text: Superb long pods with 8-9 good flavoured beans in each. Compact plants. The hardiest variety for autumn or…
  A wonderful dwarf variety (ideal for exposed sites) producing very large numbers of pods, each containing four or five …
  Pods of good length and beans of delicious flavour. Very successful on show benches. RHS Award of Garden Merit…
  The oil reserve replacement ratio (RRR) is defined as the amount of proved reserves added to a company's proven reserve base in a given year relative to the amount of oil and gas produced during the year. Long term, a company's reserve replacement ratio must be at least 100% for the company to stay in business. Otherwise, it will eventually run out of oil.
  The RRR is used by many oil analysts to get an accurate picture of how well an oil company is performing. Organic reserve replacement is generally considered better than a high reserve/replacement ratio achieved through purchasing proved reserves. Oil is generally considered a more positive addition to reserves than is dry gas.
  For bigger oil companies, the law of large numbers comes into play. For example, a relatively small oil company that produces 100,000 boe/d need only add proven reserves of 36.5 million boe to achieve an RRR of 100%. On the other hand, a large oil company that produces 3 million boe/d need add proven reserves of 1.1 billion boe to achieve an RRR of 100%. That's a lot of oil. The ability to for big oil companies to achieve an RRR greater than 100% is a good indicator of the company's long-term health and its ability to grow its operations.
  The "big three" American oil companies -- Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM), Chevron (NYSE:CVX), and Conoco Phillips (NYSE:COP) -- have announced their 2012 reserve replacements. Let's take a look at the results:
  Exxon Mobil issued a press release summarizing its 2012 reserve replacement results, which you can view here. An except from the Exxon release shows where the primary reserve additions came from:
  Reserve additions in 2012 from the liquids-rich Woodford and Bakken plays in the United States totaled almost 750 million oil equivalent barrels. Proved reserves additions in Canada, including performance revisions and the Nabiye expansion project at Cold Lake, Alberta, and the Hebron project offshore Newfoundland and Labrador, added more than 600 million oil-equivalent barrels. Other additions to proved reserves were made in Australia, Angola, and Kazakhstan.
  Exxon also pointed out it had a 174% replacement ratio for crude oil and other liquids. At 2012 year-end, its proven reserves were basically a 50-50 split between liquids and natural gas.
  Chevron included a RRR update in its Q4 2012 and full-year earnings release, which you can access here. Here is the RRR-related portion of the press release:
  Watson (Chevron's CEO) commented that the company added approximately 1.07 billion barrels of net oil-equivalent proved reserves in 2012. These additions, which are subject to final reviews, equate to 112% of net oil-equivalent production for the year. The largest additions were for the Gorgon Project, as a result of development drilling and additional reservoir data. Also significant were additions for fields in the United States, Asia and offshore eastern Canada. The company will provide additional details relating to 2012 reserve additions in its Annual Report on Form 10-K scheduled for filing with the SEC on Feb. 22.
  ConocoPhillips also provided RRR information in its Q4 2012 earnings release. Its reserve update included a 2012 organic reserve replacement ratio of 156%. Notable organic reserves were added as follows:
  500 million BOE in Canada, primarily in the oil sands, with ongoing expansion phases at Foster Creek and Christina Lake, and following Phase A sanction at Narrows Lake;
  230 million BOE in Lower 48, mostly in liquids-rich shale plays, including the rapidly growing Eagle Ford and Bakken;
  100 million BOE in Asia Pacific, with progress at Australia Pacific LNG and multiple projects in Malaysia, including the recently online Gumusut Field and under-construction Malikai development; and
  50 million BOE across multiple developments in Europe, including the Jasmine Field where first production is expected in 2013.
  Final information related to the company's 2012 oil and gas reserves will be provided in ConocoPhillips' Annual Report on Form 10-K, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in late February.
  Conoco Phillips not only had a substantially higher RRR than its peers Exxon and Chevron, but it also appears to have added a very proportion of liquids versus natural gas. A look at the additions show ~780 million BOE of predominately oil additions (oil sands, lower-48 shale, Jasmine) vs. 100 million BOE LNG related to Asia Pacific (mostly Australian LNG). I believe this is a strong indicator that Conoco Phillips strategy is on track to deliver on its promises:
  More recent good news was China's permission for COP to bring Penglai production back to full capacity. Penglai is China's biggest offshore oil field and Conoco is the operator and has a 49% stake. In an earlier article, "ConocoPhillips: Bullish Catalysts for 2013," I identified Bohai Bay as an important 2013 catalyst for COP. While some think COP should limit its activities to the U.S., this offshore China project is very important for COP. It is a 168,000 bpd field, and these are Brent barrels. It also keeps a good relationship going with the Chinese, which could be important when it comes to Chinese shale gas projects.
  The approval for full capacity came sooner than I expected. It is very bullish for COP as a lack of production from this filed hurt 2012 results and will provide easier year-over-year comparisons in 2013. The market obviously liked the news as COP jumped over 2% on Tuesday, the first trading day since the approval news broke. Conoco Phillips looks poised to have a very good 2013.
