|
|
The
Hera Research Newsletter (HRN) is pleased
to present the following, information-packed interview with Rick Rule,
founder of Global Resource Investments, Ltd. Mr. Rule discusses
conventional oil and gas, oil shale, shale gas, oil sands, heavy crude, peak
oil and alternative energy, with particular emphasis on geothermal power.
Rick Rule has dedicated
his entire life to all aspects of the natural resource industry. His contacts
and knowledge of this market are unmatched. At Global Resource
Investments, Rick leads a team featuring professionals trained in resource
related disciplines, including geology and engineering, to evaluate
investment opportunities.
Rick began his career
in the securities business in 1974, and has been principally involved in
natural resource security investments ever since. He is a leading American
retail broker specializing in mining, energy, water utilities, forest
products and agriculture. His research and brokerage capabilities are
frequently recommended by distinguished financial newsletter writers such as
Bob Bishop, Jim Blanchard, Doug Casey, Adrian Day, Richard Maybury, Paul van
Eeden, Mark Skousen, Jack Pugsley, Ron Hera and others.
Hera Research
Newsletter (HRN):
Thank you for speaking with us today. How do you see the conventional oil and
gas market developing in light of alternative energy?
Rick Rule: From an
investor’s point of view, conventional oil and gas will always be a
pretty good business because it’s a reasonably high margin business and
it’s also a very large business but it’s a cyclical business,
which means that it goes on sale reasonably often.
The most important
theme that people need to understand with regard to conventional oil is that
most conventional oil that is produced in the world and sold for export is
not produced by companies like Shell or Exxon or Total, in other words
it’s not produced by major oil companies. It’s produced by
national oil companies, where the shareholders aren’t public
shareholders but rather sovereign governments, and that’s important to
understand. It’s important for investors because most of the national
oil companies have been, for some period of time, diverting substantial
amounts of the cashflow from their domestic oil industries into other
domestic spending programs that aren’t oil related, thereby starving
their domestic oil industry of sustaining capital. I think this has gone on
for so long that several of these national oil companies have production
decline curves that are irreversible for the next decade. The consequence of
that is that several countries, particularly Mexico, Venezuela, Peru,
Indonesia and perhaps Iran, will cease to be oil exporters within 5 years,
even if they start spending now, which they aren’t able to do.
The impact of that is that as much as 20% of world export crude will come off
of export markets and that could lead to a truly precipitous increase in
price. The only hope that oil import countries have is that sustaining
capital investments have increased in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates
and Kuwait. These three countries, with the help of a resurgent Iraq (if it
does resurge), are the importing countries’ only hope for moderated oil
prices in the next 5 years. It’s my belief that production declines as
a consequence of a lack of reinvestment will be greater than the production
adds and I suspect we will see sharply higher world oil prices in the next 5
years.
HRN: Do you think that
increased domestic oil consumption by oil exporting countries is a
significant factor?
Rick Rule: One of the things that
oil exporting countries like Iran, Indonesia, Mexico and Venezuela do with
the cashflow from oil exports is subsidize domestic energy production.
At the same time that they increase supply, they constrain demand, which is
not a sustainable set of circumstances over time. I think it will correct but
it will not correct in time to prevent an oil price shock.
HRN: How does your outlook
for conventional oil differ from natural gas?
Rick Rule: Natural gas is not yet
a global market, although with increasing traffic in liquefied natural gas
(LNG), it is becoming a global market. It is rather a series of
regional markets. Some markets are in substantial oversupply, North
America being one. North America benefits from very favorable geology and
extraordinary infrastructure. The United States has transmission and
underground storage infrastructure, as well as LNG receiving infrastructure,
that are the envy of the world. The United States has access to ample
supplies of gas from Canada’s Western sedimentary basin and huge
quantities of shale gas that has become newly economic as a consequence of
several different types of extraction technology. Additionally, the United
States has six LNG receiving facilities and the storage capacity to take
cargoes at a moment’s notice and store them. Paradoxically, although
the United States is an oversupplied natural gas market, it is also a market
that takes surplus LNG cargoes that cannot be sold elsewhere. For the next
while, at least, the North American natural gas market is in a state of oversupply.
This has caused North American dry gas prices to fall and the prices of gas
producers to fall.
HRN: How will the BP
catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico affect the US oil and gas market?
