sv1
As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 23, 2005
Registration
No. 333-
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form S-1
REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
EL PASO CORPORATION
(Exact Name of Registrant As Specified In its Charter)
|
|
|
|
|
Delaware
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
Incorporation or Organization) |
|
4922
(Primary Standard Industrial
Classification Code Number) |
|
76-0568816
(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number) |
|
|
|
El Paso Building
1001 Louisiana Street
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 420-2600
(Address, Including Zip Code, and Telephone Number,
Including Area Code, of Registrants Principal Executive
Offices) |
|
Robert W. Baker, Esq.
El Paso Building
1001 Louisiana Street
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 420-2600
(Name, Address, Including Zip Code, and Telephone
Number,
Including Area Code, of Agent For Service) |
Copies To:
|
Andrews Kurth LLP
600 Travis, Suite 4200
Houston, Texas 77002
Attention: G. Michael OLeary, Esq.
(713) 220-4200
|
Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale to the
public: From time to time after the effective date of this
Registration Statement, as determined in light of market
conditions and other factors.
If any of the securities being registered on this Form are to be
offered on a delayed or continuous basis pursuant to
Rule 415 under the Securities Act of 1933, other than
securities offered only in connection with dividend or interest
reinvestment plans, check the following
box. þ
If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an
offering pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act
of 1933, please check the following box and list the Securities
Act registration statement number of the earlier effective
registration statement for the same
offering. o
If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to
Rule 462(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, check the
following box and list the Securities Act registration statement
number of the earlier effective registration statement for the
same
offering. o
If this form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to
Rule 462(d) under the Securities Act, check the following
box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of
the earlier effective registration statement for the same
offering. o
If delivery of the prospectus is expected to be made pursuant to
Rule 434, please check the following
box. o
CALCULATION OF REGISTRATION FEE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed Maximum |
|
Proposed Maximum |
|
|
Title of Each Class of |
|
Amount |
|
Offering Price |
|
Aggregate |
|
Amount of |
Securities to be Registered |
|
to be Registered |
|
per Share(1) |
|
Offering Price(1) |
|
Registration Fee |
|
4.99% Convertible Perpetual Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per
share
|
|
|
750,000 |
|
|
$ |
1,000 |
|
|
$ |
750,000,000 |
|
|
$ |
88,275 |
|
|
Common Stock, par value $3.00
per share(2)
|
|
|
57,581,550 |
(3) |
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Estimated solely for purposes of calculating the registration
fee pursuant to Rule 457 under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended. |
(2) |
The registrant will receive no consideration for the issuance of
these shares of common stock upon conversion of the preferred
stock. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 457(i), no filing fee is
required with respect to these shares of common stock registered
hereby. |
(3) |
Represents the maximum number of shares of common stock which
may be issued upon conversion of the preferred stock registered
hereby. |
The Registrant hereby amends this Registration Statement on such
date or dates as may be necessary to delay its effective date
until the Registrant shall file a further amendment which
specifically states that this Registration Statement shall
thereafter become effective in accordance with Section 8(a)
of the Securities Act of 1933, or until this Registration
Statement shall become effective on such date as the Commission,
acting pursuant to said Section 8(a), may determine.
We will amend and
complete the information in this prospectus. The selling
security holders may not sell these securities or accept your
offer to buy them until the documentation filed with the SEC
relating to these securities has been declared effective by the
SEC. This prospectus is not an offer to sell these securities or
our solicitation of your offer to buy these securities in any
jurisdiction where that would not be permitted or legal.
|
SUBJECT TO COMPLETION
AUGUST 23, 2005
El Paso Corporation
750,000 Shares of 4.99% Convertible Perpetual Preferred
Stock
(liquidation preference $1,000 per share)
57,581,550 Shares of Common Stock
issuable upon conversion of the Preferred Stock
This prospectus relates to the offer and resale, from time to
time, of up to 750,000 shares of 4.99% Convertible
Perpetual Preferred Stock (liquidation preference
$1,000 per share), par value $0.01 per share, and the
shares of our common stock, par value $3.00 per share,
issuable upon the conversion of the preferred stock. These
shares are being offered to the public market by those
individuals named in the section of this prospectus entitled
Selling Stockholders, as described under the section
of this prospectus entitled Plan of Distribution. We
originally issued the preferred stock in a private placement on
April 15, 2005. The selling stockholders will receive the
proceeds from the sale of the preferred stock and common stock,
but we will bear the costs relating to the registration of the
preferred stock and common stock. For a more detailed
description of the preferred stock, see Description of the
Preferred Stock beginning on page 143.
