report, it says that they could use the pipe as a form of natural gas storage as the most likely alternative, but there appears to be no other companies like Qenos who would utilize it in its most profitable fashion.  EPX directors then go on to say “This will be a matter that would be addressed in detail in Qenos exercises its right to terminate.”

That is what I could find after half an hour.  Wonder what the high volumes selling out in the past six months found on top of this?


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 April 2014)

If the customer wants ethane then there aren't too many options for supply. Either get it from SA (via EPX) or build a new pipeline and get it from Victoria. Those are the realistic options, short of a pipeline all the way to the NT or WA, which would make no real sense at all.

But EPX is definitely hugely exposed to a single source of supply and a single user of the product.

As for alternative uses, gas storage is one option (the gas pressure in such a long pipeline itself represents a significant amount of storage). Transporting natural gas is another option, although under most scenarios that just means competing against another underutilised pipeline that runs parallel to this one. That said, if shale gas turns out to be a huge winner at Moomba (SA), or if supply was fed in from the NT or WA, and if supply from Vic is depleted, then there could be a market for additional pipeline capacity from Moomba to NSW. There's an awful lot of "ifs" there however, and some of them are quite unlikely in practice.


----------



## So_Cynical (17 April 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> If the customer wants ethane then there aren't too many options for supply. Either get it from SA (via EPX) or build a new pipeline and get it from Victoria. Those are the realistic options, short of a pipeline all the way to the NT or WA, which would make no real sense at all.
> 
> But EPX is definitely hugely exposed to a single source of supply and a single user of the product.
> 
> As for alternative uses, gas storage is one option (the gas pressure in such a long pipeline itself represents a significant amount of storage). Transporting natural gas is another option, although under most scenarios that just means competing against another underutilised pipeline that runs parallel to this one. That said, if shale gas turns out to be a huge winner at Moomba (SA), or if supply was fed in from the NT or WA, and if supply from Vic is depleted, then there could be a market for additional pipeline capacity from Moomba to NSW. There's an awful lot of "ifs" there however, and some of them are quite unlikely in practice.




Exactly

Qenos is in the plastics business and needs Ethane to make their plastics, cant import it without a gas offloading and storage facility in Botany so if they continue to operate the Botany Plant they will be doing so with Moomba gas that has to travel down the EPX pipeline.

In the event that The Botany plant closes then the EPX pipeline becomes available for NG transport to Sydney, extra capacity to that other pipeline that runs down the same corridor..it will still be a valuable asset just not a profitable one for sometime into the near future.

I'm punting that Qenos wants to keep the Botany plant operational.


----------



## Ves (17 April 2014)

So_Cynical said:


> I'm punting that Qenos wants to keep the Botany plant operational.




Thanks So_C

Sounds like you know and have considered the risks and have factored them into your position exposure.

Smurf,  do you know if ethane is transported by pipe because it is by far the most cost effective way of getting it from SA to Sydney?    Or is there also a safety element and that is why it requires a giant pipe?  I assume there are no other viable alternatives.


----------



## McLovin (17 April 2014)

So_Cynical said:


> Exactly
> 
> Qenos is in the plastics business and needs Ethane to make their plastics, cant import it without a gas offloading and storage facility in Botany so if they continue to operate the Botany Plant they will be doing so with Moomba gas that has to travel down the EPX pipeline.
> 
> ...




Hey S_C

When I read the announcement it sounds as though there are multiple suppliers of ethane to Qenos. Are EPX the only suppliers?


----------



## Ves (17 April 2014)

McLovin said:


> Hey S_C
> 
> When I read the announcement it sounds as though there are multiple suppliers of ethane to Qenos. Are EPX the only suppliers?



I read it as saying that Qenos source the ethane from someone such as Santos who takes it from their resources projects,   then EPX transports it via the pipes to Qenos.

So in effect EPX are an intermediary, who transports it to Qenos on behalf of someone else.


----------



## McLovin (17 April 2014)

Ves said:


> I read it as saying that Qenos source the ethane from someone such as Santos who takes it from their resources projects,   then EPX transports it via the pipes to Qenos.
> 
> So in effect EPX are an intermediary, who transports it to Qenos on behalf of someone else.