Rick Rule: What interests
me—the fly in the ointment—about the blowout in the Gulf of
Mexico Is that the Gulf of Mexico supplies 30% of US domestic oil and
gas. Gas wells in the Gulf, in particular, have very high decline
curves, meaning that gas wells drilled this year will likely be played out in
2012 or 2014. Without sustained drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, we can
expect very rapid declines in overall US gas production, which may or may not
lead to increasing domestic prices at a time when most commentators are
calling for decreasing domestic prices.
HRN: Do you think shale gas
will keep US prices low?
Rick Rule: I expect the supply of
shale gas to be extremely volatile and the volatility will be a delta between
the leveraged finding cost of gas producers and the forward strip. It
would appear that the median North American shale—a combination of the
Marcellus, Barnett, Eagle Fort and Woodford shale systems—involves
finding costs and capital costs in the $4 to $5 per million British Thermal
Unit (BTU) range. To the extent that a forward strip market exists, in the
futures market, above $5.50 per million BTU, meaning that producers can hedge
by selling forward enough gas production to pay off a well, drilling will be
fairly active. Producers can drill these gas wells because they have no
exploration risk for a while. If they can produce gas for $4.00 to
$4.50 per million BTU and sell it for $5.00 to $5.50 per million BTU, because
of the very high initial production of these wells, they have the ability to
drill a well and pay the well off on a guaranteed basis by selling into the
forward strip. When high drilling activity puts enough fresh production
into the system to drive gas prices down and the forward strip goes below
$4.00 or $4.50 per million BTU we’ll see a relatively rapid stacking of
rigs and, because of the very, very high depletion of gas shale wells, 18 to
24 months out we’ll see gas supplies tight enough to drive the spot and
the strip market higher, and the situation will repeat itself.
HRN: What’s the best
way for investors to capitalize on cyclicality in the North American gas
market?
Rick Rule: The interesting thing
about the North American natural gas market is that it is going to be
extremely volatile. Speculators are going to have to buy in terms of low
gas prices, when rigs are stacked and production is declining, and sell
during periods of high gas prices when producer cash flows are soaring.
It’s going to be counterintuitive but very, very rewarding. Normally,
these cycles take place in 10 years or 12 years but we’re going to see
these cycles taking place in 2 years, which is a situation we’ve not
seen before.
HRN: Can you comment on the
global market for gas?
Rick Rule: The global gas market
is very different. It’s a series of smaller markets, in
actuality. In far eastern markets, LNG is increasingly seen as a cheap
substitute for oil in many of oil’s functions, such as power generation
and petrochemical feedstocks (used in the manufacture of chemicals, synthetic
rubber and plastics) in particular. We’re seeing the development
of a vast LNG infrastructure to move gas from places where it’s in
abundance, like the Australian shelf and parts of Indonesia, to places that
appear to be perpetually hydrocarbon starved, like China, Taiwan, Korea and
Japan. Europe, similarly, has fairly high gas prices and has developed what
the Europeans believe to be a dangerous reliance on Russian supplies. There
are moves afoot to lessen European dependence on Russian gas, like moving
Iranian or Azerbaijani gas through Turkey into Europe, and moving North
African gas into Europe. Over time, I suspect, a way will be found to
provide energy security for Europe where the Russians have a big share of the
market but will not dominate the market.
HRN: Do you expect natural
gas to be more widely used as a motor fuel in the future?
Rick Rule: What’s
interesting is that natural gas prices are substantially cheaper than oil
prices as a consequence of oil’s dominance as a motor fuel. I think we
are finally in an era where natural gas will achieve prominence as a motor
fuel. I suspect that the country that leads that charge will be the United
States, as a consequence of its reliance on export crude and of our unique
national highway system. It’s always been a chicken or egg
problem. If we convert cars before having the ability to distribute LNG
we’ll have stranded vehicles, but if we convert gas stations before
converting cars we have stranded capital. The answer to that in the near term
is to convert 2% of the gasoline stations along long haul trucking routes and
convert the trucking fleet before converting cars. This would save a
tremendous amount of cash because LNG is significantly cheaper as a motor
fuel.
HRN: Isn’t that part
of the Pickens Plan?
Rick Rule: Yes, it is, but the
Pickens Plan, somewhat disingenuously, would rely on federal subsidies.