Our common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbol EP. On August 22, 2005, the closing sale
price of our common stock was $11.34 per share.
The shares of preferred stock issued in the initial private
placement are eligible for trading in the
PortalSM
Market of the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. Shares of preferred
stock sold using this prospectus, however, will no longer be
eligible for trading in the
PortalSM
Market of the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. We do not intend to list
the preferred stock on any national securities exchange or
automated quotation system.
Investing in the preferred stock or common stock involves
risks. See Risk Factors beginning on page 7.
Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any other
regulatory body has approved or disapproved of these securities
or passed on the accuracy or adequacy of this prospectus or
determined if this prospectus is truthful or complete. Any
representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.
The date of this prospectus is
August , 2005.
You should rely only on the information contained in this
prospectus or to which we have referred you. We have not
authorized anyone to provide you with different information.
This prospectus may only be used where it is legal to sell these
securities. We are not making an offer of these securities in
any state where such an offer is not permitted. The information
in this offering memorandum may only be accurate on the date of
this prospectus or the dates of the documents incorporated by
reference in this prospectus. You should not assume that the
information contained in this prospectus or incorporated by
reference herein is accurate as of any other date.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDUSTRY AND MARKET DATA
We have obtained some industry and market share data from third
party sources that we believe to be reliable. In many cases,
however, we have made statements in this prospectus regarding
our industry and our position in the industry based on our
experience in the industry and our own investigation of market
conditions. We cannot assure you that any of these assumptions
are accurate or that our assumptions correctly reflect our
position in the industry.
i
Below is a list of terms that are common to our industry and
used throughout this document:
|
|
|
/d
|
|
= per day |
Bbl
|
|
= barrels |
BBtu
|
|
= billion British thermal units |
BBtue
|
|
= billion British thermal unit equivalents |
Bcf
|
|
= billion cubic feet |
Bcfe
|
|
= billion cubic feet of natural gas equivalents |
MBbls
|
|
= thousand barrels |
Mcf
|
|
= thousand cubic feet |
MDth
|
|
= thousand dekatherms |
Mcfe
|
|
= thousand cubic feet of natural gas equivalents |
Mgal
|
|
= thousand gallons |
MMBbls
|
|
= million barrels |
MMBtu
|
|
= million British thermal units |
MMcf
|
|
= million cubic feet |
MMcfe
|
|
= million cubic feet of natural gas equivalents |
MMWh
|
|
= thousand megawatt hours |
MTons
|
|
= thousand tons |
MW
|
|
= megawatt |
NGL
|
|
= natural gas liquids |
TBtu
|
|
= trillion British thermal units |
Tcfe
|
|
= trillion cubic feet of natural gas equivalents |
When we refer to natural gas and oil in equivalents,
we are doing so to compare quantities of oil with quantities of
natural gas or to express these different commodities in a
common unit. In calculating equivalents, we use a generally
recognized standard in which one Bbl of oil is equal to six Mcf
of natural gas. Also, when we refer to cubic feet measurements,
all measurements are at a pressure of 14.73 pounds per
square inch.
NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES
Our management uses EBIT to assess the operating results and
effectiveness of our business segments. EBIT and the related
ratios presented in this prospectus are supplemental measures of
our performance that are not required by, or recognized as being
in accordance with, GAAP. EBIT should not be considered as an
alternative to net income, operating income or any other
performance measures derived in accordance with GAAP or as an
alternative to cash flow from operating activities as a measure
of our operating liquidity. For a reconciliation of our EBIT (by
segment) to our consolidated net income (loss) for the quarters
and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, and for each
of the three years ended December 31, 2004, see
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations Results of
Operations.
We define EBIT as net income (loss) adjusted for (1) items
that do not impact our income (loss) from continuing operations,
such as extraordinary items, discontinued operations and the
impact of accounting changes, (2) income taxes,
(3) interest and debt expense and (4) distributions on
preferred interests of consolidated subsidiaries. Our businesses
consist of consolidated operations as well as investments in
unconsolidated affiliates. We exclude interest and debt expense
and distributions on preferred interests of consolidated
subsidiaries from this measure so that investors may evaluate
our operating results independently from our financing methods
or capital structure. We believe that EBIT is helpful to our
investors because it allows them to more effectively evaluate
the operating performance of our consolidated businesses and our
unconsolidated investments using the same performance measure
analyzed internally by our management. EBIT may not be
comparable to measurements used by other companies.
