Corporate Valuation, Oil & Gas

November 6, 2019

Public Royalty Trusts: More Than Meets the Eye

Yield Traps, Depressed Commodity Prices, and Stage of Decline May Decrease Utility of Public Yields

In previous posts, we have discussed the relationship between public royalty interests and their market pricing implications to royalty owners.  We have differentiated between mineral aggregators and public royalty trusts and introduced some other considerations for how to pick the appropriate comparable. In this post, we will discuss the prevailing high dividend yields of public royalty trusts. We will also offer some reasons for why these trusts may be declining not just in production but also their comparability, from a valuation perspective, to some privately held mineral interests.

Market Data for Trusts and Aggregators

The following tables gives some critical market data for valuation purposes:

We note that the yields are significantly lower for mineral aggregators than the public royalty trusts, who also have significantly lower market caps. Previously, we’ve explained what a royalty trust is; however, to understand these recently elevated yields, we may need to back up and discuss why royalty trusts are started in the first place.

Why a Royalty Trust?

Royalty trusts represent a unique financing tool for E&P companies. Instead of holding onto wells and collecting revenue over a longer holding period, operators can monetize these wells upfront by selling the wells to a trust. This allows operators to reinvest the proceeds back into its operations in an industry where cash is key. Trust distributions are determined by the level of production of the wells and commodity prices. By selling the wells to a trust, the operator can avoid the need for hedging the price risk. Also, since production of the wells is expected to decline over time, operators can avoid the drawn out, declining marginal utility of the wells. This is particularly helpful considering a dollar today is worth more than a dollar down the road.

Potential Pitfalls of Public Dividend Yields as a Proxy for Risk

We’ve discussed the importance of scrutinizing each royalty trust individually in order to determine the comparability with private interests. Some of these considerations include:

  • Commodity mix (oil vs natural gas)
  • Idiosyncratic issues with the operator
  • Region/basin
However, these are not the only considerations, and they may not provide the proper sanity check in the context of the elevated yields that have persisted in recent months.

Some further considerations include:

  • Stage of production
  • Calculation method of the dividend yield
  • Friction in equity market pricing
  • Operating Expenses in a depressed commodity price environment

Where are you on the Production Decline Curve?

As oil and gas is extracted from a well, its production declines over time.  As production declines, the yields tend to increase (more on this later). This can misrepresent the risk to reward opportunity as timing must line up.  The value of a mineral interest that has been producing for an extended period of time should not be compared to a well that has just started production or is even still in the drilling or development stage. These situations are two different points on the production curve and represent different risk profiles. For a PDP (proved, developed, producing), there is less risk than any other stage (compared to PUD, P2 or P3). It is important to consider the relationship between these stages of production instead of simply looking to the public markets and being prisoners of the moment or uninformed of the differences between public trusts and a privately held interest. The stage of production and decline rate must reasonably reconcile to private interests to ensure that yields and commensurate risk are compared apples-to-apples.

Trusts are frequently prohibited from acquiring additional wells to replace production, unlike E&P companies and mineral aggregators. With production declining, the share price of trust units tends to decline as well, and the return comes almost exclusively from the dividend yield, with minimal opportunity for capital appreciation. Yield is dividends divided by price, and a declining denominator can lead to higher yields. As production declines, the yields may begin to shift from a reasonable expectation of the risk associated with expected future cash flows to a reflection of the minimal life of the well.

Different Dividend Calculations Can Lead to Significantly Different Indications

The calculation of dividend yield can also be crucial to understanding risk. Taking the dividends paid in the past year may not be representative of future dividends. While annualizing the most recent dividend may cause issues with seasonality, it may be more appropriate given the commodity price outlook. Annualizing the most recent dividend causes a significant divergence in the implied yield for more than half of the royalty trusts, while the yields change by less than 2% for all of the mineral aggregators.

Take Prudhoe Bay (BPT) for example. Its 63% yield as of October 30th includes a $1 dividend per share in January 2019. However, distributions have only been only $1.23 in the next three quarters combined as its 10-K estimated a significantly declining outlook. Annualizing the most recent dividend of 34 cents per share drops the dividend yield closer to 28%, notably lower than 63%. While 28% may seem high even in the context of mature production, current commodity prices indicate the trust may cease payouts after January 2020.  Calculating yields by annualizing more current dividends can help normalize yields to better indicate the underlying value of the trust’s production.