I don’t think we need any federal subsidies. The savings that would be
generated by converting the long haul trucking fleet to LNG would be such
that federal subsidies wouldn’t be needed. It’s also interesting
that there are rapidly developing technologies that would allow service
stations to compress the gas themselves from utility supply rather than
having to distribute LNG in the same fashion that gasoline or diesel are
distributed. I also think the US is headed, in the near term, for some type
of carbon tax—whether or not it’s a good idea is a different
question—and I think the carbon tax would make gasoline and diesel even
less competitive relative to natural gas. In the next 5 years
we’ll see substantial strides towards the conversion of the long haul
trucking fleet from diesel to LNG. There have been discussions that Wal-Mart
or Costco, partially for public relations reasons, might lead the charge by
making conversions across the country by converting their own, high-volume operations.
Having that critical mass of availability of LNG will encourage the
conversion of the nation’s automobile fleet.
HRN: I read that there has
been a build-out of capacity to refine heavy sour crude oil.
Rick Rule: Heavy oil is doing
well and I think it will continue to do well for a couple of paradoxical
reasons. There used to be a very large spread between heavy sour crude prices
and sweet light crude because heavy oil required upgrading. The spread was so
large that upgrading heavy oil was extremely profitable and, as a
consequence, enormous capital investments were made over the past 10 years or
so both in Canada and in the United States in heavy oil upgrading.
What’s happened is that our capacity to upgrade heavy sour crude has
begun to outstrip supplies, particularly from Mexico and Venezuela. Because
of the oversupply of upgrading capacity and the relative undersupply of heavy
crude oil, the spreads between heavy crude and light crude have declined to
the point where producing heavy crude has become a very profitable activity.
HRN: What is your view on
oil sands?
Rick Rule: North American
speculators who are under-weighted in oil should probably take a position in
the larger oil sands companies, just as they would buy car insurance or life
insurance. In addition to the supply disruptions that I see from the
lack of investment in conventional export crude, geopolitical instability in
the Persian Gulf region, particularly where Iran is concerned, could disrupt
supply. If the Iranians had cause to shut down the Strait of Hormuz for any
period of time, we would see a tremendous escalation in oil prices and we
would see the geopolitical benefit of the Athabasca oil sands, which is an
enormous, producing bitumen region of Northern Alberta, Canada. I see
oil sands as an absolute cornerstone in a North American energy
investor’s portfolio because of its extraordinary size, the amount of
capital that has already been expended and because of its particular
importance to US consumers.
HRN: What’s the
status of technology to recover oil from oil sands?
Rick Rule: Steam assisted gravity
drainage (SAGD) is a technology that’s useful where the oil is heavy
and doesn’t flow very well but where there is porosity and
permeability. What we do is drill two horizontal legs into the reservoir. One
leg pumps steam into the reservoir while the other leg pumps out the fluid
produced as a consequence of the injection of energy and steam.
HRN: With the energy
inputs, is it economic or energy positive to produce oil from oil sands?
Rick Rule: In an ideal world, one
would build about 2 GW of nuclear capacity at the Athabasca oil sands in
Northern Alberta, which is the largest oil sands basin in the world, because
the byproduct of a nuclear power plant is steam. The steam from 2 GW of
nuclear capacity would be worth about a quarter of a billion dollars
annually. In other words, you would sell your waste product for a
quarter of a billion dollars and the cash flow from the waste (steam) would
amortize most of the construction cost of the power plant and the power that
would be generated would back out all of the natural gas fired power used in
the province of Alberta, freeing all of that gas for export or other uses
(other than generating steam for the oil sands). Unfortunately, that set of
circumstances isn’t politically appropriate. Right now, what happens in
the oil sands business is that, because oil commands a higher premium as a
consequence of its easy conversion into a motor fuel compared with natural
gas, the process involves an arbitrage between high oil prices and low gas
prices. Enormous amounts of energy are consumed to produce energy.
HRN: Is there an
environmental impact?
Rick Rule: A challenge facing the
oil sands industry is that it alters, negatively, large quantities of
water. Water supply and water treatment issues will come to the fore in
the oil sands business. I’m not a knee-jerk environmentalist but
I am a real environmentalist. The industry has to address the fact that it
has improperly treated water for a long period of time and it consumes much
more water at lower input prices than it ought to. The industry is going to
have to deal with recycling processed water back into process and with
cleaning up process water before putting it back into the environment. In oil
mining operations, the industry is also going to have to deal with the water
that builds up in the pit as oil that hasn’t been mined desorbs from
the rocks in the pit and is ultimately released into the environment. There
are costs associated with oil sands that aren’t being factored into the
cost of the oil that’s being sold and society is going to demand
solutions to those problems and that will increase the production cost.
