filings.toolsItem 1. BUSINESS AND PROPERTIES
101K characters. Original on sec.gov · Markdown
Item 1. BUSINESS AND PROPERTIES
Overview
We are an independent oil and natural gas company focused on the acquisition, development, exploration and exploitation of unconventional, onshore oil and natural gas reserves in the Permian Basin in West Texas. This basin, which is one of the major producing basins in the United States, is characterized by an extensive production history, a favorable operating environment, mature infrastructure, long reserve life, multiple producing horizons, enhanced recovery potential and a large number of operators.
We began operations in December 2007 with our acquisition of 4,174 net acres in the Permian Basin. At December 31, 2017, our total acreage position in the Permian Basin was approximately 246,012 gross (206,660 net) acres. In addition, we, through our subsidiary Viper Energy Partners LP, or Viper, own mineral interests underlying approximately 247,602 gross acres, 43,843 net acres and 9,570 net royalty acres primarily in Midland County, Texas in the Permian Basin. Approximately 36% of these net royalty acres are operated by us. We own Viper Energy Partners GP LLC, the general partner of Viper, which we refer to as the general partner, and we own approximately 64% of the limited partner interest in Viper.
Our activities are primarily focused on horizontal development of the Spraberry and Wolfcamp formations of the Midland Basin and the Wolfcamp and Bone Spring formations of the Delaware Basin, both of which are part of the larger Permian Basin in West Texas and New Mexico. The Permian Basin is characterized by high oil and liquids rich natural gas, multiple vertical and horizontal target horizons, extensive production history, long-lived reserves and high drilling success rates.
As of December 31, 2017, our estimated proved oil and natural gas reserves were 335,352 MBOE (which includes estimated reserves of 38,246 MBOE attributable to the mineral interests owned by Viper), based on reserve reports prepared by Ryder Scott Company, L.P., or Ryder Scott, our independent reserve engineers. Of these reserves, approximately 62.2% are classified as proved developed producing. Proved undeveloped, or PUD, reserves included in this estimate are from 168 gross (142 net) horizontal well locations in which we have a working interest, and nine horizontal wells in which we own only a mineral interest through our subsidiary, Viper. As of December 31, 2017, our estimated proved reserves were approximately 70% oil, 14% natural gas liquids and 16% natural gas.
Based on our evaluation of applicable geologic and engineering data, we currently have approximately 3,800 gross (2,750 net) identified economic potential horizontal drilling locations in multiple horizons on our acreage at an assumed price of approximately $60.00 per Bbl WTI. We intend to continue to develop our reserves and increase production through development drilling and exploitation and exploration activities on this multi-year project inventory of identified potential drilling locations and through additional acquisitions that meet our strategic and financial objectives, targeting oil-weighted reserves.
The challenging commodity price environment that we experienced in 2016 continued in 2017. Commodity prices improved during 2017, but continued to be volatile. Nevertheless, we believe we remain well-positioned in this environment. During 2017, we again demonstrated our operational focus on achieving best-in-class execution, low-cost operations and a conservative balance sheet as we continued to reduce drilling days, well costs and operating expenses while maintaining what we believe to be a peer leading leverage ratio. We intend to continue our operational focus in 2018, emphasizing full cycle economics and financial discipline. We are operating ten rigs now and currently intend to operate between ten and twelve rigs in 2018, depending on market conditions. We will continue monitoring the ongoing commodity price environment and expect to retain the financial flexibility to adjust our drilling and completion plans in response to market conditions. We are prepared to decelerate our drilling program if commodity prices deteriorate and continue to accelerate our drilling program should commodity prices remain constant or further improve. We have the option to release up to eight of our current ten rigs in 2018 should commodity prices deteriorate. See Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Liquidity and Capital Resources.”
Our Business Strategy
Our business strategy is to continue to profitably grow our business through the following:
| • | Grow production and reserves by developing our oil-rich resource base. We intend to drill and develop our acreage base in an effort to maximize its value and resource potential. Through the conversion of our undeveloped reserves to developed reserves, we will seek to increase our production, reserves and cash flow while generating favorable returns on invested capital. |
| • | Focus on increasing hydrocarbon recovery through horizontal drilling and increased well density. We have targeted various intervals in the Midland Basin through horizontal drilling and believe that there are opportunities to target additional intervals throughout the stratigraphic column. Our initial horizontal focus had been on the Wolfcamp B interval, but our recent focus has included the Lower Spraberry, Middle Spraberry and Wolfcamp A intervals. Our first two horizontal wells were completed in 2012 and had lateral lengths of less than 4,000 feet. As of December 31, 2017, we had drilled 412 horizontal wells as operator and had participated in 61 additional horizontal wells as a non-operator, including two in which we own only a minor wellbore interest. We also acquired interest in 76 horizontal wells on properties we purchased. Of these 549 total horizontal wells, 466 had been completed and were on production. Of the 466 horizontal wells on production, 152 are in the Wolfcamp B interval, 122 are in the Wolfcamp A interval, 163 are in the Lower Spraberry interval, nine are in the Middle Spraberry interval, three are in the Cline interval, three are in the Clearfork interval, seven are in the Bone Spring interval and seven are in various other intervals. These wells have lateral lengths ranging from approximately 2,100 feet to 13,000 feet. In 2018, we expect that our average lateral length will be about 9,300 feet, although the actual length will vary depending on the layout of our acreage and other factors. As technology continues to improve, we expect that our average lateral length will increase, resulting in higher per well recoveries and lower development costs per BOE. During the year ended December 31, 2017, we were able to drill our horizontal wells in the Midland Basin with approximately 7,500 foot lateral lengths to total depth, or TD, in an average of 12.2 days and we drilled approximately 10,000 foot lateral wells in 14.5 days. Further advances in drilling and completion technology may result in economic development of zones that are not currently viable. |
| • | Leverage our experience operating in the Permian Basin. Our executive team, which has an average of over 25 years of industry experience per person and significant experience in the Permian Basin, intends to continue to seek ways to maximize hydrocarbon recovery by refining and enhancing our drilling and completion techniques. Our focus on efficient drilling and completion techniques is an important part of the continuous drilling program we have planned for our significant inventory of identified potential drilling locations. We believe that the experience of our executive team in deviated and horizontal drilling and completions has helped reduce the execution risk normally associated with these complex well paths. In addition, our completion techniques are continually evolving as we evaluate and implement hydraulic fracturing practices that have and are expected to continue to increase recovery and reduce completion costs. Our executive team regularly evaluates our operating results against those of other operators in the area in an effort to benchmark our performance against the best performing operators and evaluate and adopt best practices. |
| • | Enhance returns through our low cost development strategy of resource conversion, capital allocation and continued improvements in operational and cost efficiencies. Our acreage position in the Wolfberry play is generally in contiguous blocks which allows us to develop this acreage efficiently with a “manufacturing” strategy that takes advantage of economies of scale and uses centralized production and fluid handling facilities. We are the operator of approximately 84% of our acreage. This operational control allows us to manage more efficiently the pace of development activities and the gathering and marketing of our production and control operating costs and technical applications, including horizontal development. Our average 84% working interest in our acreage allows us to realize the majority of the benefits of these activities and cost efficiencies. |
| • | Pursue strategic acquisitions with substantial resource potential. We have a proven history of acquiring leasehold positions in the Permian Basin that have substantial oil-weighted resource potential. Our executive team, with its extensive experience in the Permian Basin, has what we believe is a competitive advantage in identifying acquisition targets and a proven ability to evaluate resource potential. We regularly review acquisition opportunities and intend to pursue acquisitions that meet our strategic and financial targets. During the year ended December 31, 2017, we acquired approximately 99,830 gross (84,468 net) leasehold acres primarily in Pecos and Reeves counties in the Southern Delaware Basin. |
| • | Maintain financial flexibility. We seek to maintain a conservative financial position. In connection with our fall 2017 borrowing base redetermination, the agent lender under our revolving credit agreement recommended a borrowing base of $1.8 billion. We elected a commitment amount of $1.0 billion, of which $603.0 million was available for borrowing as of December 31, 2017. As of December 31, 2017, Viper had $93.5 million in outstanding borrowings, and $306.5 million available for borrowing, under its revolving credit facility. |
Our Strengths
We believe that the following strengths will help us achieve our business goals:
| • | Oil rich resource base in one of North America’s leading resource plays. All of our leasehold acreage is located in one of the most prolific oil plays in North America, the Permian Basin in West Texas. The majority of our current properties are well positioned in the core of the Permian Basin. Our production for the year ended December 31, 2017 was approximately 74% oil, 14% natural gas liquids and 12% natural gas. As of December 31, 2017, our estimated net proved reserves were comprised of approximately 70% oil, 14% natural gas liquids and 16% natural gas. |