Additionally, EBIT should be considered in conjunction with net
income and other performance measures such as operating income
or operating cash flow.
ii
WHERE YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION
We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements
and other information with the SEC. You may read and copy
reports, statements or other information we file at the
SECs public reference room at 100 F Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C., 20549. Please call the SEC at
1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the operation of
public reference room. Our SEC filings are also available to the
public through the web site maintained by the SEC at
http://www.sec.gov.
This prospectus is part of a registration statement on
Form S-1 that we have filed with the SEC. As allowed by SEC
rules, this prospectus does not contain all the information you
can find in the registration statement or the exhibits filed
with the registration statement. Whenever a reference is made in
this prospectus to an agreement or other document of
El Paso, be aware that such reference is not necessarily
complete and that you should refer to the exhibits that are
filed with the registration statement for a copy of the
agreement or other document. You may review a copy of the
registration statement at the SECs public reference room
in Washington, D.C., as well as through the SECs
website as described above. You may also obtain any of the
documents referenced in this prospectus from us free of charge,
excluding any exhibits to those documents unless the exhibit is
specifically incorporated by reference as an exhibit in this
prospectus, by requesting them in writing or by telephone from
us at the following address:
El Paso Corporation
Office of Investor Relations
El Paso Building
1001 Louisiana Street
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone No.: (713) 420-2600
You should read this prospectus and any prospectus supplement
together with the registration statement and the exhibits filed
with the registration statement. The information contained in
this prospectus speaks only as of its date unless the context
specifically indicates otherwise.
We have not authorized any person to give any information or to
make any representation that differs from, or add to, the
information discussed in this prospectus. Therefore, if anyone
gives you different or additional information, you should not
rely on it.
CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This prospectus includes statements that constitute
forward-looking statements within the meaning of
Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of
the Exchange Act. These statements are subject to risks and
uncertainties. Forward-looking statements include information
concerning possible or assumed future results of operations of
us and our affiliates. These statements may relate to, but are
not limited to, information or assumptions about earnings per
share, capital and other expenditures, dividends, financing
plans, capital structure, cash flow, liquidity, pending legal
and regulatory proceedings and claims, including environmental
matters, future economic performance, operating income, cost
savings, managements plans, goals and objectives for
future operations and growth. These forward-looking statements
generally are accompanied by words such as intend,
anticipate, believe,
estimate, expect, should or
similar expressions. It should be understood that these
forward-looking statements are necessarily estimates reflecting
the best judgment of our senior management, not guarantees of
future performance. They are subject to a number of
iii
assumptions, risks and uncertainties that could cause actual
results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in
the forward-looking statements.
Undue reliance should not be placed on forward-looking
statements, which speak only as of the date of this prospectus.
For a description of risks relating to us and our business, see
Risk Factors beginning on page 7 of this
prospectus.
All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements
attributable to us or any person acting on our behalf are
expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary
statements contained or referred to in this section and any
other cautionary statements that may accompany such
forward-looking statements. We do not undertake any obligation
to release publicly any revisions to these forward-looking
statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of
this document or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated
events, unless the securities laws require us to do so.
iv
SUMMARY
This summary highlights some basic information from this
prospectus to help you understand our business, the preferred
stock and the common stock issuable upon conversion thereof. It
does not contain all of the information that is important to
you. You should carefully read this prospectus to understand
fully the terms of the preferred stock and the common stock
subject to issuance upon conversion thereof, as well as the tax
and other considerations that are important to you in making
your investment decision. You should pay special attention to
the Risk Factors beginning on page 7 of this
prospectus and the section entitled Cautionary Statement
Regarding Forward-Looking Statements on page iii of
this prospectus to determine whether an investment in the
preferred stock is appropriate for you. For purposes of this
offering memorandum, except where we are describing the terms of
the preferred stock and the common stock subject to issuance
upon conversion thereof, and unless the context otherwise
indicates, when we refer to El Paso,
us, we, our,
ours, or issuer, we are describing
El Paso Corporation, together with its subsidiaries. Unless
the context otherwise indicates, all references to the
preferred stock are to the 4.99% Convertible
Perpetual Preferred Stock described in this prospectus. With
respect to any description of the terms of the preferred stock
or the common stock subject to issuance upon conversion thereof,
such references refer only to El Paso Corporation, and not
to its subsidiaries.