HRN: That’s
fascinating, can you comment on oil shale as well?
Rick Rule: The technologies that
have been brought to bear on gas rich shales, particularly those that have a
lot of liquids in them, can probably be brought to bear on some of the oil
rich shales, in particular, the thermally mature oil shales. We know that
some of these basins are like organic kitchens, cooking their organic content
into oil, but they have neither the porosity nor the permeability to be
produced economically. What we’ve done in the gas rich shales, because
they have poor reservoir properties, is that we’ve effectively
manufactured our own reservoirs. We drill into the gas shales
horizontally rather than vertically, exposing more of the reservoir to our
extractive mechanism, that is, our well. Because the shale is very tight we
pump in water or sand or ceramic, in a procedure called fracturing, keeping
the reservoir open. In other words we are manufacturing a reservoir in rock
that has oil and gas in place but that didn’t have a reservoir
previously. That technology will probably work in certain applications
for oil shales. It may be that a combination of technologies,
fracturing and SAGD, can be used in oil shales. The tremendous advance
of technology we’ve enjoyed in the last 30 years and the tens of
billions of barrels of oil that are known to exist, suggests that we may see
the same type of technological breakthrough in the oil shales that we have in
the gas shales. In the oil sands, the billions of dollars invested are
beginning to pay off in spades, both in terms of cash flows and in terms of
the security of the supply.
HRN: What do you think
about the Peak Oil theory?
Rick Rule: Peak oil is more an
economic and political phenomenon than it is a geological phenomenon. I think
we’re past $40 peak oil but I don’t think we’re past $200
peak oil. There are technologies, as an example, miscible CO2 flooding
to recover oil from allegedly depleted oil fields. There are new basins,
albeit remote, frontier basins. There are new technologies that allow dry gas
or LNG to be substituted for liquid oil. It’s an economic function
because these technologies and substitutions require higher energy prices. At
$200 oil, we’ve got lots of oil.
HRN: Where do you see oil
prices in the next few years?
Rick Rule: I think oil prices
will move up dramatically in the next 5 years. The transition from a
hydrocarbon economy to some other type of economy will require massive
investment in new technologies and I don’t think we will adapt quickly
enough to avoid an escalation of oil and gas prices. Hydrocarbons, oil and
gas, are extremely efficient energy sources. They are extremely dense
and there is an incredible installed capacity to utilize them in various
forms. They seem ideally suited for use as motor fuels. Whatever
replaces them will be long in coming and involve enormous expense. I suspect
that the next 10 or 15 years will involve a transition away from the
widespread use of oil and gas in applications other than motor fuel. As
a consequence, increasing per capita consumption of hydrocarbons around the
world with an increasing number of capita, and without a viable alternative
in the near term means that higher oil and gas prices are inevitable.
HRN: How do you see
alternative energy playing out versus oil and gas?
Rick Rule: I differentiate
economic alternative energy and uneconomic alternative energy. The
alternative energy investments that intrigue me are geothermal and
hydroelectric which are, by and large, industries that could exist and thrive
without subsidy but, because they are green energy, receive subsidies at any
rate. Juxtapose those with wind and solar, which do not, given their
current stage of technology and status of deployment, generate an economic
return without subsidy. I am not, for the most part, an investor in
wind or solar, although I have made a couple of small wind investments as a
consequence of extraordinary feed-in tariffs. Solar has, in my opinion,
an insurmountable problem, which is night. It’s highly interruptible
power. It’s not baseload and it’s devilishly difficult for
utilities to incorporate into their demand curves. Wind is similarly
difficult. People don’t like to live in windy areas and the energy has
to be transported to where people want to consume it, and the wind
doesn’t necessarily blow when people want to consume the power
that’s being generated by it. Geothermal power is baseload.
It’s very highly deliverable, about 95% efficient, and it is in certain
areas of the world, such as the Western United States, highly economic.
Hydro, although it relies on precipitation and drop, has been utilized for
100 or 150 years and is highly competitive even though it doesn’t have
the same baseload characteristics of geothermal.