| • | Multi-year drilling inventory in one of North America’s leading oil resource plays. We have identified a multi-year inventory of potential drilling locations for our oil-weighted reserves that we believe provides attractive growth and return opportunities. At an assumed price of approximately $60.00 per Bbl WTI, we currently have approximately 3,800 gross (2,750 net) identified economic potential horizontal drilling locations on our acreage based on our evaluation of applicable geologic and engineering data. These gross identified economic potential horizontal locations have an average lateral length of approximately 8,400 feet, with the actual length depending on lease geometry and other considerations. These locations exist across most of our acreage blocks and in multiple horizons. Of these 3,800 locations, 2,100 are in the Midland Basin and 1,700 are in the Delaware Basin. In the Midland Basin, 860 are in the Lower Spraberry or Wolfcamp B horizons where we have drilled a large number of wells, 825 are in the Wolfcamp A or Middle Spraberry horizons where we have drilled a limited number of wells and 415 are in the Clearfork or Cline horizons where we have drilled very few wells. Our current location count for the Lower Spraberry horizon is based on 660 foot spacing in f Midland, southwest Martin, northeast Andrews, Howard and Glasscock counties, and 880 foot spacing in all other counties. For the Wolfcamp B horizon, the horizontal location count is based on 660 foot spacing between wells in Midland, Martin, northeast Andrews, Howard, and Glasscock counties, and 880 foot spacing in all other counties. In the Wolfcamp A horizon, the horizontal location count in based on 660 foot spacing in Midland, Howard and Glasscock counties, 880 foot spacing in southwest Martin county and 1,320 foot spacing in other counties. The horizontal location count for the Middle Spraberry is based on 880 foot spacing in Midland, Martin and northeast Andrews counties and 1,320 foot spacing in other counties. In the Cline and Clearfork horizons, the horizontal location count is based on 1,320 foot spacing except for the Clearfork in central Andrews County which is based on 660 foot spacing. In the Delaware Basin, 1,240 locations are in the Wolfcamp A or Wolfcamp B horizons, and 460 locations are in the 2nd Bone Spring or 3rd Bone Spring horizon. The horizontal location counts are based on 880 foot spacing in the Wolfcamp A and Wolfcamp B horizons, and 1,320 foot spacing in the Bone Spring horizons. The ultimate inter-well spacing may vary from these distances due to different factors, which would result in a higher or lower location count. The two-stream gross estimated ultimate recoveries, or EURs, from our future PUD horizontal wells, as estimated by Ryder Scott as of December 31, 2017, range from 528 MBOE per well, consisting of 413 MBbls of oil and 687 MMcf of natural gas, to 1,665 MBOE per well, consisting of 1,307 MBbls of oil and 2,150 MMcf of natural gas, for wells ranging in lateral length from approximately 5,000 feet to approximately 12,500 feet, in intervals including the Middle Spraberry, Lower Spraberry, Wolfcamp A, and Wolfcamp B. Ryder Scott has estimated gross EURs of 910 MBOE for our Lower Spraberry wells in Midland County and 1,071 MBOE for our Wolfcamp A wells in Pecos County, which constitute 36% of our remaining PUD horizontal wells, in each case based on 7,500 foot lateral lengths. In addition, we have approximately 1,837 square miles of proprietary 3-D seismic data covering our acreage. This data facilitates the evaluation of our existing drilling inventory and provides insight into future development activity, including additional horizontal drilling opportunities and strategic leasehold acquisitions. |
| • | Experienced, incentivized and proven management team. Our executive team has an average of over 25 years of industry experience per person, most of which is focused on resource play development. This team has a proven track record of executing on multi-rig development drilling programs and extensive experience in the Permian Basin. In addition, our executive team has significant experience with both drilling and completing horizontal wells in addition to horizontal well reservoir and geologic expertise, which is of strategic importance as we expand our horizontal drilling activity. Prior to joining us, our Chief Executive Officer held management positions at Apache Corporation, Laredo Petroleum Holdings, Inc. and Burlington Resources. |
| • | Favorable operating environment. We have focused our drilling and development operations in the Permian Basin, one of the longest operating hydrocarbon basins in the United States, with a long and well-established production history and developed infrastructure. We believe that the geological and regulatory environment of the Permian Basin is more stable and predictable, and that we are faced with less operational risks in the Permian Basin as compared to emerging hydrocarbon basins. |
| • | High degree of operational control. We are the operator of approximately 84% of our Permian Basin acreage. This operating control allows us to better execute on our strategies of enhancing returns through operational and cost efficiencies and increasing ultimate hydrocarbon recovery by seeking to continually improve our drilling techniques, completion methodologies and reservoir evaluation processes. Additionally, as the operator of substantially all of our acreage, we retain the ability to increase or decrease our capital expenditure program based on commodity price outlooks. This operating control also enables us to obtain data needed for efficient exploration of horizontal prospects. |
Our Properties
Location and Land
Our total acreage position in the Permian Basin was approximately 246,012 gross (206,660 net) acres at December 31, 2017. We are the operator of approximately 84% of this Permian Basin acreage. In addition, we, through our subsidiary Viper, own mineral interests underlying approximately 247,602 gross acres, 43,843 net acres and 9,570 net royalty acres primarily in the Permian Basin. Approximately 36% of these net royalty acres are operated by us. Since our initial acquisition in the Permian Basin through December 31, 2017, we drilled or participated in the drilling of 753 gross (608 net) wells on our leasehold acreage in this area, primarily targeting the Wolfberry play. The Permian Basin area covers a significant portion of western Texas and eastern New Mexico and is considered one of the major producing basins in the United States.
Area History
Our proved reserves are located in the Permian Basin of West Texas, in particular in the Clearfork, Spraberry, Bone Spring, Wolfcamp, Cline, Strawn and Atoka formations. The Spraberry play was initiated with production from several new field discoveries in the late 1940s and early 1950s. It was eventually recognized that a regional productive trend was present, as fields were extended and coalesced over a broad area in the central Midland Basin. Development in the Spraberry play was sporadic over the next several decades due to typically low productive rate wells, with economics being dependent on oil prices and drilling costs.
The Wolfcamp formation is a long-established reservoir in West Texas, first found in the 1950s as wells aiming for deeper targets occasionally intersected slump blocks or debris flows with good reservoir properties. Exploration using 2-D seismic data located additional fields, but it was not until the use of 3-D seismic data in the 1990s that the greater extent of the Wolfcamp formation was revealed. The additional potential of the shales within this formation as reservoir rather than just source rocks was not recognized until very recently.
During the late 1990s, Atlantic Richfield Company, or Arco, began a drilling program targeting the base of the Spraberry formation at 10,000 feet, with an additional 200 to 300 feet drilled to produce from the upper portion of the Wolfcamp formation. Henry Petroleum, a private firm, owned interests in the Pegasus field in Midland and Upton counties. While drilling in the same area as the Arco project, Henry Petroleum decided to drill completely through the Wolfcamp section. Henry Petroleum mapped the trend and began acquiring acreage and drilling wells using multiple slick-water fracturing treatments across the entire Wolfcamp interval. In 2005, former members of Henry Petroleum’s Wolfcamp team formed their own private company, ExL Petroleum, and began replicating Henry Petroleum’s program. After ExL had drilled 32 productive Wolfcamp/Spraberry wells through late 2007, they monetized a portion of their acreage position, which led to the acquisition that enabled us to begin our participation in this play. Recent advancements in enhanced recovery techniques and horizontal drilling continue to make this play attractive to the oil and gas industry. By mid-2010, approximately half of the rigs active in the Permian Basin were drilling wells in the Wolfberry play. As of December 31, 2017, we held working interests in 1,166 gross (937 net) producing wells and royalty interests in 64 additional wells.
Geology
The Permian Basin formed as an area of rapid Pennsylvanian-Permian subsidence in response to dynamic structural influence. It is one of the largest sedimentary basins in the U.S., with established oil and gas production from several reservoirs from Permian through Ordovician in age. The term “Wolfberry” was coined initially to indicate commingled production from
the Permian Spraberry, Dean and Wolfcamp formations. Time equivalent in the Delaware Basin, the “Wolfbone” play describes vertically commingled production from the Permian Bone Spring and Wolfcamp formations.
The Spraberry/Bone Spring was deposited as siliciclastic turbidites in a deep water submarine fan environment, while the Wolfcamp reservoirs consist of debris-flow and grain-flow sediments, which were also deposited in a submarine fan setting. The best carbonate reservoirs within the Wolfcamp are generally found in proximity to the Central Basin Platform, while the shale reservoirs within the Wolfcamp thicken basinward away from the Central Basin Platform. Both the Spraberry/Bone Spring and Wolfcamp contain organic-rich mudstones and shales which, when buried to sufficient depth for maturation, became the source of the hydrocarbons found both within the shales themselves and in the more conventional clastic and carbonate reservoirs between the shales. The Wolfberry and Wolfbone are unconventional “basin-centered oil” resource plays, in the sense that there is no regional downdip oil/water contact.
We have successfully developed several shale intervals within the Clearfork, Spraberry/Bone Spring and Wolfcamp formations since we began horizontal drilling in 2012. The shales exhibit low permeabilities which necessitate the need for hydraulic fracture stimulation to unlock the vast storage of hydrocarbons in these targets.
We possess, or are in the process of acquiring, 3-D seismic data over substantially all of our major asset areas. Our extensive geophysical database currently includes approximately 1,837 square miles of 3-D data. This data will continue to be utilized in the development of our horizontal drilling program and identification of additional resource to be exploited.
Production Status
During the year ended December 31, 2017, net production from our Permian Basin acreage was 28,917 MBOE, or an average of 79,224 BOE/d, of which approximately 74% was oil, 14% was natural gas liquids and 12% was natural gas.
