Oil Firms Queried on Reserves
SEC Is Pressing Companies for More Disclosure - wsj.com
The Securities and Exchange Commission is pressing energy companies in the U.S. to disclose how much of their reserves—a key gauge of future profit—consists of oil rather than less valuable liquids like propane.
After prodding from regulators, companies including BHP Billiton Ltd. BHP.AU -1.04% and ConocoPhillips COP +0.60% have recently joined Exxon Mobil Corp. XOM +0.48% and Anadarko Petroleum Corp. APC -0.87% in agreeing to break out how much of the fuel they can pump at a profit is crude rather than liquids derived from natural gas.
The question is becoming more critical as crude prices hover over $100 a barrel while prices of other liquid fuels have tumbled in the face of surging supply. But some companies continue to lump the two together, and SEC officials are pushing them to change that when the noncrude liquids are significant.
"One of the things we often are not seeing is separate disclosure of natural-gas liquids," John Hodgin, a petroleum engineer with the commission, told a small industry gathering at the Hanson Wade Reserve Estimation conference in Houston, last month.
Anadarko disclosed that liquid gases made up a quarter of its reserves.
A Wall Street Journal review of regulatory findings found that the SEC has queried at least 14 companies about how much of their reserves are liquids versus oil since 2010, including seven in the last 12 months; eight ultimately agreed to provide more disclosure, including the country's biggest oil and gas producer, Exxon, in 2012.
The others said none was required and the SEC hasn't insisted.
Analysts say that combining reserves of oil with liquid gases can make it harder for investors to gauge how much money a company is likely to make by producing those fuels. U.S. crude, for instance, fetched $95.75 a barrel last year, according to Wells Fargo; a barrel of the fuels known as natural-gas liquids—propane, ethane and butane—sold for about $44.52 based on the bank's calculations, down 25% from the previous year.
"Breaking out NGLs from crude oil will become of more interest to investors," said Pavel Molchanov, an energy analyst at Raymond James, noting that they are becoming a bigger part of companies' reserves.
In 2010, Houston-based Anadarko reported roughly a billion barrels of oil and liquid gases as proved reserves—fuels it estimated it could produce at an acceptable profit. But after months of back-and-forth with regulators, the company disclosed that liquid gases made up more than a quarter of those barrels.
Still, the added disclosure didn't change Anadarko's estimates of the value and costs of producing its reserves.
The SEC's push draws on a 2008 rule that requires energy companies to report the different fuels they produce in material amounts. Separately, the Financial Accounting Standards Board calls on energy companies to report reserves of liquid gases separately when the amount is "significant."
It isn't clear where the SEC draws the line on when companies must report reserves of liquid gases separately.
But a review of the commission's correspondence with energy companies suggests that officials insist on more disclosure when liquid gases make up about 6% of a company's production or reserves.
Exxon in 2011 said that liquid gases made up 5.8% of its global reserves in response to SEC inquiries, an amount the commission considered significant. BHP Billiton, BLT.LN -1.98% an Australian mining conglomerate that produces oil and gas in the U.S., had reported that liquid gases were 6% of 2012 production when the SEC requested more disclosure in April of this year.
The commission in 2012 asked Chevron Corp. for more detail on its reserves of liquid gases but didn't press the issue when the company responded that they made up 3.6% of reserves in 2011.
Marathon Oil Corp. combines crude and liquid gases into reserves of "liquid hydrocarbons," even though its barrels of crude sold for more than twice as much as the same amount of NGLs in the U.S. last year, according to its financial statements. Of the company's global production in 2012, 5.3% came from liquid gases. In the first half of 2013, the company nearly tripled its liquid-gas output from a year earlier.
Lee Warren, a Marathon spokeswoman, said the company doesn't have a "material" amount of liquid-gas reserves and hasn't received instructions by the SEC to change its reporting.
"We're monitoring it closely with an eye toward following best practice as well as any specific actions the SEC may require in the future," she said.
Write to Daniel Gilbert at daniel.gilbert@wsj.com
Tags:
Thanks for posting this Skip. These changes could mean big fluctuations in asset values for some companies. Investors are owners and should have a right to know what assets a company really owns. These changes in accounting could have huge changes in value for some companies.
HANG, IMO companies have been purposely reporting liquids without specifics as E&P focus shifts away from natural gas because it looks better for several reasons. Natural gas production is discounted in the eyes of the media, The Street and anyone paying attention. Characterizing wet gas production as liquids is one way to state things in a more positive manner. Stating production in Barrels Of Oil Equivalent (BOE) makes a well appear much more impressive than stating that same production in mcf and barrels of condensate. The important information for everyone with a stake in that production is the actual percentages of NGLs and oil in the gas stream. As stated in the article Anadarko has begun to report production by breaking down the stream into oil, natural gas liquids (NGLs) and gas. An example would be their E TX Haynesville liquid wells. In their corporate presentations, which anyone can access on their website, they state that these wells on average make 7% oil, 29% NGLs and 64% gas. It is easy for many to mistake these wet gas wells for oil wells. They are gas wells which are economic to drill because of the their liquid components which are part oil and part NGLs.
As an investor I wish the SEC would ban MCFE and especially BOE. The SEC went in the right direction when they used a 12 month price average to calculate the price for reserves, now I would like the SEC to use a price content instead of energy content when calculating the "e" in reserves. Think how much more useful an IRP "initial revenue production" would be over a traditional IP. These issues aren't as big in the Haynesville, with close to 100% dry gas, but in the Cotton Valley, Eagle Ford and Marcellus they would be very useful.
tc, the liquids in the Haynesville Shale are surprising however they appear sufficient for APCs purposes. The break down for their E TX CV wells is 5% oil, 30% NGLs and 65% gas.
I guess my point is that I have seen different operators use MCFE & BOE when releasing info on CV wells and without a product breakdown it is hard to figure out the revenue stream on a well. In the Eagle Ford the NG/oil ratio can go from almost 95/5 in the south to 10/90 in the north and not all operators are forthcoming on the product breakdown.
Thanks, tc. I knew there were variances in the production mix in the EF but did not know the range was that great. I'm still getting used to the existence of commercial liquid quantities in some limited areas of the Haynesville Shale. The CV was beginning to be a horizontal target prior to the Haynesville Shale sucking all the air out of the room however as far as I know those CV horizontals were targeting dry natural gas instead of liquids. I agree that reporting requirements/standards make it difficult to determine the actual mix.
Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…
ContinuePosted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40
386 members
27 members
455 members
440 members
400 members
244 members
149 members
358 members
63 members
119 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher). Powered by
h2 | h2 | h2 |
---|---|---|
AboutAs exciting as this is, we know that we have a responsibility to do this thing correctly. After all, we want the farm to remain a place where the family can gather for another 80 years and beyond. This site was born out of these desires. Before we started this site, googling "shale' brought up little information. Certainly nothing that was useful as we negotiated a lease. Read More |
Links |
Copyright © 2017 GoHaynesvilleShale.com