HRN: Would you say that
geothermal power is the most promising area for investors?
Rick Rule: What all forms of
alternative energy have, and what no other forms of energy have, is social
and political acceptance. Most elements of society are solidly in favor of
increasing utilization of non carbon generating power. I was involved,
as an investor, in the drilling of a new geothermal well in the Geysers of
Northern California, which is, by the way, the largest installed geothermal
facility in the world. What struck me about it was that we were drilling this
well using typical oil and gas equipment. It was a fairly large
drilling rig and a fairly noisy, messy operation and it occurred to me that
if we had been drilling an oil well on the Napa-Sonoma county line there
would have been popular outrage and political opposition—pickets,
protests and that kind of thing—but, because we were drilling a
geothermal well, we received orders of commendation from both the Napa and
Sonoma county councils. What’s important about that is that it’s
power that is (a) needed, and (b) can be built due to a level of political
and social support that other forms of energy do not enjoy.
HRN: I understand that
there are US Department of Energy grants and other government programs
designed to encourage alternative energy.
Rick Rule: The current US
administration has done two extraordinary things. They have offered grants to
the geothermal industry of up to 30% of project expenses. We calculated
that the government would give companies as much as 27% of the capital budget
with no equity interest. At the same time, they will guarantee up to 80%
of allowable project expenditures. Now that’s interesting because if
you add up 27% and 80% it produces a rather exquisite fraction. What is
more interesting is that, in the Western United States, the government has
instituted feed-in tariffs that require utilities to pay premium prices for
alternative energy versus other sources of energy. As a result,
unleveraged internal rates of return on select geothermal projects can exceed
20%. The industry’s cost of capital, as a function of subsidies, could
be around the 5% level. The idea of a 15% financial margin in an operation
that is effectively offering a utility risk is extremely attractive. I
don’t know how long the federal subsidies will last. They’re
slated to last about 3 ½ years and I wonder, given budget constraints,
if the popularity of geothermal projects will allow them to continue with
this level of subsidy in the face of competing needs for money, but it
certainly makes for a very, very attractive investment opportunity.
HRN: I’ve noticed
that the market does not seem to be rewarding geothermal junior companies.
Rick Rule: It’s my belief
that, 2 or 3 years from now, alternative energy investments will enjoy the
same kind of spike in popularity that we saw in uranium speculation 5 years
ago. I think there’s going to be a true mania surrounding alternative
energy investments and I think a lot of money will be lost because newbies to
alternative energy investments won’t understand the characteristics of
the various industries. There’s quite a disconnect between the market
and geothermal energy, because most of the speculators in geothermal have
come to it from the mining side rather than the power side. These people are
exploration and excitement oriented rather than process oriented. I was
speaking at a conference in Vancouver a few weeks ago about geothermal power
and the fact that news wasn’t reported in grams per tonne confused
people. They were trying to apply mineral exploration parameters to a very
different business.
HRN: When do you think the
value of these growing companies will be recognized?
Rick Rule: What I learned in the
uranium business in 1998, 1999 and 2000, when I was pounding the podium at
conferences explaining why these stocks would do very well, was that thinking
people would understand the story but had no relevance to them because it
hadn’t been demonstrated by one stock that had worked. In 2003,
Paladin Energy moved from about $0.05 to about $2.00 and that move—a 40
bagger—really kicked off the uranium frenzy. What happened was
that a story that was understandable, relevant and true became validated by a
single company. The first time that a geothermal company gets taken over by a
major utility with a nice premium, the geothermal story will suddenly be
validated and important. I think that will happen, maybe, as early as this
calendar year.
HRN: What companies are in
the running?