Facilities
Our oil and natural gas processing facilities are typical of those found in the Permian Basin. Our facilities located at well locations include storage tank batteries, oil/natural gas/water separation equipment and pumping units.
Recent and Future Activity
During 2018, we expect to complete an estimated 170 to 190 gross (146 to 163 net) horizontal wells on our acreage. We currently estimate that our capital expenditures in 2018 for drilling and infrastructure will be between $1.3 billion and $1.5 billion, consisting of $1.175 billion to $1.325 billion for horizontal drilling and completions including non-operated activity and $125.0 million to $175.0 million for infrastructure and other expenditures, but excluding the cost of any leasehold and mineral rights acquisitions. During the year ended December 31, 2017, we drilled 150 gross (130 net) and completed 123 gross (105 net) horizontal wells, including five drilled but uncompleted wells we acquired. We participated in the drilling of 16 gross (two net) non-operated horizontal wells in the Permian Basin. During the year ended December 31, 2017, our capital expenditures for drilling, completing and equipping wells were $719.3 million. In addition, we spent $124.0 million for oil and gas infrastructure, $17.4 million for non-operated properties and $2.4 billion for leasehold and mineral rights acquisitions.
We are operating ten rigs now and currently intend to operate between ten and twelve rigs in 2018, depending on market conditions. We will continue monitoring the ongoing commodity price environment and expect to retain the financial flexibility to adjust our drilling and completion plans in response to market conditions. We are prepared to decelerate our drilling program if commodity prices deteriorate and continue to accelerate our drilling program should commodity prices remain constant or further improve. We have the option to release up to eight of our current ten rigs in 2018 should commodity prices deteriorate.
Oil and Natural Gas Data
Proved Reserves
Evaluation and Review of Reserves
Our historical reserve estimates as of December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 were prepared by Ryder Scott with respect to our assets and those of Viper. Ryder Scott is an independent petroleum engineering firm. The technical persons responsible for preparing our proved reserve estimates meet the requirements with regards to qualifications, independence, objectivity and confidentiality set forth in the Standards Pertaining to the Estimating and Auditing of Oil and Gas Reserves Information promulgated by the Society of Petroleum Engineers. Ryder Scott is a third-party engineering firm and does not own an interest in any of our properties and is not employed by us on a contingent basis.
Under SEC rules, proved reserves are those quantities of oil and natural gas that, by analysis of geoscience and engineering data, can be estimated with reasonable certainty to be economically producible from a given date forward, from known reservoirs and under existing economic conditions, operating methods and government regulations prior to the time at which contracts providing the right to operate expire, unless evidence indicates that renewal is reasonably certain, regardless of whether deterministic or probabilistic methods are used for the estimation. If deterministic methods are used, the SEC has defined reasonable certainty for proved reserves as a “high degree of confidence that the quantities will be recovered.” All of our proved reserves as of December 31, 2017 were estimated using a deterministic method. The estimation of reserves involves two distinct determinations. The first determination results in the estimation of the quantities of recoverable oil and gas and the second determination results in the estimation of the uncertainty associated with those estimated quantities in accordance with the definitions established under SEC rules. The process of estimating the quantities of recoverable oil and gas reserves relies on the use of certain generally accepted analytical procedures. These analytical procedures fall into three broad categories or methods: (1) performance-based methods, (2) volumetric-based methods and (3) analogy. These methods may be used singularly or in combination by the reserve evaluator in the process of estimating the quantities of reserves. The proved reserves for our properties were estimated by performance methods, analogy or a combination of both methods. Approximately 83% of the proved producing reserves attributable to producing wells were estimated by performance methods. These performance methods include, but may not be limited to, decline curve analysis, which utilized extrapolations of available historical production and pressure data. The remaining 17% of the proved producing reserves were estimated by analogy, or a combination of performance and analogy methods. The analogy method was used where there were inadequate historical performance data to establish a definitive trend and where the use of production performance data as a basis for the reserve estimates was considered to be inappropriate. All proved developed non-producing and undeveloped reserves were estimated by the analogy method.
To estimate economically recoverable proved reserves and related future net cash flows, Ryder Scott considered many factors and assumptions, including the use of reservoir parameters derived from geological, geophysical and engineering data which cannot be measured directly, economic criteria based on current costs and the SEC pricing requirements and forecasts of future production rates. To establish reasonable certainty with respect to our estimated proved reserves, the technologies and economic data used in the estimation of our proved reserves included production and well test data, downhole completion information, geologic data, electrical logs, radioactivity logs, core analyses, available seismic data and historical well cost and operating expense data.
We maintain an internal staff of petroleum engineers and geoscience professionals who worked closely with our independent reserve engineers to ensure the integrity, accuracy and timeliness of the data used to calculate our proved reserves relating to our assets in the Permian Basin. Our internal technical team members met with our independent reserve engineers periodically during the period covered by the reserve reports to discuss the assumptions and methods used in the proved reserve estimation process. We provide historical information to the independent reserve engineers for our properties such as ownership interest, oil and gas production, well test data, commodity prices and operating and development costs. Our Executive Vice President–Reservoir Engineering is primarily responsible for overseeing the preparation of all of our reserve estimates. Our Executive Vice President–Reservoir Engineering is a petroleum engineer with over 30 years of reservoir and operations experience and our geoscience staff has an average of approximately 24 years of industry experience per person. Our technical staff uses historical information for our properties such as ownership interest, oil and gas production, well test data, commodity prices and operating and development costs.
The preparation of our proved reserve estimates are completed in accordance with our internal control procedures. These procedures, which are intended to ensure reliability of reserve estimations, include the following:
| • | review and verification of historical production data, which data is based on actual production as reported by us; |
| • | preparation of reserve estimates by our Executive Vice President–Reservoir Engineering or under his direct supervision; |
| • | review by our Executive Vice President–Reservoir Engineering of all of our reported proved reserves at the close of each quarter, including the review of all significant reserve changes and all new proved undeveloped reserves additions; |
| • | direct reporting responsibilities by our Executive Vice President–Reservoir Engineering to our Chief Executive Officer; |
| • | verification of property ownership by our land department; and |
| • | no employee’s compensation is tied to the amount of reserves booked. |
The following table presents our estimated net proved oil and natural gas reserves as of December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 (including those attributable to Viper), based on the reserve reports prepared by Ryder Scott. Each reserve report has been prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations of the SEC. All of our proved reserves included in the reserve reports are located in the continental United States.
| December 31, | ||||||||
| 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | ||||||
| Estimated proved developed reserves: | ||||||||
| Oil (MBbls) | 141,246 | 79,457 | 60,569 | |||||
| Natural gas (MMcf) | 190,740 | 105,399 | 96,871 | |||||
| Natural gas liquids (MBbls) | 35,412 | 22,080 | 15,418 | |||||
| Total (MBOE) | 208,447 | 119,104 | 92,132 | |||||
| Estimated proved undeveloped reserves: | ||||||||
| Oil (MBbls) | 91,935 | 59,717 | 45,409 | |||||
| Natural gas (MMcf) | 94,629 | 69,497 | 52,632 | |||||
| Natural gas liquids (MBbls) | 19,198 | 15,054 | 10,586 | |||||
| Total (MBOE) | 126,905 | 86,354 | 64,767 | |||||
| Estimated Net Proved Reserves: | ||||||||
| Oil (MBbls) | 233,181 | 139,174 | 105,979 | |||||
| Natural gas (MMcf) | 285,369 | 174,896 | 149,503 | |||||
| Natural gas liquids (MBbls) | 54,610 | 37,134 | 26,004 | |||||
| Total (MBOE)(1) | 335,352 | 205,458 | 156,899 | |||||
| Percent proved developed | 62.2 | % | 58.0 | % | 58.7 | % |
| (1) | Estimates of reserves as of December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015 were prepared using an average price equal to the unweighted arithmetic average of hydrocarbon prices received on a field-by-field basis on the first day of each month within the 12-month periods ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively, in accordance with SEC guidelines applicable to reserves estimates as of the end of such periods. Reserve estimates do not include any value for probable or possible reserves that may exist, nor do they include any value for undeveloped acreage. The reserve estimates represent our net revenue interest in our properties. Although we believe these estimates are reasonable, actual future production, cash flows, taxes, development expenditures, operating expenses and quantities of recoverable oil and natural gas reserves may vary substantially from these estimates. |
The foregoing reserves are all located within the continental United States. Reserve engineering is a subjective process of estimating volumes of economically recoverable oil and natural gas that cannot be measured in an exact manner. The accuracy of any reserve estimate is a function of the quality of available data and of engineering and geological interpretation. As a result, the estimates of different engineers often vary. In addition, the results of drilling, testing and production may justify revisions of such estimates. Accordingly, reserve estimates often differ from the quantities of oil and natural gas that are ultimately recovered. Estimates of economically recoverable oil and natural gas and of future net revenues are based on a number of variables and assumptions, all of which may vary from actual results, including geologic interpretation, prices and future production rates and costs. See Item 1A.“Risk Factors.” We have not filed any estimates of total, proved net oil or natural gas reserves with any federal authority or agency other than the SEC.
Proved Undeveloped Reserves (PUDs)
As of December 31, 2017, our proved undeveloped reserves totaled 91,935 MBbls of oil, 94,629 MMcf of natural gas and 19,198 MBbls of natural gas liquids, for a total of 126,905 MBOE. PUDs will be converted from undeveloped to developed as the applicable wells begin production.