Our Business
We are an energy company originally founded in 1928 in
El Paso, Texas. Our business purpose is to provide natural
gas and related energy products in a safe, efficient and
dependable manner. We own North Americas largest natural
gas pipeline system and are a large independent natural gas
producer. We also own and operate an energy marketing and
trading business, a power business, midstream assets and
investments, and have an investment in a small
telecommunications business. Our power business primarily
consists of international assets.
Since the end of 2001, our business activities have largely been
focused on maintaining our core businesses of pipelines and
production, while attempting to liquidate or otherwise divest of
those businesses and operations that were not core to our
long-term objectives, or that were not performing consistently
with the expectations we had for them at the time we made the
investment. Our overall objective during this period has been to
reduce debt and improve liquidity, while at the same time
investing in our core business activities. Our actions during
this period have significantly impacted our financial condition,
with the sale of almost $10 billion of operating assets.
These actions have also produced significant financial losses
through asset impairments, realized losses on asset sales and
diminishment of income producing potential on businesses sold.
In late 2003 and early 2004, we appointed a new chief executive
officer and several new members of the executive management
team. Following a period of assessment, we announced that our
long-term business strategy would principally focus on our core
pipeline and production businesses. Our businesses are owned
through a complex legal structure of companies that reflect the
acquisitions and growth in our business from 1996 to 2001. As
part of our long range strategy, we are actively working to
reduce the complexity of our corporate structure. See our
ownership structure chart on page 98.
We believe that 2004 was a watershed year for us. We were able
to meet and exceed a number of the goals established under our
2003 Long Range Plan. As part of our efforts in 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
We focused capital investment on our core pipeline and
production businesses, where in 2002, 2003 and 2004, we spent
87 percent, 91 percent, and 97 percent of our
total capital dollars; |
|
|
|
We completed the sale of a number of assets and investments
including international production properties, a substantial
portion of our general and limited partnership interests in
GulfTerra Energy Partners, L.P., a publicly traded limited
partnership, a significant portion of our worldwide petroleum
markets operations, a significant portion of our domestic power
generation operations and our merchant LNG business. Total
proceeds from these sales were approximately $3.3 billion; |
|
|
|
We reduced our net debt (debt, net of cash) by $3.4 billion
in 2004, lowering our net debt to $17.1 billion (debt of
$19.2 billion, less cash and cash equivalents of
$2.1 billion) as of December 31, 2004; and |
1
|
|
|
|
|
We continued our cost-reduction efforts with a goal of achieving
$150 million of savings by the end of 2006. |
In 2004 we focused on expanding our pipeline operations and
beginning the turnaround of our production business. During the
year, we completed major expansions in our pipeline operations,
including our Cheyenne Plains project, to provide transmission
outlets for natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountains, and we
are moving forward on our Cypress projects to fulfill demand for
natural gas in the southeastern United States, primarily
Florida. Additionally, we continue to work in recontracting
capacity on our systems and have been successful to date in
these efforts. In our production operations, we instituted a
new, more rigorous, risk analysis process which emphasizes
strict capital discipline. Over the second half of 2004, this
process resulted in a shifting of capital to areas with higher
returns and improved drilling results and helped us to begin the
stabilization of our domestic production. In addition, we have
recently made several strategic acquisitions of production
properties in Texas and acquired the interests held by one of
the third parties under our net profits interest agreements.
In 2005, we are working to achieve our long-range goals by:
|
|
|
|
|
Simplifying our capital structure; |
|
|
|
Continuing to focus on expansions in our core pipeline business
and completing the turnaround of our production business; |
|
|
|
Selling additional assets that we expect will generate proceeds
from $1.8 billion to $2.2 billion; |
|
|
|
Reducing outstanding debt (net of cash) to $15 billion by
the end of 2005; and |
|
|
|
Continuing to reduce costs to achieve the cost savings outlined
in our Long Range Plan. |
For a further description of our business, see the information
set forth under the caption Business that begins on
page 98 of this prospectus.
Recent Developments
Settlement of Equity Security Units
On August 17, 2005, we issued approximately
13.6 million shares of our common stock in settlement of
the purchase contracts associated with the outstanding equity
security units for approximately $272.1 million.