Ahhh...That makes sense. I was scratching my head wondering who these "suppliers" were!

Thanks


----------



## skc (17 April 2014)

So_Cynical said:


> Exactly
> 
> Qenos is in the plastics business and needs Ethane to make their plastics, cant import it without a gas offloading and storage facility in Botany so if they continue to operate the Botany Plant they will be doing so with Moomba gas that has to travel down the EPX pipeline.
> 
> ...




I didn't know that Qenos is owned by the Chinese. They have less tendency to just cut and run when things get tough.

And what great timing on your entry. Trading at 90c today so you've probably sold already


----------



## So_Cynical (17 April 2014)

skc said:


> And what great timing on your entry. Trading at 90c today so you've probably sold already




 90c 

i was asleep all day after working all night at the new job? 90c would definitely see me close this trade out.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 April 2014)

A bit of background info.

Natural gas from the ground contains a number of gases, not just the "natural gas" sold as such to homes and industry. The exact composition depends on the source, but for a conventional gas field (that is, gas that isn't from coal seams) then there are:

Methane - by far the largest component gas and the one commonly sold as "natural gas". The key point about methane is that whilst it can be liquefied, doing so is far more costly than delivery via pipeline. Hence liquefaction is normally only pursued when the gas needs to either be shipped internationally, or used somewhere that a pipeline doesn't go (eg gas powered ships, buses or trucks, or small power stations at remote sites with the LNG delivered by road tanker and the small volume not sufficient to warrant the cost of a pipeline). Nobody's going to truck LNG from Moomba to Sydney to compete against a pipeline. 

Also notable is that keeping LNG stored as a liquid itself is problematic - you either need huge pressure (impractical in most situations) or you need to keep it refrigerated to -161 degrees C. In practice, it's normally just accepted that some of the LNG will "boil off" as it warms up - not a problem if it's sitting in a tank in Japan (for example) since you just feed the boiled off gas into the gas pipeline network for use by consumers along with the intentionally re-gasified LNG. But it wouldn't be economical to have a small LNG tank at a home or commercial building etc for this reason - it would be cheaper and easier to just use some other fuel.

Propane - a minor component and commonly sold as LPG (bottled gas). A key point is that propane is easily liquefied and this is the normal practice. It's a gas, normally stored and transported as liquid and can easily be kept in that state indefinitely - your gas BBQ runs on propane and nothing bad will happen if you leave the gas bottle sitting there unused for years. The gas won't evaporate etc. A steel container is all that's required to keep propane under pressure.

Butane - very similar to propane apart from a few different uses in petrochemicals and mixed with propane as automotive LPG. It's also the stuff in disposable cigarette lighters etc - it's a very easy gas to keep contained as a liquid even in a simple plastic container such as a lighter. In cold climates it is added to petrol to improve the properties of the petrol - in short it makes the engine a lot easier to start in cold weather since the butane is more volatile than the rest of the petrol. Butane is easily contained, eg in an aerosol can and if there was a hole in it then you could easily hold the gas in by putting your thumb over the hole. So it's a very easy to contain and transport gas.

Condensate - in short this just a very light, thin oil which is in a gaseous state underground but which condenses (hence the term condensate) to liquid at atmospheric pressure and temperature. It comes up with the gases, is then separated and sold as condensate. It is used at refineries the same as with other oil producing petrol etc. It is also sometimes added (most notably in Canada) to heavy (thick) oil to dilute it and enable easier transport in pipelines (a problem in Canada is that the oil is otherwise too thick to flow in the pipes, so they thin it with condensate to enable it to be pumped easily).

Most government and other energy statistics consider propane, butane and condensate to be "oil" not "gas". That is, statistics showing that the world uses 90 million barrels of oil per day are including propane, condensate, butane etc - indeed they're about 10% of the world's "oil" supply. These materials are also normally priced comparably to oil, since they basically compete in the same market - condensate goes into oil refineries, butane can be added to petrol, propane used to fuel vehicles and so on.