Public Equity Markets May Complicate Intrinsic Value of Royalty Trusts

In theory, trading in a public marketplace gives public royalty trusts an indication of market value.  There is friction, however, between the stock market price and the intrinsic value of the trust. It is common for public royalty trusts to have relatively small share prices.  Also, as they age and decline over time, they will become less productive, and investors would be less likely to want to incur the trading costs to build up a position in a stock with little to no residual value. Investing in a small stock creates the need to load up on shares to make a meaningful investment. Doing so, however, can cause the price to move unfavorably. This is particularly the case if the stock is thinly traded.

This problem can be compounded by float, that is, the number of shares actually available for trading. As an extreme example, Permianville Royalty Trust (PVL) has just over half of its shares free floating. These issues further complicate the ability to use yields from public royalty trusts as a proxy for risk for private interests.

Operating Expenses Become Increasingly Important

Since royalty trusts are not encumbered with production expenses, trust operating expenses tend to be fixed and minimal. However, revenue tends to be volatile with commodity prices. In the currently depressed commodity price environment, particularly for natural gas, these operating expenses become more pronounced. As we see with the SandRidge Trusts (SDT) (SDR) and ECA Marcellus Trust I (ECT), yields can be higher for trusts with higher operating expenses as a percentage of revenue. Lower prices make the sensitivity to operating expenses more apparent as margins are tighter.

Conclusion

When using it as a pricing benchmark for private royalty interests, there are many reasons to scrutinize the public royalty yields and their comparability. Further analysis is required to ensure these provide meaningful valuation indications.  It is important to assess the implied shelf life of the interest and stage of production. Yield also must be considered both in the context of historical and expected future dividends; they must also consider the equity market ecosystem in which the trusts trade. Lastly, yield and implied risk must consider the prevailing commodity price environment and its impact on royalty trust’s operating expenses.

We have assisted many clients with various valuation and cash flow questions regarding royalty interests. Contact Mercer Capital to discuss your needs in confidence and learn more about how we can help you succeed.

Continue Reading

Mineral Aggregator Valuation Multiples Study Released-Data as of 03-10-2026
Mineral Aggregator Valuation Multiples Study Released