The following table includes the changes in PUD reserves for 2017:
| (MBOE) | ||
| Beginning proved undeveloped reserves at December 31, 2016 | 86,354 | |
| Undeveloped reserves transferred to developed | (31,666 | ) |
| Revisions | (4,710 | ) |
| Net purchases | 6,246 | |
| Extensions and discoveries | 70,680 | |
| Ending proved undeveloped reserves at December 31, 2017 | 126,904 |
The increase in proved undeveloped reserves was primarily attributable to extensions of 67,676 MBOE from 87 gross (75 net) wells in which we have a working interest and 3,004 MBOE from 40 gross wells in which Viper owns royalty interests. Of the 87 gross wells, 26 were in the Delaware Basin. Transfers of 31,666 MBOE were the result of drilling or participating in 44 gross (37 net) horizontal wells in which we have a working interest and 27 gross wells in which we have a royalty interest or mineral interest through Viper. We own a working interest in 23 of the 27 gross Viper wells. Net purchases of 6,246 MBOE were primarily from our purchase in Pecos and Reeves counties. Downward revisions of 4,710 MBOE resulted from reclassification of seven locations and technical revisions.
Costs incurred relating to the development of PUDs were approximately $145.4 million during 2017. Estimated future development costs relating to the development of PUDs are projected to be approximately $595.4 million in 2018, $205.6 million in 2019, $171.2 million in 2020 and $58.3 million in 2021. Since our current executive team assumed management control in 2011, our average drilling costs and drilling times have been reduced. As we continue to develop our properties and have more well production and completion data, we believe we will continue to realize cost savings and experience lower relative drilling and completion costs as we convert PUDs into proved developed reserves in upcoming years.
As of December 31, 2017, all of our proved undeveloped reserves are scheduled to be developed within five years from the date they were initially recorded.
As of December 31, 2017, none of our total proved reserves were classified as proved developed non-producing.
Oil and Natural Gas Production Prices and Production Costs
Production and Price History
The following table sets forth information regarding our net production of oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids, all of which is from the Permian Basin in West Texas, and certain price and cost information for each of the periods indicated:
| Year Ended December 31, | |||||||||||
| 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |||||||||
| Production Data: | |||||||||||
| Oil (MBbls) | 21,418 | 11,562 | 9,081 | ||||||||
| Natural gas (MMcf) | 20,660 | 10,728 | 7,931 | ||||||||
| Natural gas liquids (MBbls) | 4,056 | 2,399 | 1,678 | ||||||||
| Combined volumes (MBOE) | 28,917 | 15,749 | 12,081 | ||||||||
| Daily combined volumes (BOE/d) | 79,224 | 43,031 | 33,098 | ||||||||
| Average Prices: | |||||||||||
| Oil (per Bbl) | $ | 48.75 | $ | 40.70 | $ | 44.68 | |||||
| Natural gas (per Mcf) | 2.53 | 2.10 | 2.47 | ||||||||
| Natural gas liquids (per Bbl) | 22.20 | 14.20 | 12.77 | ||||||||
| Combined (per BOE) | 41.02 | 33.47 | 36.98 | ||||||||
| Oil, hedged ($ per Bbl)(1) | 48.94 | 40.80 | 60.63 | ||||||||
| Natural gas, hedged ($ per MMbtu)(1) | 2.65 | 2.06 | 2.47 | ||||||||
| Average price, hedged ($ per BOE)(1) | 41.26 | 33.54 | 48.97 | ||||||||
| Average Costs per BOE: | |||||||||||
| Lease operating expense | $ | 4.38 | $ | 5.23 | $ | 6.84 | |||||
| Production and ad valorem taxes | 2.54 | 2.19 | 2.73 | ||||||||
| Gathering and transportation expense | 0.44 | 0.74 | 0.50 | ||||||||
| General and administrative - cash component | 0.80 | 1.03 | 1.11 | ||||||||
| Total operating expense - cash | 8.16 | 9.19 | 11.18 | ||||||||
| General and administrative - non-cash component | 0.88 | 1.68 | 1.54 | ||||||||
| Depreciation, depletion and amortization | 11.30 | 11.30 | 18.02 | ||||||||
| Interest expense | 1.40 | 2.58 | 3.44 | ||||||||
| Total expenses | $ | 13.58 | $ | 15.56 | $ | 23.00 |
| (1) | Hedged prices reflect the effect of our commodity derivative transactions on our average sales prices. Our calculation of such effects include realized gains and losses on cash settlements for commodity derivatives, which we do not designate for hedge accounting. |
Productive Wells
As of December 31, 2017, we owned an average unweighted 80% working interest in 1,166 gross (937 net) productive wells and an average 2.7% royalty interest in 64 additional wells. Through our subsidiary Viper, we own an average unweighted 9.2% royalty or mineral interest in 1,287 productive wells. Productive wells consist of producing wells and wells capable of production, including natural gas wells awaiting pipeline connections to commence deliveries and oil wells awaiting connection to production facilities. Gross wells are the total number of producing wells in which we have an interest, and net wells are the sum of our fractional working interests owned in gross wells.
Acreage
The following table sets forth information as of December 31, 2017 relating to our leasehold acreage:
| Developed Acreage(1) | Undeveloped Acreage(2) | Total Acreage(3) | |||||||||||||||
| Basin | Gross(4) | Net(5) | Gross(4) | Net(5) | Gross(4) | Net(5) | |||||||||||
| Delaware | 58,444 | 49,919 | 69,982 | 54,800 | 128,426 | 104,719 | |||||||||||
| Midland | 84,325 | 69,641 | 33,261 | 32,300 | 117,586 | 101,941 | |||||||||||
| Total | 142,769 | 119,560 | 103,243 | 87,100 | 246,012 | 206,660 |
| (1) | Developed acres are acres spaced or assigned to productive wells and do not include undrilled acreage held by production under the terms of the lease. Large portions of the acreage that are considered developed under SEC guidelines are developed with vertical wells or horizontal wells that are in a single horizon. We believe much of this acreage has significant remaining development potential in one or more intervals with horizontal wells. |
| (2) | Undeveloped acres are acres on which wells have not been drilled or completed to a point that would permit the production of commercial quantities of oil or natural gas, regardless of whether such acreage contains proved reserves. |
| (3) | Does not include Viper’s mineral interests but does include leasehold acres that we own underlying our mineral interests. |
| (4) | A gross acre is an acre in which a working interest is owned. The number of gross acres is the total number of acres in which a working interest is owned. |
| (5) | A net acre is deemed to exist when the sum of the fractional ownership working interests in gross acres equals one. The number of net acres is the sum of the fractional working interests owned in gross acres expressed as whole numbers and fractions thereof. |
Undeveloped acreage expirations
Many of the leases comprising the undeveloped acreage set forth in the table above will expire at the end of their respective primary terms unless production from the leasehold acreage has been established prior to such date, in which event the lease will remain in effect until the cessation of production. The following table sets forth the gross and net undeveloped acreage, as of December 31, 2017, that will expire over the next five years unless production is established within the spacing units covering the acreage or the lease is renewed or extended under continuous drilling provisions prior to the primary term expiration dates.
| 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Basin | Gross | Net | Gross | Net | Gross | Net | Gross | Net | Gross | Net | |||||||||||||||||||
| Delaware | 28,572 | 22,198 | 31,091 | 19,415 | 13,097 | 1,286 | 3,639 | 719 | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||
| Midland | 897 | 715 | 908 | 255 | 19,678 | 18,933 | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||||||
| Total | 29,469 | 22,913 | 31,999 | 19,670 | 32,775 | 20,219 | 3,639 | 719 | — | — |
Drilling Results
The following table sets forth information with respect to the number of wells completed during the periods indicated. Each of these wells was drilled in the Permian Basin of West Texas. The information should not be considered indicative of future performance, nor should it be assumed that there is necessarily any correlation between the number of productive wells drilled, quantities of reserves found or economic value. Productive wells are those that produce commercial quantities of hydrocarbons, whether or not they produce a reasonable rate of return.
| Year Ended December 31, | |||||||||||||||||
| 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |||||||||||||||
| Gross | Net | Gross | Net | Gross | Net | ||||||||||||
| Development: | |||||||||||||||||
| Productive | 27 | 23 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 6 | |||||||||||
| Dry | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||
| Exploratory: | |||||||||||||||||
| Productive | 112 | 84 | 82 | 62 | 71 | 57 | |||||||||||
| Dry | — | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||
| Total: | |||||||||||||||||
| Productive | 139 | 107 | 88 | 65 | 79 | 63 | |||||||||||
| Dry | — | — | — | — | — | — |
As of December 31, 2017, we had 83 gross (66 net) wells in the process of drilling, completing or dewatering or shut in awaiting infrastructure that are not reflected in the above table.