Rick Rule: There are 5, soon to
be 4, entrants on the junior side in North American geothermal stocks: Ram
Power Corp, which is a leader; and Magma Energy, which is also a leader based
on the extraordinary career of its founder and chief executive, Ross Beaty;
and there are three smaller junior geothermal companies, Sierra Geothermal
Power, US Geothermal and Nevada Geothermal Power. The smaller companies are
really a paradox because they are all selling at substantial discounts to the
value of their assets but they are arguably too small to exist as public
companies. It’s difficult for some of the smaller companies to
attract institutional capital because of the relative lack of experience in
geothermal of their management teams and the bulk of their assets are so
small that attracting capital dilutes shareholders at the same time that they’re
selling at large discounts, so the risk adjusted net present value of their
assets is unattractive. Sierra Geothermal, I think, has made the right
decision to amalgamate with Ram Power because Ram’s management team has
the skill set to attract institutional capital. I suspect that both US
Geothermal and Nevada Geothermal will be taken over either by Magma or Ram or
by one of the big US coal-fired electric utilities, such as AES, Southern
Company or Duke Energy. The utilities have been circling the geothermal space
long enough that they are going to get into the act. I think the theme
was set when Canadian Hydro was taken over by TransAlta. The theme being that
large coal-fired utilities take over well-run alternative energy entities
with large development pipelines because they want to control the carbon
offsets from alternative energy against their coal operations without having
to buy those carbon offsets in the market, and also because they see the
ability to grow in alternative energy as a consequence of the political will
and support of alternative energy, which is a set of circumstances that the
coal industry no longer enjoys. I think, ultimately, we will see all of the
North American geothermal entities taken over either by international power
generators or by American coal-fired generators. I think it’s one of
the easiest themes to play for the next 5 years because, like uranium,
it’s an absolute certainty.
HRN: Thank you for being so
generous with your time.
Rick Rule: It was my pleasure.
After Words
If there were only one
person in the world that an energy investor could ask about conventional oil
and gas, oil shale and shale gas, oil sands, heavy crude, peak oil and
alternative energies, including solar, wind, hydroelectric and geothermal
power, that person would have to be Rick Rule. His encyclopedic knowledge and
many insights into both industries and specific companies are invaluable.
Editor’s Note:
The author is personally a client of Global Resource Investments, Ltd.
Ron Hera
Hera Research
Visit his website
Send him mail
Ron Hera is the
founder of Hera Research, LLC, and the principal
author of the Hera Research Monthly newsletter. Hera Research provides deeply
researched analysis to help investors profit from changing economic and
market conditions
About
Hera Research
Hera Research,
LLC, provides deeply researched analysis to help investors profit from
changing economic and market conditions. Hera Research focuses on
relationships between macroeconomics, government, banking, and financial
markets in order to identify and analyze investment opportunities with
extraordinary upside potential. Hera Research is currently researching mining
and metals including precious metals, oil and energy including green energy,
agriculture, and other natural resources. The Hera
Research Monthly newsletter covers
key economic data, trends and analysis including reviews of companies with
extraordinary value and upside potential
###
Articles
by Ron Hera, the Hera Research web site and the Hera Research Monthly
newsletter ("Hera Research publications") are published by Hera
Research, LLC. Information contained in Hera Research publications is
obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy cannot be
guaranteed. The information contained in Hera Research publications is not
intended to constitute individual investment advice and is not designed to
meet individual financial situations. The opinions expressed in Hera Research
publications are those of the publisher and are subject to change without
notice. The information in such publications may become outdated and Hera
Research, LLC has no obligation to update any such information.
Ron
Hera, Hera Research, LLC, and other entities in which Ron Hera has an
interest, along with employees, officers, family, and associates may from
time to time have positions in the securities or commodities covered in these
publications or web site. The policies of Hera Research, LLC attempt to avoid
potential conflicts of interest and to resolve conflicts of interest should
any arise in a timely fashion.
Unless
otherwise specified, Hera Research publications including the Hera Research
web site and its content and images, as well as all copyright, trademark and
other rights therein, are owned by Hera Research, LLC. No portion of Hera
Research publications or web site may be extracted or reproduced without
permission of Hera Research, LLC. Nothing contained herein shall be construed
as conferring any license or right under any copyright, trademark or other
right of Hera Research, LLC. Unauthorized use, reproduction or rebroadcast of
any content of Hera Research publications or web site, including
communicating investment recommendations in such publication or web site to
non-subscribers in any manner, is prohibited and shall be considered an
infringement and/or misappropriation of the proprietary rights of Hera
Research, LLC.
Hera
Research, LLC reserves the right to cancel any subscription at any time, and
if it does so it will promptly refund to the subscriber the amount of the subscription
payment previously received relating to the remaining subscription period.
Cancellation of a subscription may result from any unauthorized use or
reproduction or rebroadcast of Hera Research publications or website, any
infringement or misappropriation of Hera Research, LLC's proprietary rights,
or any other reason determined in the sole discretion of Hera Research, LLC. ©2009
Hera Research, LLC.
|
|