With Market Data as of March 10, 2026

Mercer Capital has thoughtfully analyzed the corporate and capital structures of the publicly traded mineral aggregators to derive meaningful indications of enterprise value. We have also calculated valuation multiples based on a variety of metrics, including distributions and reserves, as well as earnings and production on both a historical and forward-looking basis.
Themes from the Q4 2025 Energy Earnings Calls
Themes from the Q4 2025 Energy Earnings Calls
Fourth quarter 2025 earnings calls suggest an industry preparing for a transitional 2026, emphasizing organic inventory expansion, structural natural gas demand growth, and tightening service market fundamentals. Management teams appear focused less on short-term volatility and more on positioning for the next upcycle.
NAPE Summit 2026: Dealmaking at the Crossroads of Molecules, Electrons, and Minerals
NAPE Summit 2026: Dealmaking at the Crossroads of Molecules, Electrons, and Minerals
Mercer Capital joined industry leaders at the 2026 NAPE Summit (NAPE Expo), held February 18th to 20th, at the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, Texas. As with prior Expos, NAPE delivered a focused marketplace where conversations move quickly from “nice to meet you” to “what would it take to get this done?” This year, Bryce Erickson and David Smith represented Mercer Capital on the expo floor and across the conference programming, meeting with operators, minerals groups, capital providers, and advisors.If there was one defining characteristic of NAPE 2026, it was convergence. The industry’s traditional center of gravity, upstream oil and gas dealmaking, was still very much present. But the surrounding ecosystem is widening, as programming incorporated adjacent (and increasingly intertwined) sectors. The hubs for 2026, included Offshore, Data Centers, and Critical Minerals, as part of an event lineup designed to broaden the deal flow and participant mix. Below are our key takeaways from the conference, with a tour through the hub sessions and the themes that were emphasized.The Hub Sessions Told a Clear Story: Energy Is Becoming a Multi-Asset PortfolioThe 2026 NAPE hubs provided a useful lens into where capital is flowing and how industry priorities are evolving. This year’s programming demonstrated a market that still values traditional upstream opportunities, while increasingly integrating adjacent and emerging sectors into the broader deal landscape.Prospect Preview Hub: Showcasing OpportunitiesNAPE’s Prospect Preview Hub once again served as a platform for exhibitors to showcase available prospects on the expo floor, providing concise overviews of their technical merits and commercial potential. Presenters framed their investment thesis in a narrative that reflects how assets are marketed in a competitive transaction environment.Minerals & NonOp Hub: Strategies and TrendsThe Minerals & NonOp Hub discussions focused on market trends, financing strategies, and technology-driven approaches to sourcing and managing acquisition opportunities. Presentations in this hub addressed strategies, recent trends, technologies, and related developments.Offshore Hub: Long-Cycle Capital with Global ImplicationThe Offshore Hub highlighted exploration frontiers, development innovation, and the broader geopolitical context influencing offshore investment. Particular emphasis was placed on high-potential offshore regions, navigating environmental and regulatory frameworks, supply-demand trends, and the role of offshore energy in the global energy mix. Offshore projects require significant upfront investment and longer development timelines, which heighten sensitivity to regulatory stability, cost control, and commodity price outlook assumptions. In this sense, offshore dealmaking underscores how long-cycle assets must be evaluated differently from shorter-cycle onshore plays.Renewable Energy Hub: An Integrated FrameworkThe Renewable Energy Hub reflected an industry increasingly focused on integration rather than segmentation. Presentations centered on integrating renewables with traditional energy sources, hybrid project models, sustainability pathways with a focus on technology, and strategies for navigating evolving energy markets. Rather than viewing renewables as a standalone vertical, participants frequently discussed how renewable assets fit within broader portfolios that include natural gas, storage, and transmission infrastructure.Critical Minerals Hub: Supply Chain Strategy Comes to the ForefrontThe Critical Minerals Hub emphasized the strategic importance of minerals such as lithium, cobalt, rare earth elements, and graphite within evolving energy supply chains. The three sessions - Exploration/Development, Market Dynamics, and Sustainability/Innovation - featured presentations focused on resource development pathways, supply chain positioning, sourcing practices, and recycling technologies. Unlike traditional upstream projects, critical mineral investments often face unique permitting, processing, and geopolitical risks. As capital flows into the space, differentiation increasingly depends on technical credibility and downstream integration potential.Data Center Hub: Power Demand Is Now a First-Order VariableThe Data Center Hub positioned data centers as a critical component of the global economy, emphasizing the sector’s immense and growing energy needs and the resulting opportunities for collaboration between energy and technology stakeholders. Sessions addressed (i) structuring power supply, interconnection, and grid compliance, (ii) managing data center development risk, and (iii) how rising energy demands impact data center development.In practical terms, this emerged in two ways. First, site selection and power availability are increasingly central to “deal conversations.” Co-location strategies, generation capacity, transmission access, and long-term power contracting are becoming key underwriting considerations. Second, infrastructure constraints are entering valuation frameworks. Power availability, interconnection queues, permitting timelines, and fuel optionality are no longer secondary factors; they directly influence project timing, risk, and expected returns.Our Takeaways: What We Heard Repeatedly on the FloorAcross hub sessions and meetings, three themes came up again and again:Infrastructure constraints are turning into valuation drivers. Power, pipelines, processing, and permitting are not background details—they’re often the gating items that shape cash flow timing, risk, and ultimate marketability.The market is hungry for clarity. Whether the topic is policy, commodity outlook, or capital availability, counterparties are placing a premium on deals with understandable risks and executable paths.Energy dealmaking is becoming “multi-asset” by default. Even when the transaction is traditional upstream, the conversation increasingly touches power, infrastructure, data, or minerals adjacency.Final ThoughtsMercer Capital has long valued NAPE as an event where real deal conversations happen and where shifting industry priorities can be identified early on. As the lines between upstream, infrastructure, power, and emerging energy/minerals continue to blur, independent valuation and transaction advisory services become even more important, since the hardest part isn’t building a model, it’s choosing the right assumptions.We have assisted many clients with various valuation needs in the upstream oil and gas space for both conventional and unconventional plays in North America and around the world. Contact a Mercer Capital professional to discuss your needs in confidence and learn more about how we can help you succeed.

Cart

Your cart is empty