Also worth noting is that propane and butane are themselves produced at oil refineries ("refinery production") as well as occurring naturally in natural gas. 

And then there's ethane. It can be either left in the "natural gas" stream without harm and sold to homes and industry with nobody aware that they aren't getting pure methane. This is actually what happens to ethane in in situations where there is no buyer for it as such, it just ends up getting sold as natural gas along with methane. Alternatively, ethane can be separated and used for petrochemicals. But it has a lower boiling point than propane or butane, such that whilst liquefaction and transport as a liquid is certainly possible it's much easier and more practical to use a pipeline instead.

Other gases - there are all sorts of things in natural gas such as helium, carbon dioxide and others but so far as fuel / petrochemical gases are concerned it's methane, propane, butane and ethane that are of primary use.

Coal seams - generally speaking, coal seam gas contains only methane and sometimes carbon dioxide in useful quantity. Anything else either isn't present at all (eg condensate) or is in such minor concentration as to be uneconomic to consider separating from the methane. So in practice, coal seam gas is a source of methane usually, and sometimes carbon dioxide.

So in the context of getting ethane to Sydney, realistically it's going to come from a conventional gas field in SA or Vic, the other options basically involving a pipeline from WA or NT to SA then joining the existing EPX pipeline anyway. The main rival to EPX is thus BHP / Esso at Longford (Vic) and a new pipeline to Sydney, with lesser potential for competition from other gas producers in Vic (Longford being by far the largest gas processing plant in Vic).

If there remains a market for Ethane in Sydney then realistically EPX are very likely to be transporting that gas there. There's a limit to pricing before a pipeline from Vic or a change of feedstock became economic (ethane isn't the only material that can be used - propane and even diesel can be turned into all sorts of things). But if Santos is producing ethane at Moomba, and there is a market for ethane in Sydney, then EPX is likely to remain in business.


----------



## skc (17 April 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> A bit of background info.




Thank you Smurf. You are always a well of knowledge in anything energy related.



Smurf1976 said:


> If there remains a market for Ethane in Sydney then realistically EPX are very likely to be transporting that gas there. There's a limit to pricing before a pipeline from Vic or a change of feedstock became economic (ethane isn't the only material that can be used - propane and even diesel can be turned into all sorts of things). But if Santos is producing ethane at Moomba, and there is a market for ethane in Sydney, then EPX is likely to remain in business.




It's interesting game theory behind large scale, natural monopoly like investments such as a pipeline, undersea transmission cable etc. 

With EPX, I guess the question is whether there is a substantial market in Sydney for ethane other than Qenos. My quick guess is No. You'd think EPX management would be aware of such and be negotiating plan B to supply those ethane users already, rather than saying plan B is to store natural gas in the pipes.


----------



## Ves (17 April 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> A bit of background info.



Excellent post.  Thank you very much for the time and effort spent in putting it together.  

What is your assessment of the risk in a stock like EPX?  Would you be able to price it at all or am I correct in saying that it would be very hard due to the nature of the beast?


----------



## So_Cynical (22 April 2014)

So_Cynical said:


> (16th-April-2014) Been watching EPX since 2007,* in today at 0.745* and hoping for the best as always...as mentioned previously EPX is a one trick pony, 1 suppler 1 customer and just the 1 asset and not even 1 employee.




Trade number 128 completed at the open, 24.8% profit with my part exit at 0.945...held on to a little over half of my shares for dividends and what ever surprises are to come.

 Excellent result.


----------



## McLovin (22 April 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> A bit of background info.




That's great info smurf. Cheers.


----------



## So_Cynical (8 May 2014)

EPX up another 10+% yesterday and 2% today on the back of yesterdays 'Updated distribution guidance' announcement.

http://www.ethanepipeline.com.au/media/224011/2014 05 07 updated distribution guidance.pdf

Turns out the world wasn't ending and that Qenos continues to make plastic at Botany.


----------



## So_Cynical (26 June 2014)

Trading X - Dividend today, 02.3 CPS fully franked. 