  I will follow this article up with a look at some of the smaller oil producers' RRR, and will focus on the Bakken producers.
  Disclosure: I am long COP, CVX, XOM. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
  Disclaimer: I am an engineer, not a CFA. Please do your own research and contact your investment adviser. I am not responsible for investment decisions you make. Thanks for reading and good luck!
  According to my data set, Molson Coors is the best pick. Followed by Heineken (2) and Anheuser Busch Inbev (3).
  After writing articles about Heineken (OTCQX:HEINY), Anheuser Busch Inbev (BUD) and Molson Coors (TAP), I think it is time to compare the brewers with the help of several metrics. In this article, I will give points for different criteria. I may combine two criteria. Total points per criteria will not be equally split between all categories, because I think some criteria are more important than others. Molson Coors scores the most points, mainly because of the company's low D/E ratio, low payout ratio and the margin of safety in its forward P/E ratio.
  The return on equity is calculated by dividing net income by shareholders equity. The return on assets is calculated in the same way, but instead of 'equity' you use 'assets'. The higher the ratio, the more effective the company is with its shareholder's money. Heineken has the edge in both the ROE and the ROA. I will therefore reward the company with 2.5 points. AB InBev ties with Molson Coors in the ROE, but has the edge in the ROA. I will give 1.5 point to AB InBev and 1 point to Molson Coors.
  AB InBev and Molson Coors have both made a big acquisition in 2016. AB InBev paid $104.8 billion for SABMiller, while Molson Coors bought SABMiller's 58% stake in MillerCoors for $12 billion. Both acquisitions have leveraged the companies' balance sheet quite a bit. AB InBev has a D/E ratio of 1.59, while Molson Coors has a D/E ratio of 0.71. Even though Heineken did not make a major acquisition, the company still has a higher D/E ratio than Molson Coors. Heineken did make several smaller acquisition, for example Lagunitas Brewing, which leveraged up the company's balance sheet.
  In deciding which company I like the most, I put relatively much emphasis on the D/E ratio, compared to the other ratios. In the beer industry, acquisitions are a great way of increasing earnings. Big brewers often acquire craft beer producers because of the increasing craft beer consumption. I want to point out that a brewer can also grow profits without acquisitions, but they certainly help because of the great synergies in the sector. A company will not be able to acquire another company if the D/E ratio is too high.
  I personally care little about the yield of a company. I am only 20 years old and therefore do not need dividends to keep putting food on the table. I will certainly not complain about a high yield, but I trust management of all three companies. A lower payout ratio gives them the ability to make more acquisitions and create stock price appreciation. I will reward the companies for having a high yield, but also for having a low payout ratio.
  I will hand out 5 points for both criteria. For the yield, I will give 2.5 points to AB InBev, 1.5 points to Molson Coors and only one point to Heineken. For the payout ratio, I will reward Molson Coors with 3 points and Heineken with 2. I do not give any points to AB InBev because a dividend payout above 100% will not be sustainable in the long run. I would prefer AB InBev cutting down its dividend and using the cash to pay down its long term debt.
  It is easy to find quality companies, however, it is harder to find quality companies at a quality price. The forward P/E ratio gives a great indication of the valuation of a company. I prefer the forward P/E ratio over the "standard" P/E ratio because the forward P/E ratio contains at least some growth element. A high P/E ratio is not always better than a low one, the forward P/E ratio only contains one year of growth, which may not always be enough. However, I still prefer the low P/E ratio of Molson Coors. In the challenging consumer staple environment, the low P/E ratio of Molson Coors, combined with at least flat earnings growth, provides a margin of safety which the other two brewers cannot provide.
  For the last criteria, I hand out 10 points in total. Because of its margin of safety, I will give 5 points to Molson Coors. I will give 3 points to AB InBev and 2 points to Heineken.
  Taking all the points I rewarded to the three companies in consideration, I conclude that Molson Coors is the clear winner with 15.5 points. The company shines in the D/E, the forward P/E and the payout ratio criteria. The only downside is the relatively low ROE and ROA. Heineken is rated second best, beating both companies with its high ROE and ROA. Heineken is only rated third best in the yield section, but like I stated already, I do not put too much emphasis on the yield. I trust management and the low yield makes sure the company can acquire new breweries. I rated AB InBev as the worst of among the three. The company has the biggest debt load, which makes it harder to acquire, for example, craft breweries. Although the yield is high, I do not know whether the dividend is sustainable in the long run.
  I used the criteria that I think are most important. Using other criteria or dividing the total amount of points differently, will certainly affect the final results. I strongly dis encourage investing based on only the above represented metrics. I recommend to check out my other articles to find more specific information about all three companies. If you enjoyed this article, please follow me by clicking the orange subscribe button on the top of this article.
  Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, but may initiate a long position in HEINY, TAP, BUD over the next 72 hours.