Title to Properties
As is customary in the oil and natural gas industry, we initially conduct only a cursory review of the title to our properties. At such time as we determine to conduct drilling operations on those properties, we conduct a thorough title examination and perform curative work with respect to significant defects prior to commencement of drilling operations. To the extent title opinions or other investigations reflect title defects on those properties, we are typically responsible for curing any title defects at our expense. We generally will not commence drilling operations on a property until we have cured any material title defects on such property. We have obtained title opinions on substantially all of our producing properties and believe that we have satisfactory title to our producing properties in accordance with standards generally accepted in the oil and natural gas industry. Prior to completing an acquisition of producing oil and natural gas leases, we perform title reviews on the most significant leases and, depending on the materiality of properties, we may obtain a title opinion, obtain an updated title review or opinion or review previously obtained title opinions. Our oil and natural gas properties are subject to customary royalty and other interests, liens for current taxes and other burdens which we believe do not materially interfere with the use of or affect our carrying value of the properties.
Marketing and Customers
We typically sell production to a relatively small number of customers, as is customary in the exploration, development and production business. For the year ended December 31, 2017, three purchasers each accounted for more than 10% of our revenue: Shell Trading (US) Company (31%); Koch Supply & Trading LP (19%); and Enterprise Crude Oil LLC (11%). For the year ended December 31, 2016, three purchasers each accounted for more than 10% of our revenue: Shell Trading (US) Company (45%); Koch Supply & Trading LP (15%); and Enterprise Crude Oil LLC (13%). For the year ended December 31, 2015, two purchasers each accounted for more than 10% of our revenue: Shell Trading (US) Company (59%); and Enterprise Crude Oil LLC (15%). No other customer accounted for more than 10% of our revenue during these periods. If a major customer decided to stop purchasing oil and natural gas from us, revenue could decline and our operating results and financial condition could be harmed.
We have entered into an oil purchase agreement with Shell Trading (US) Company in which we agreed to sell specified quantities of oil to Shell Trading (US) Company. Our agreement with Shell Trading (US) Company has an initial term of five years ending September 30, 2018. The agreement may also be terminated by Shell Trading (US) Company by written notice to us in the event that Shell Trading (US) Company’s contract for transportation on the pipeline is terminated. Our maximum delivery obligation under this agreement is 8,000 gross barrels per day. We have a one-time right to elect to decrease the contract quantity by not more than 20% of the then-current quantity. This decreased contract quantity, if elected, would be effective for
the remainder of the term of the agreement. Shell Trading (US) Company has agreed to pay to us the price per barrel of oil based on the arithmetic average of the daily settlement price for “Light Sweet Crude Oil” Prompt Month future contracts reported by the NYMEX over the one-month period, as adjusted based on adjustment formulas specified in the agreement. If we fail to deliver the required quantities of oil under the agreement during any three-month period following the service commencement date, we have agreed to pay Shell Trading (US) Company a deficiency payment, which is calculated by multiplying (i) the volume of oil that we failed to deliver as required under the agreement during such period by (ii) Magellan’s Longhorn Spot tariff rate in effect for transportation from Crane, Texas to the Houston Ship Channel for the period of time for which such deficiency volume is calculated.
Competition
The oil and natural gas industry is intensely competitive, and we compete with other companies that have greater resources. Many of these companies not only explore for and produce oil and natural gas, but also carry on midstream and refining operations and market petroleum and other products on a regional, national or worldwide basis. These companies may be able to pay more for productive oil and natural gas properties and exploratory prospects or to define, evaluate, bid for and purchase a greater number of properties and prospects than our financial or human resources permit. In addition, these companies may have a greater ability to continue exploration activities during periods of low oil and natural gas market prices. Our larger or more integrated competitors may be able to absorb the burden of existing, and any changes to, federal, state and local laws and regulations more easily than we can, which would adversely affect our competitive position. Our ability to acquire additional properties and to discover reserves in the future will be dependent upon our ability to evaluate and select suitable properties and to consummate transactions in a highly competitive environment. In addition, because we have fewer financial and human resources than many companies in our industry, we may be at a disadvantage in bidding for exploratory prospects and producing oil and natural gas properties. Further, oil and natural gas compete with other forms of energy available to customers, primarily based on price. These alternate forms of energy include electricity, coal and fuel oils. Changes in the availability or price of oil and natural gas or other forms of energy, as well as business conditions, conservation, legislation, regulations and the ability to convert to alternate fuels and other forms of energy may affect the demand for oil and natural gas.
Transportation
During the initial development of our fields we evaluate all gathering and delivery infrastructure in the areas of our production. Currently, a majority of our production in the Midland Basin is transported to purchasers by pipeline. We anticipate that our production in the Delaware Basin transported to purchasers by pipeline will increase to 80% by the end of 2018. During 2018, several oil and saltwater disposal gathering systems were installed. We believe that these gathering systems will help us reduce our lease operating expense and improve our margins on sales in future periods.
The following table presents the average percentage of produced oil sold by pipeline and the average percentage of produced water connected to saltwater disposals by pipeline:
| Midland Basin | Delaware Basin | Total | ||||||
| % of produced oil sold by pipeline | 93 | % | 22 | % | 80 | % | ||
| % of produced water connected to pipeline | 93 | % | 87 | % | 91 | % |
The following table presents the average cost per Bbl to transport produced oil and water by truck and by pipeline as well as the average savings of transporting produced oil and water by pipeline versus truck:
| Midland Basin | Delaware Basin | ||||||
| Oil transportation costs per Bbl: | |||||||
| Trucked | $ | 1.84 | $ | 2.28 | |||
| Pipeline | $ | 1.09 | $ | 1.31 | |||
| Average savings | $ | 0.75 | $ | 0.97 | |||
| Water transportation costs per Bbl: | |||||||
| Trucked | $ | 2.08 | $ | 1.86 | |||
| Pipeline | $ | 0.23 | $ | 0.39 | |||
| Average savings | $ | 1.85 | $ | 1.47 |
Oil and Natural Gas Leases
The typical oil and natural gas lease agreement covering our properties provides for the payment of royalties to the mineral owner for all oil and natural gas produced from any wells drilled on the leased premises. The lessor royalties and other leasehold burdens on our properties generally range from 12.50% to 25.00%, resulting in a net revenue interest to us generally ranging from 75.00% to 87.50%.
Seasonal Nature of Business
Generally, demand for oil increases during the summer months and decreases during the winter months while natural gas decreases during the summer months and increases during the winter months. Certain natural gas users utilize natural gas storage facilities and purchase some of their anticipated winter requirements during the summer, which can lessen seasonal demand fluctuations. Seasonal weather conditions and lease stipulations can limit our drilling and producing activities and other oil and natural gas operations in a portion of our operating areas. These seasonal anomalies can pose challenges for meeting our well drilling objectives and can increase competition for equipment, supplies and personnel during the spring and summer months, which could lead to shortages and increase costs or delay operations.
Regulation
Oil and natural gas operations such as ours are subject to various types of legislation, regulation and other legal requirements enacted by governmental authorities. This legislation and regulation affecting the oil and natural gas industry is under constant review for amendment or expansion. Some of these requirements carry substantial penalties for failure to comply. The regulatory burden on the oil and natural gas industry increases our cost of doing business and, consequently, affects our profitability.
Environmental Matters and Regulation
Our oil and natural gas exploration, development and production operations are subject to stringent laws and regulations governing the discharge of materials into the environment or otherwise relating to environmental protection. Numerous federal, state and local governmental agencies, such as the EPA, issue regulations that often require difficult and costly compliance measures that carry substantial administrative, civil and criminal penalties and may result in injunctive obligations for non-compliance. These laws and regulations may require the acquisition of a permit before drilling commences, restrict the types, quantities and concentrations of various substances that can be released into the environment in connection with drilling and production activities, limit or prohibit construction or drilling activities on certain lands lying within wilderness, wetlands, ecologically or seismically sensitive areas, and other protected areas, require action to prevent or remediate pollution from current or former operations, such as plugging abandoned wells or closing pits, result in the suspension or revocation of necessary permits, licenses and authorizations, require that additional pollution controls be installed and impose substantial liabilities for pollution resulting from our operations or related to our owned or operated facilities. Liability under such laws and regulations is often strict (i.e., no showing of “fault” is required) and can be joint and several. Moreover, it is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by the release of hazardous substances, hydrocarbons or other waste products into the environment. Changes in environmental laws and regulations occur frequently, and any changes that result in more stringent and costly pollution control or waste handling, storage, transport, disposal or cleanup requirements could materially adversely affect our operations and financial position, as well as the oil and natural gas industry in general. Our management believes that we are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and we have not experienced any material adverse effect from compliance with these environmental requirements. This trend, however, may not continue in the future.
Waste Handling. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, and comparable state statutes and regulations promulgated thereunder, affect oil and natural gas exploration, development and production activities by imposing requirements regarding the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, disposal and cleanup of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. With federal approval, the individual states administer some or all of the provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, sometimes in conjunction with their own, more stringent requirements. Although most wastes associated with the exploration, development and production of crude oil and natural gas are exempt from regulation as hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, such wastes may constitute “solid wastes” that are subject to the less stringent non-hazardous waste requirements. Moreover, the EPA or state or local governments may adopt more stringent requirements for the handling of non-hazardous wastes or categorize some non-hazardous wastes as hazardous for future regulation. Indeed, legislation has been proposed from time to time in Congress to re-categorize certain oil and natural gas exploration, development and production wastes as “hazardous wastes.” Also, in December 2016, the EPA agreed in a consent decree to review its regulation of oil and gas waste. It has until March 2019 to determine whether any revisions are necessary. Any such changes in the laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our capital expenditures and operating expenses.