So_Cynical said:


> (16th-April-2014) Been watching EPX since 2007, in today at 0.745, Even with the new contract pricing and the reduced flow, *a 25% + divided cut would still see a gross yield of over 11%*




YOY for the quarter the gross dividend cut was 31% ~ so i can expect a 9.5% > 10% approximate Gross dividend going forward.


----------



## So_Cynical (13 November 2014)

So_Cynical said:


> (16th-April-2014) Been watching EPX since 2007, in today at 0.745 and hoping for the best as always...as mentioned previously EPX is a one trick pony, 1 suppler 1 customer and just the 1 asset and not even 1 employee.






So_Cynical said:


> (22nd-April-2014)Trade number 128 completed at the open, 24.8% profit with my part exit at 0.945...*held on to a little over half of my shares for dividends and what ever surprises are to come.*
> 
> Excellent result.




Surprise!

EPX up 30% today on the release of this announcement. 

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20141113/pdf/42tpc45sc50kzb.pdf

In a nut shell: EPX and Qenos have come to an arrangement guaranteeing Ethane supply to the Botany plant until December 2018, thus dividends to remain at 3 > 3.25 CPS with 1 CPS franking credit every quarter going forward.

Nice just Nice.  100% open profit and absolutely nailed the bottom to boot, catching knifes will cut you that's for sure, but every now and then its a clean catch with pay-offs sufficient to justify the risk taken.


----------



## coolcup (13 November 2014)

On the back of its distribution guidance of 4-4.25 cents per quarter for the next few years (including franking) this looks to be offering a yield (grossed up) of 10.7% to 11.3%. Even if the distributions don't grow, this is a pretty good return now that the supply has been de-risked. Am I reading this right?


----------



## galumay (13 November 2014)

coolcup said:


> Am I reading this right?




I believe so, I do wonder if it will behave something like a corporate bond, its certainly setup like a fixed income instrument now. The uncertainty is what the capital value will do as it approaches 'maturity'. I wonder what realistic life the pipeline and agreement have, its thru to 2019 now, but unless varied again it reverts to the earlier PTA then.

This allows for the termination of the agreement with 12 months notice again and I guess the risk of it being exercised is the risk of the Quenos Botany Plant shutting down.

So the yield is good for the next 4 years, but will you be able to recoup your capital towards the end of that period?

EDIT - rereading Smurf's excellent post further up the page largely answers the questions i posed!


----------



## So_Cynical (13 November 2014)

The pipeline is a valuable asset that links the largest city/domestic market in Aust with the largest onshore gas field in Aust, in fact it runs along side the Moomba Cooper basin > Sydney gas pipeline...its just that its a more valuable pipeline doing what its doing at the moment.

Take away the Ethane/Qenos and the pipeline is still a considerable asset.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 November 2014)

So_Cynical said:


> The pipeline is a valuable asset that links the largest city/domestic market in Aust with the largest onshore gas field in Aust
> 
> Take away the Ethane/Qenos and the pipeline is still a considerable asset.




Vic market for natural gas is far larger than NSW, around twice the size, with WA also being larger. The overall NSW market is comparable in size to SA, the difference being in usage - mostly power generation in SAversus mostly non-electricity generating use in NSW. 

Gas consumption by state as follows:

WA = 516 PJ (50% of total energy consumption including 53% of electricity generation)
Vic = 287 PJ (20% of total energy, 6% of electricity)
Qld = 235 PJ (18% of total energy, 22% of electricity)
NSW = 162 PJ (10% of total energy, 7% of electricity)
SA = 237 PJ (38% of total energy, 53% of electricity)
NT = 45 PJ (46% of total energy, 68% of electricity)
Tas = 16 PJ (14% of total energy, 13% of electricity)

That said, agreed that the pipeline would have an alternative use as a competitor to the Moomba - Sydney pipeline should there no longer be a market for ethane. It would likely bring lower returns however, since it would be competing against both an existing pipeline on the same route and alternative natural gas supplied from Longford (Vic). That's the more negative view.

