In short: Named twice: as one of the "large strategic integrates" that own most North American storage, and as the buyer of Rockpoint's 49.9% non-op Tres Palacios salt-cavern stake in the 2023 non-core divestiture. Counterparty and peer reference, not a stance.
41:44Tres Palacios hub. — Palacios. Yeah. So in 2023, we did an evaluation internally on what was core and non-core. And we determined the best path forward would be to divest of some of our non-core assets. The Tres Palacios asset was a 49.9% ownership non-op that we had with Crestwood in a really strong market in the Gulf that we decided to go through a sale with and sold that to Enbridge.
In short: Infrastructure context — the mainline + Express systems carry much of today's ~5 mb/d of egress (alongside Trans Mountain / Keystone); the backbone the new proposals add to.
4:04Today we're exporting about 5 million barrels a day through the mainline Enbridge system, Trans Mountain system, Keystone system, the Express Enbridge system, but there's a whole bunch of other new proposals including Prairie Connector, the West Coast pipeline, Northern Shield part one, Northern Shield part two. So will all these go through? I think there's the skepticism that they all will, but the way politicians are talking, indigenous groups are talking, companies, it sounds much more real than we've ever really kind of seen past
In short: His own company (CEO's book). $40B backlog (aiming $60B), mainline grown from 1M→3.2M bbl/d, moves ~30% of NA oil / 20% of gas, "no commodity risk," 30-yr growing dividend + 10–12% TSR hit 21 straight years. Says the multiple is "absolutely" too low — recency bias; the story shifted from terminal value to "how long can the growth go on."
Enbridge is North America's largest energy-infrastructure company — the pipelines and networks that move crude oil and natural gas, plus a big gas-utility (distribution) business and some renewables. Greg Ebel is its CEO, so this is unavoidably his own book, not a neutral rating. His pitch is simple and deliberately boring: aim to hand shareholders a 10–12% total return every year, built from a dividend that has grown for 30 straight years plus steady earnings growth, and Enbridge has hit its financial targets 21 years in a row. It carries "virtually no commodity risk" because it charges tolls to move other people's oil and gas rather than betting on the price.
His investment argument is that the stock's valuation ("multiple") is too low. For years investors treated pipelines like a "shrinking annuity" — an income stream slowly winding down — and kept asking about "terminal value" (when does it end?). Now, with Venezuela, Iran and the AI/data-center power boom driving a fresh infrastructure-build cycle, the question has flipped to "how long can this growth go on?" — and every extra year of visible growth should justify paying a higher price for the shares. He runs a huge $40B project backlog (aiming for $60B) he can fund from his own cash flow, so he doesn't need to overpay for acquisitions, and he frees up capital by selling minority stakes to First Nations partners. Bottom line, in his telling: a low-drama compounder the market is under-rating.
44:42Sure. So pretty simple and we've kept it consistent for a long time. We're trying to provide investors 10 to 12%
44:49total shareholder return made up of the dividend which is growing every year for 30 years and earnings growth and we've hit our financial targets every year for
In short: Not owned; "a textbook example of why EBITDA is a bad number." Doesn't live within cash flow (capex ~$10B vs ~$5B depreciation; dividend >$8B), >$100B debt, dilutive equity, ~5% ROC vs ~5% debt cost. A great necessity asset but poor economics for equity holders.
Enbridge is the big Canadian pipeline company. Teich doesn't own it and uses it as his textbook example of why "EBITDA" (a profit measure that ignores interest, taxes and the wear-and-tear charge) is misleading. The plain math: it earns about $11B of cash flow but spends ~$9.5B on projects and pays ~$8B in dividends — a shortfall it fills by borrowing (debt is now over $100B) and issuing new shares. Its reported depreciation (~$5B) is only half its real spending (~$10B), so EBITDA flatters the picture. When a business earns about 5% on its capital while paying about 5% on its debt and grows by acquisition, the economics don't work for shareholders — even though the stock has done well. A great, necessary asset; a poor deal for equity holders in his view.
42:06was fine, totally. So will I, I love your sweatshirt on this, on the EBITDA. So Enbridge is a textbook example of why
42:14EBITDA is a bad number because essentially they're not living within their cash flow. So simple numbers are, cash flow is 11
In short: Harrington's final trade (from the energy conference): an enormous midstream company, ~5% yield — "as long as fossil fuels are flowing, they make money."
Enbridge is a giant "midstream" energy company — it owns the pipelines and infrastructure that move oil and gas around, charging fees like a toll road rather than betting on the commodity's price. Harrington's one-liner captures the appeal: "as long as fossil fuels are flowing, they make money." It pays about a 5% dividend, which suits her income-focused strategy, and it's a steadier way to own the energy theme than a driller whose profits swing with crude prices.
In short: The third pipeline name cited as "being approached" to feed data-center power plants — the toll-collector route to the AI-energy theme via the natural-gas bridge fuel.
Enbridge is a large North American pipeline company. It's the third name Polomny cites as being asked to deliver gas to data-center power plants. Same thesis: a steady, dividend-paying toll-collector positioned to benefit from the energy that AI requires, without the bubble risk of the tech names themselves.
30:09bridge fuel. We've talked about that before. We've talked about Energy Transfer Partners, ONEOK and Enbridge all being approached by people saying, hey, run a pipe to our power plant for our data center. We've shown the chart that shows, I think it's by 2030, doubling the amount of LNG exports from the US.
Nothing matches this filter.
Verbatim excerpts from the public transcripts (auto-pulled at each mention's timestamp, lightly cleaned). Timestamps link into the video; "source page" opens that commentator's full analysis at this row. Click a mention's header line to expand it (one open at a time). For personal study — not investment advice.