Administrative, civil and criminal penalties can be imposed for failure to comply with waste handling requirements. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with applicable requirements related to waste handling, and that we hold all necessary and up-to-date permits, registrations and other authorizations to the extent that our operations require them under such laws and regulations. Although we do not believe the current costs of managing our wastes, as presently classified, to be significant, any legislative or regulatory reclassification of oil and natural gas exploration and production wastes could increase our costs to manage and dispose of such wastes.
Remediation of Hazardous Substances. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended, which we refer to as CERCLA or the “Superfund” law, and analogous state laws, generally impose liability, without regard to fault or legality of the original conduct, on classes of persons who are considered to be responsible for the release of a “hazardous substance” into the environment. These persons include the current owner or operator of a contaminated facility, a former owner or operator of the facility at the time of contamination, and those persons that disposed or arranged for the disposal of the hazardous substance at the facility. Under CERCLA and comparable state statutes, persons deemed “responsible parties” are subject to strict liability that, in some circumstances, may be joint and several for the costs of removing or remediating previously disposed wastes (including wastes disposed of or released by prior owners or operators) or property contamination (including groundwater contamination), for damages to natural resources and for the costs of certain health studies. In addition, it is not uncommon for neighboring landowners and other third parties to file claims for personal injury and property damage allegedly caused by the hazardous substances released into the environment. In the course of our operations, we use materials that, if released, would be subject to CERCLA and comparable state statutes. Therefore, governmental agencies or third parties may seek to hold us responsible under CERCLA and comparable state statutes for all or part of the costs to clean up sites at which such “hazardous substances” have been released.
Water Discharges. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended, also known as the “Clean Water Act,” the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act and analogous state laws and regulations promulgated thereunder impose restrictions and strict controls regarding the unauthorized discharge of pollutants, including produced waters and other gas and oil wastes, into navigable waters of the United States, as well as state waters. The discharge of pollutants into regulated waters is prohibited, except in accordance with the terms of a permit issued by the EPA or the state. Spill prevention, control and countermeasure plan requirements under federal law require appropriate containment berms and similar structures to help prevent the contamination of navigable waters in the event of a petroleum hydrocarbon tank spill, rupture or leak. The Clean Water Act and regulations implemented thereunder also prohibit the discharge of dredge and fill material into regulated waters, including jurisdictional wetlands, unless authorized by an appropriately issued permit. On June 29, 2015, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or the USACE, jointly promulgated final rules redefining the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act. To the extent the rule expands the range of properties subject to the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction, we could face increased costs and delays with respect to obtaining permits for dredge and fill activities in wetland areas. Following its promulgation, numerous states and industry groups challenged the rule and, on October 9, 2015, a federal court stayed the rule’s implementation nationwide, pending further action in court. In response to this decision, the EPA and the USACE have resumed nationwide use of the agencies’ prior regulations defining the term “waters of the United States.” Further, on February 28, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order directing the relevant executive agencies to review the rules and to initiate rulemaking to rescind or revise them, as appropriate under the stated policies of protecting navigable waters from pollution while promoting economic growth, reducing uncertainty, and showing due regard for Congress and the states. On July 27, 2017, the EPA and the USACE published a proposed rule to rescind the 2015 rules, and, on November 22, 2017, the agencies published a proposed rule to maintain the status quo pending the agencies review of the 2015 rules.
The EPA has also adopted regulations requiring certain oil and natural gas exploration and production facilities to obtain individual permits or coverage under general permits for storm water discharges. In addition, on June 28, 2016, the EPA published a final rule prohibiting the discharge of wastewater from onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction facilities to publicly owned wastewater treatment plants, which regulations are discussed in more detail below under the caption “–Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing.” Costs may be associated with the treatment of wastewater or developing and implementing storm water pollution prevention plans, as well as for monitoring and sampling the storm water runoff from certain of our facilities. Some states also maintain groundwater protection programs that require permits for discharges or operations that may impact groundwater conditions.
The Oil Pollution Act is the primary federal law for oil spill liability. The Oil Pollution Act contains numerous requirements relating to the prevention of and response to petroleum releases into waters of the United States, including the requirement that operators of offshore facilities and certain onshore facilities near or crossing waterways must develop and maintain facility response contingency plans and maintain certain significant levels of financial assurance to cover potential environmental cleanup and restoration costs. The Oil Pollution Act subjects owners of facilities to strict liability that, in some circumstances, may be joint and several for all containment and cleanup costs and certain other damages arising from a release, including, but not limited to, the costs of responding to a release of oil to surface waters.
Non-compliance with the Clean Water Act or the Oil Pollution Act may result in substantial administrative, civil and criminal penalties, as well as injunctive obligations. We believe we are in material compliance with the requirements of each of these laws.
Air Emissions. The federal Clean Air Act, as amended, and comparable state laws and regulations, regulate emissions of various air pollutants through the issuance of permits and the imposition of other requirements. The EPA has developed, and continues to develop, stringent regulations governing emissions of air pollutants at specified sources. New facilities may be required to obtain permits before work can begin, and existing facilities may be required to obtain additional permits and incur capital costs in order to remain in compliance. For example, on August 16, 2012, the EPA published final regulations under the federal Clean Air Act that establish new emission controls for oil and natural gas production and processing operations, which regulations are discussed in more detail below in “–Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing.” Also, on May 12, 2016, the EPA issued a final rule regarding the criteria for aggregating multiple small surface sites into a single source for air-quality permitting purposes applicable to the oil and gas industry. This rule could cause small facilities, on an aggregate basis, to be deemed a major source, thereby triggering more stringent air permitting processes and requirements. These laws and regulations may increase the costs of compliance for some facilities we own or operate, and federal and state regulatory agencies can impose administrative, civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance with air permits or other requirements of the federal Clean Air Act and associated state laws and regulations. We believe that we are in substantial compliance with all applicable air emissions regulations and that we hold all necessary and valid construction and operating permits for our operations. Obtaining or renewing permits has the potential to delay the development of oil and natural gas projects.
Climate Change. In December 2009, the EPA issued an Endangerment Finding that determined that emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases present an endangerment to public health and the environment because, according to the EPA, emissions of such gases contribute to warming of the earth’s atmosphere and other climatic changes. In May 2010, the EPA adopted regulations establishing new greenhouse gas emissions thresholds that determine when stationary sources must obtain permits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration, or PSD, and Title V programs of the Clean Air Act. On June 23, 2014, in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Supreme Court held that stationary sources could not become subject to PSD or Title V permitting solely by reason of their greenhouse gas emissions. The Court ruled, however, that the EPA may require installation of best available control technology for greenhouse gas emissions at sources otherwise subject to the PSD and Title V programs. On August 26, 2016, the EPA proposed changes needed to bring the EPA’s air permitting regulations in line with the Supreme Court’s decision on greenhouse gas permitting. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2016 and the public comment period closed on December 2, 2016.
Additionally, in September 2009, the EPA issued a final rule requiring the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from specified large greenhouse gas emission sources in the U.S., including natural gas liquids fractionators and local natural gas distribution companies, beginning in 2011 for emissions occurring in 2010. In November 2010, the EPA expanded the greenhouse gas reporting rule to include onshore and offshore oil and natural gas production and onshore processing, transmission, storage and distribution facilities, which may include certain of our facilities, beginning in 2012 for emissions occurring in 2011. In October 2015, the EPA amended the greenhouse gas reporting rule to add the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from gathering and boosting systems, completions and workovers of oil wells using hydraulic fracturing, and blowdowns of natural gas transmission pipelines.
In addition, the U.S. Congress has from time to time considered adopting legislation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and almost one-half of the states have already taken legal measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases primarily through the planned development of greenhouse gas emission inventories and/or regional greenhouse gas cap and trade programs. Although the U.S. Congress has not adopted such legislation at this time, it may do so in the future and many states continue to pursue regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most of these cap and trade programs work by requiring major sources of emissions, such as electric power plants, or major producers of fuels, such as refineries and gas processing plants, to acquire and surrender emission allowances corresponding with their annual emissions of greenhouse gases. The number of allowances available for purchase is reduced each year until the overall greenhouse gas emission reduction goal is achieved. As the number of greenhouse gas emission allowances declines each year, the cost or value of allowances is expected to escalate significantly.
At the international level, in December 2015, the United States participated in the 21st Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Paris, France. The resulting Paris Agreement calls for the parties to undertake “ambitious efforts” to limit the average global temperature, and to conserve and enhance sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases. The Agreement went into effect on November 4, 2016. The Agreement establishes a framework for the parties to cooperate and report actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, on June 1, 2017, President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and begin negotiations to either re-enter or negotiate an entirely new agreement with more favorable terms for the United States. The Paris Agreement sets forth a specific exit process, whereby a party may not provide notice of its withdrawal until three years from the effective date, with such withdrawal taking effect
one year from such notice. It is not clear what steps the Trump Administration plans to take to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, whether a new agreement can be negotiated, or what terms would be included in such an agreement. Furthermore, in response to the announcement, many state and local leaders have stated their intent to intensify efforts to uphold the commitments set forth in the international accord.