The more positive view is that Vic gas is roughly 50% depleted (give or take a bit) so there's a limit to the extent of future production increase there. Moomba (Cooper Basin) is more heavily depleted, most of the gas has already been extracted, but it has existing links to Qld and there's a proposal for a NT - NSW pipeline that _could_ involve connection to Moomba and a consequent long term increase in gas supply into NSW / ACT / SA / Vic / Tas via Moomba. In that context, both the existing pipelines (Moomba to Sydney and Adelaide) would see heavy usage thus leaving room for a second Moomba - Sydney pipeline. That's the more positive view.

On the other hand, if NSW were to seriously develop its' own gas resources then that changes the picture greatly. That doesn't seem likely at least in the medium term however for political reasons.

Now to throw in another one, unconventional gas in the Cooper Basin itself. There's shale there, it's just that so far it hasn't been economical to extract gas from it in significant quantity compared to using gas from other sources. That could certainly change going forward however.

So overall, future non-ethane usage of the pipeline would really depend on the pattern of development of other gas sources and pipelines. The level of gas used for electricity generation is a further complexity.

Failing all that, there's always storage. A gas pipeline itself stores quite a bit of gas, thus representing a short term trading opportunity. I'm not sure about others, but the owners of the Vic - Tas pipeline are pursuing that at the moment leading to a situation where, in theory at least, gas could flow into Vic from the Tas pipeline even though Tas has zero gas production. It's all about pressure changes in that context - build the pressure to maximum, then you can have gas flowing out both ends at once for a period. Then repeat the cycle. The profitability of such a strategy depends on short term fluctuations in gas prices (without that it would be financially pointless, though still of use in an engineering sense).


----------



## So_Cynical (14 November 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> *Vic market for natural gas is far larger than NSW, around twice the size*, with WA also being larger. The overall NSW market is comparable in size to SA, the difference being in usage - mostly power generation in SAversus mostly non-electricity generating use in NSW.
> 
> The more positive view is that Vic gas is roughly 50% depleted (give or take a bit) so there's a limit to the extent of future production increase there. *Moomba (Cooper Basin) is more heavily depleted, most of the gas has already been extracted*, but it has existing links to Qld and there's a proposal for a NT - NSW pipeline that _could_ involve connection to Moomba and a consequent long term increase in gas supply into NSW / ACT / SA / Vic / Tas via Moomba.




Thanks for your input Smurf.

Glass half full and forward looking, gas is the growth energy source and NSW/Sydney the largest state and capital by population and GDP therefore potential market...the current Santos Moomba infrastructure is pretty much on top of the largest known shale gas deposit in Australia, a potential 200 TCF of Shale gas.

The Cooper basin will be producing Gas and will still be the largest onshore production area for many decades to come, the EPX pipeline has value going forward...for mine there is absolutely no scenario where it sits idol or is crapped etc.


----------



## agumby (7 March 2016)

takeover bid by APA, second time i will have had shares in a gas pipeline company taken over by them, last time it was Envestra 

http://www.smh.com.au/business/ener...pipeline-income-fund-bid-20160306-gnc38d.html


----------



## So_Cynical (8 March 2016)

agumby said:


> takeover bid by APA, second time i will have had shares in a gas pipeline company taken over by them, last time it was Envestra
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/ener...pipeline-income-fund-bid-20160306-gnc38d.html




Second time for me too, was HDF 5 years ago...EPX has been one of my better investments, paid 75c for these back when the panic was on in April 2014, dividends every 3 months and almost tripled my investment.

I absolutely love a good panic.


----------



## So_Cynical (6 April 2016)

So_Cynical said:


> (16th-April-2014) Been watching EPX since 2007, *in today at 0.745* and hoping for the best as always...as mentioned previously EPX is a one trick pony, 1 supplier, 1 customer and just the 1 asset and not even 1 employee.




Takeover by APA complete, check arrived in the mail today, 150% trade profit and 8 dividends totalling 25.74c per share ~ 34.6% return in dividends, not to shabby a result.


----------



## System (17 June 2016)

On June 16th, 2016, Ethane Pipeline Income Fund (EPX) was removed from the ASX's official list in accordance with Listing Rule 17.14, following compulsory acquisition by Australian Pipeline Limited as responsible entity of Australian Pipeline Trust.


----------