Restrictions on emissions of methane or carbon dioxide that may be imposed could adversely impact the demand for, price of, and value of our products and reserves. As our operations also emit greenhouse gases directly, current and future laws or regulations limiting such emissions could increase our own costs. At this time, it is not possible to accurately estimate how potential future laws or regulations addressing greenhouse gas emissions would impact our business.
In addition, there have also been efforts in recent years to influence the investment community, including investment advisors and certain sovereign wealth, pension and endowment funds promoting divestment of fossil fuel equities and pressuring lenders to limit funding to companies engaged in the extraction of fossil fuel reserves. Such environmental activism and initiatives aimed at limiting climate change and reducing air pollution could interfere with our business activities, operations and ability to access capital. Furthermore, claims have been made against certain energy companies alleging that greenhouse gas emissions from oil and natural gas operations constitute a public nuisance under federal and/or state common law. As a result, private individuals or public entities may seek to enforce environmental laws and regulations against us and could allege personal injury, property damages or other liabilities. While our business is not a party to any such litigation, we could be named in actions making similar allegations. An unfavorable ruling in any such case could significantly impact our operations and could have an adverse impact on our financial condition.
Moreover, there has been public discussion that climate change may be associated with extreme weather conditions such as more intense hurricanes, thunderstorms, tornadoes and snow or ice storms, as well as rising sea levels. Another possible consequence of climate change is increased volatility in seasonal temperatures. Some studies indicate that climate change could cause some areas to experience temperatures substantially hotter or colder than their historical averages. Extreme weather conditions can interfere with our production and increase our costs and damage resulting from extreme weather may not be fully insured. However, at this time, we are unable to determine the extent to which climate change may lead to increased storm or weather hazards affecting our operations.
Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing
Hydraulic fracturing is an important common practice that is used to stimulate production of hydrocarbons, particularly natural gas, from tight formations, including shales. The process, which involves the injection of water, sand and chemicals under pressure into formations to fracture the surrounding rock and stimulate production, is typically regulated by state oil and natural gas commissions. However, legislation has been proposed in recent sessions of Congress to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to repeal the exemption for hydraulic fracturing from the definition of “underground injection,” to require federal permitting and regulatory control of hydraulic fracturing, and to require disclosure of the chemical constituents of the fluids used in the fracturing process. Furthermore, several federal agencies have asserted regulatory authority over certain aspects of the process. For example, the EPA has taken the position that hydraulic fracturing with fluids containing diesel fuel is subject to regulation under the Underground Injection Control program, specifically as “Class II” Underground Injection Control wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
In addition, the EPA previously announced its plans to develop a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by June 2018, which would describe a proposed mechanism - regulatory, voluntary, or a combination of both - to collect data on hydraulic fracturing chemical substances and mixtures. Also, on June 28, 2016, the EPA published a final rule prohibiting the discharge of wastewater from onshore unconventional oil and natural gas extraction facilities to publicly owned wastewater treatment plants. The EPA is also conducting a study of private wastewater treatment facilities (also known as centralized waste treatment, or CWT, facilities) accepting oil and natural gas extraction wastewater. The EPA is collecting data and information related to the extent to which CWT facilities accept such wastewater, available treatment technologies (and their associated costs), discharge characteristics, financial characteristics of CWT facilities, and the environmental impacts of discharges from CWT facilities.
On August 16, 2012, the EPA published final regulations under the federal Clean Air Act that establish new air emission controls for oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing operations. Specifically, the EPA’s rule package includes New Source Performance standards to address emissions of sulfur dioxide and volatile organic compounds and a separate set of emission standards to address hazardous air pollutants frequently associated with oil and natural gas production and processing activities. The final rules seek to achieve a 95% reduction in volatile organic compounds emitted by requiring the use of reduced emission completions or “green completions” on all hydraulically-fractured wells constructed or refractured after January 1, 2015. The rules also establish specific new requirements regarding emissions from compressors, controllers, dehydrators, storage tanks and other production equipment. The EPA received numerous requests for reconsideration of these rules from both industry and the environmental community, and court challenges to the rules were also filed. In response, the EPA has issued, and will
likely continue to issue, revised rules responsive to some of the requests for reconsideration. In particular, on May 12, 2016, the EPA amended its regulations to impose new standards for methane and volatile organic compounds emissions for certain new, modified, and reconstructed equipment, processes, and activities across the oil and natural gas sector. However, in a March 28, 2017 executive order, President Trump directed the EPA to review the 2016 regulations and, if appropriate, to initiate a rulemaking to rescind or revise them consistent with the stated policy of promoting clean and safe development of the nation’s energy resources, while at the same time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production. On June 16, 2017, the EPA published a proposed rule to stay for two years certain requirements of the 2016 regulations, including fugitive emission requirements. These standards, as well as any future laws and their implementing regulations, may require us to obtain pre-approval for the expansion or modification of existing facilities or the construction of new facilities expected to produce air emissions, impose stringent air permit requirements, or mandate the use of specific equipment or technologies to control emissions.
Furthermore, there are certain governmental reviews either underway or being proposed that focus on environmental aspects of hydraulic fracturing practices. On December 13, 2016, the EPA released a study examining the potential for hydraulic fracturing activities to impact drinking water resources, finding that, under some circumstances, the use of water in hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources. Also, on February 6, 2015, the EPA released a report with findings and recommendations related to public concern about induced seismic activity from disposal wells. The report recommends strategies for managing and minimizing the potential for significant injection-induced seismic events. Other governmental agencies, including the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office, have evaluated or are evaluating various other aspects of hydraulic fracturing. These ongoing or proposed studies could spur initiatives to further regulate hydraulic fracturing, and could ultimately make it more difficult or costly for us to perform fracturing and increase our costs of compliance and doing business.
Several states, including Texas, and local jurisdictions, have adopted, or are considering adopting, regulations that could restrict or prohibit hydraulic fracturing in certain circumstances, impose more stringent operating standards and/or require the disclosure of the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids. The Texas Legislature adopted legislation, effective September 1, 2011, requiring oil and gas operators to publicly disclose the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process. The Texas Railroad Commission adopted rules and regulations implementing this legislation that apply to all wells for which the Texas Railroad Commission issues an initial drilling permit after February 1, 2012. The law requires that the well operator disclose the list of chemical ingredients subject to the requirements of OSHA for disclosure on an internet website and also file the list of chemicals with the Texas Railroad Commission with the well completion report. The total volume of water used to hydraulically fracture a well must also be disclosed to the public and filed with the Texas Railroad Commission. Also, in May 2013, the Texas Railroad Commission adopted rules governing well casing, cementing and other standards for ensuring that hydraulic fracturing operations do not contaminate nearby water resources. The rules took effect in January 2014. Additionally, on October 28, 2014, the Texas Railroad Commission adopted disposal well rule amendments designed, among other things, to require applicants for new disposal wells that will receive non-hazardous produced water and hydraulic fracturing flowback fluid to conduct seismic activity searches utilizing the U.S. Geological Survey. The searches are intended to determine the potential for earthquakes within a circular area of 100 square miles around a proposed new disposal well. The disposal well rule amendments, which became effective on November 17, 2014, also clarify the Texas Railroad Commission’s authority to modify, suspend or terminate a disposal well permit if scientific data indicates a disposal well is likely to contribute to seismic activity. The Texas Railroad Commission has used this authority to deny permits for waste disposal wells.
There has been increasing public controversy regarding hydraulic fracturing with regard to the use of fracturing fluids, induced seismic activity, impacts on drinking water supplies, use of water and the potential for impacts to surface water, groundwater and the environment generally. A number of lawsuits and enforcement actions have been initiated across the country implicating hydraulic fracturing practices. If new laws or regulations that significantly restrict hydraulic fracturing are adopted, such laws could make it more difficult or costly for us to perform fracturing to stimulate production from tight formations as well as make it easier for third parties opposing the hydraulic fracturing process to initiate legal proceedings based on allegations that specific chemicals used in the fracturing process could adversely affect groundwater. In addition, if hydraulic fracturing is further regulated at the federal, state or local level, our fracturing activities could become subject to additional permitting and financial assurance requirements, more stringent construction specifications, increased monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping obligations, plugging and abandonment requirements and also to attendant permitting delays and potential increases in costs. Such changes could cause us to incur substantial compliance costs, and compliance or the consequences of any failure to comply by us could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. At this time, it is not possible to estimate the impact on our business of newly enacted or potential federal, state or local laws governing hydraulic fracturing.
Other Regulation of the Oil and Natural Gas Industry
The oil and natural gas industry is extensively regulated by numerous federal, state and local authorities. Legislation affecting the oil and natural gas industry is under constant review for amendment or expansion, frequently increasing the
regulatory burden. Also, numerous departments and agencies, both federal and state, are authorized by statute to issue rules and regulations that are binding on the oil and natural gas industry and its individual members, some of which carry substantial penalties for failure to comply. Although the regulatory burden on the oil and natural gas industry increases our cost of doing business and, consequently, affects our profitability, these burdens generally do not affect us any differently or to any greater or lesser extent than they affect other companies in the industry with similar types, quantities and locations of production.
The availability, terms and cost of transportation significantly affect sales of oil and natural gas. The interstate transportation and sale for resale of oil and natural gas is subject to federal regulation, including regulation of the terms, conditions and rates for interstate transportation, storage and various other matters, primarily by FERC. Federal and state regulations govern the price and terms for access to oil and natural gas pipeline transportation. FERC’s regulations for interstate oil and natural gas transmission in some circumstances may also affect the intrastate transportation of oil and natural gas.
Although oil and natural gas prices are currently unregulated, Congress historically has been active in the area of oil and natural gas regulation. We cannot predict whether new legislation to regulate oil and natural gas might be proposed, what proposals, if any, might actually be enacted by Congress or the various state legislatures, and what effect, if any, the proposals might have on our operations. Sales of condensate and oil and natural gas liquids are not currently regulated and are made at market prices.
Drilling and Production. Our operations are subject to various types of regulation at the federal, state and local level. These types of regulation include requiring permits for the drilling of wells, drilling bonds and reports concerning operations. The state, and some counties and municipalities, in which we operate also regulate one or more of the following:
| • | the location of wells; |
| • | the method of drilling and casing wells; |
| • | the timing of construction or drilling activities, including seasonal wildlife closures; |
| • | the rates of production or “allowables”; |
| • | the surface use and restoration of properties upon which wells are drilled; |
| • | the plugging and abandoning of wells; and |
| • | notice to, and consultation with, surface owners and other third parties. |
State laws regulate the size and shape of drilling and spacing units or proration units governing the pooling of oil and natural gas properties. Some states allow forced pooling or integration of tracts to facilitate exploration while other states rely on voluntary pooling of lands and leases. In some instances, forced pooling or unitization may be implemented by third parties and may reduce our interest in the unitized properties. In addition, state conservation laws establish maximum rates of production from oil and natural gas wells, generally prohibit the venting or flaring of natural gas and impose requirements regarding the ratability of production. These laws and regulations may limit the amount of oil and natural gas we can produce from our wells or limit the number of wells or the locations at which we can drill. Moreover, each state generally imposes a production or severance tax with respect to the production and sale of oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids within its jurisdiction. States do not regulate wellhead prices or engage in other similar direct regulation, but we cannot assure you that they will not do so in the future. The effect of such future regulations may be to limit the amounts of oil and natural gas that may be produced from our wells, negatively affect the economics of production from these wells or to limit the number of locations we can drill.
Federal, state and local regulations provide detailed requirements for the plugging and abandonment of wells, closure or decommissioning of production facilities and pipelines and for site restoration in areas where we operate. Although the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers does not require bonds or other financial assurances, some state agencies and municipalities do have such requirements.
Natural Gas Sales and Transportation. Historically, federal legislation and regulatory controls have affected the price of the natural gas we produce and the manner in which we market our production. FERC has jurisdiction over the transportation and sale for resale of natural gas in interstate commerce by natural gas companies under the Natural Gas Act of 1938 and the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978. Since 1978, various federal laws have been enacted which have resulted in the complete removal of all price and non-price controls for sales of domestic natural gas sold in “first sales,” which include all of our sales of our own production. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, FERC has substantial enforcement authority to prohibit the manipulation of natural gas markets and enforce its rules and orders, including the ability to assess substantial civil penalties.
FERC also regulates interstate natural gas transportation rates and service conditions and establishes the terms under which we may use interstate natural gas pipeline capacity, which affects the marketing of natural gas that we produce, as well as the revenues we receive for sales of our natural gas and release of our natural gas pipeline capacity. Commencing in 1985, FERC promulgated a series of orders, regulations and rule makings that significantly fostered competition in the business of transporting and marketing gas. Today, interstate pipeline companies are required to provide nondiscriminatory transportation services to producers, marketers and other shippers, regardless of whether such shippers are affiliated with an interstate pipeline company. FERC’s initiatives have led to the development of a competitive, open access market for natural gas purchases and sales that permits all purchasers of natural gas to buy gas directly from third-party sellers other than pipelines. However, the natural gas industry historically has been very heavily regulated; therefore, we cannot guarantee that the less stringent regulatory approach currently pursued by FERC and Congress will continue indefinitely into the future nor can we determine what effect, if any, future regulatory changes might have on our natural gas related activities.
Under FERC’s current regulatory regime, transmission services are provided on an open-access, non-discriminatory basis at cost-based rates or negotiated rates. Gathering service, which occurs upstream of jurisdictional transmission services, is regulated by the states onshore and in state waters. Although its policy is still in flux, FERC has in the past reclassified certain jurisdictional transmission facilities as non-jurisdictional gathering facilities, which has the tendency to increase our costs of transporting gas to point-of-sale locations.
Oil Sales and Transportation. Sales of crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids are not currently regulated and are made at negotiated prices. Nevertheless, Congress could reenact price controls in the future.
Our crude oil sales are affected by the availability, terms and cost of transportation. The transportation of oil in common carrier pipelines is also subject to rate regulation. FERC regulates interstate oil pipeline transportation rates under the Interstate Commerce Act and intrastate oil pipeline transportation rates are subject to regulation by state regulatory commissions. The basis for intrastate oil pipeline regulation, and the degree of regulatory oversight and scrutiny given to intrastate oil pipeline rates, varies from state to state. Insofar as effective interstate and intrastate rates are equally applicable to all comparable shippers, we believe that the regulation of oil transportation rates will not affect our operations in any materially different way than such regulation will affect the operations of our competitors.
Further, interstate and intrastate common carrier oil pipelines must provide service on a non-discriminatory basis. Under this open access standard, common carriers must offer service to all shippers requesting service on the same terms and under the same rates. When oil pipelines operate at full capacity, access is governed by prorationing provisions set forth in the pipelines’ published tariffs. Accordingly, we believe that access to oil pipeline transportation services generally will be available to us to the same extent as to our competitors.
State Regulation. Texas regulates the drilling for, and the production, gathering and sale of, oil and natural gas, including imposing severance taxes and requirements for obtaining drilling permits. Texas currently imposes a 4.6% severance tax on oil production and a 7.5% severance tax on natural gas production. States also regulate the method of developing new fields, the spacing and operation of wells and the prevention of waste of oil and natural gas resources. States may regulate rates of production and may establish maximum daily production allowables from oil and natural gas wells based on market demand or resource conservation, or both. States do not regulate wellhead prices or engage in other similar direct economic regulation, but we cannot assure you that they will not do so in the future. The effect of these regulations may be to limit the amount of oil and natural gas that may be produced from our wells and to limit the number of wells or locations we can drill.
The petroleum industry is also subject to compliance with various other federal, state and local regulations and laws. Some of those laws relate to resource conservation and equal employment opportunity. We do not believe that compliance with these laws will have a material adverse effect on us.
Operational Hazards and Insurance
The oil and natural gas industry involves a variety of operating risks, including the risk of fire, explosions, blow outs, pipe failures and, in some cases, abnormally high pressure formations which could lead to environmental hazards such as oil spills, natural gas leaks and the discharge of toxic gases. If any of these should occur, we could incur legal defense costs and could be required to pay amounts due to injury, loss of life, damage or destruction to property, natural resources and equipment, pollution or environmental damage, regulatory investigation and penalties and suspension of operations.
In accordance with what we believe to be industry practice, we maintain insurance against some, but not all, of the operating risks to which our business is exposed. We currently have insurance policies for onshore property (oil lease property/production equipment) for selected locations, rig physical damage protection, control of well protection for selected wells,
comprehensive general liability, commercial automobile, workers compensation, pollution liability (claims made coverage with a policy retroactive date), excess umbrella liability and other coverage.
Our insurance is subject to exclusion and limitations, and there is no assurance that such coverage will fully or adequately protect us against liability from all potential consequences, damages and losses. Any of these operational hazards could cause a significant disruption to our business. A loss not fully covered by insurance could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. See Item 1A. “Risk Factors–Risks Related to the Oil and Natural Gas Industry and Our Business–Operating hazards and uninsured risks may result in substantial losses and could prevent us from realizing profits.”
We reevaluate the purchase of insurance, policy terms and limits annually. Future insurance coverage for our industry could increase in cost and may include higher deductibles or retentions. In addition, some forms of insurance may become unavailable in the future or unavailable on terms that we believe are economically acceptable. No assurance can be given that we will be able to maintain insurance in the future at rates that we consider reasonable and we may elect to maintain minimal or no insurance coverage. We may not be able to secure additional insurance or bonding that might be required by new governmental regulations. This may cause us to restrict our operations, which might severely impact our financial position. The occurrence of a significant event, not fully insured against, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
Generally, we also require our third party vendors to sign master service agreements in which they agree to indemnify us for injuries and deaths of the service provider’s employees as well as contractors and subcontractors hired by the service provider.
Employees
As of December 31, 2017, we had approximately 251 full time employees. None of our employees are represented by labor unions or covered by any collective bargaining agreements. We also hire independent contractors and consultants involved in land, technical, regulatory and other disciplines to assist our full time employees.
Facilities
Our corporate headquarters is located in Midland, Texas. We also lease additional office space in Midland and in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. We believe that our facilities are adequate for our current operations.
Availability of Company Reports
Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports are available free of charge on the Investor Relations page of our website at www.diamondbackenergy.com as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. Information contained on, or connected to, our website is not incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K and should not be considered part of this or any other report that we file with or furnish to the SEC.
Previous: Cover and table of contents · Next: Item 1A. RISK FACTORS