Asset Sales
On August 8, 2005, we announced that we had agreed to sell
certain south Louisiana midstream entities to Crosstex Energy,
L.P. for $500 million. The transaction is subject to
regulatory approval, other closing conditions, and post-closing
adjustments. We expect to report a pre-tax gain of approximately
$400 million on this sale, which is expected to close in
the fourth quarter of 2005. We are also in the process of
selling our interest in a processing plant in south Texas, which
will conclude our midstream asset sales.
Appointment of Principal Officer
Effective as of August 10, 2005, D. Mark Leland, the former
executive vice president and chief financial officer of
El Paso Production Holding Company, became our executive
vice president and chief financial officer. Mr. Leland
replaced D. Dwight Scott, who resigned as our executive vice
president and chief financial officer to join GSO Capital
Partners LP.
The Offering and this Prospectus
|
|
|
Preferred stock offered by the Selling Holders |
|
Up to 750,000 shares of 4.99% Convertible Perpetual
Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share. |
|
Common stock offered by the Selling Holders |
|
Up to 57,581,550 shares, based upon an initial conversion
price of $13.03 per share of common stock. The conversion price
is subject |
2
|
|
|
|
|
to adjustment as described in Description of the Preferred
Stock Adjustments to the Conversion Rate. |
|
Liquidation preference |
|
$1,000 per share of preferred stock. |
|
Dividends |
|
Holders of preferred stock are entitled to receive, when, as and
if declared by our board of directors, out of funds legally
available therefor, cash dividends at the rate of 4.99% per
annum of the liquidation preference, payable quarterly in
arrears on January 1, April 1, July 1 and
October 1 of each year commencing July 1, 2005.
Dividends on the preferred stock will accumulate from the most
recent date as to which dividends will have been paid or, if no
dividends have been paid, from the date of initial issuance.
Accumulated but unpaid dividends accumulate at the annual rate
of 4.99%. |
|
|
|
For so long as the preferred stock remains outstanding,
(1) we will not declare, pay or set apart funds for the
payment of any dividend or other distribution with respect to
any junior stock or parity stock and (2) neither we nor any
of our subsidiaries will, subject to certain exceptions, redeem,
purchase or otherwise acquire for consideration junior stock or
parity stock through a sinking fund or otherwise, in each case
unless we have paid or set apart funds for the payment of all
accumulated and unpaid dividends, including liquidated damages,
if any, with respect to the shares of preferred stock and any
parity stock for all preceding dividend periods. See
Description of the Preferred Stock
Dividends. |
|
Use of proceeds |
|
All of the shares of preferred stock and common stock offered
hereby are being sold by the selling stockholders. We will not
receive any proceeds from the sale of preferred stock and common
stock in this offering. See Use of Proceeds. |
|
Conversion |
|
The preferred stock is convertible, at the option of the holder,
at any time into shares of our common stock at a conversion rate
of 76.7754 shares of our common stock per $1,000
liquidation preference of preferred stock, which represents an
initial conversion price of approximately $13.03 per share
of common stock. The conversion rate may be adjusted for certain
reasons as described under the caption Description of the
Preferred Stock Adjustments to the Conversion
Rate, but will not be adjusted for accumulated and unpaid
dividends or for liquidated damages, if any. Upon conversion,
holders will not receive any cash payment representing
accumulated and unpaid dividends, if any. In addition, if a
holder elects to convert its shares of preferred stock in
connection with the occurrence, prior to April 5, 2015, of
a fundamental change, the holder will be entitled to receive
additional shares of common stock upon conversion or, in lieu
thereof, we may under certain circumstances elect to adjust the
conversion rate and the related conversion obligation such that
the preferred stock will be convertible into shares of the
acquiring or surviving company, in each case as described under
Description of the Preferred Stock Make Whole
Payment Upon the Occurrence of a Fundamental Change. |
|
|
|
If we declare a distribution consisting exclusively of cash to
holders of our common stock (excluding (1) dividends or
distributions in connection with our liquidation, dissolution or
winding up and |
3
|
|
|
|
|
(2) any quarterly cash dividend on our shares of common
stock to the extent that the aggregate cash dividend per share
amount of our common stock in any quarter does not exceed $0.04,
which amount we refer to as the dividend threshold
amount), the conversion rate will be adjusted by
multiplying the applicable conversion rate by the following
fraction: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Price
of Common Stock |
|
minus |
|
Dividend
Threshold Amount |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Price
of Common Stock |
|
minus |
|
Per Share
Distribution Amount |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If an adjustment is required to be made as a result of a
distribution that is not a quarterly dividend, the dividend
threshold amount will be deemed to be zero. |
|
|
|
See Description of the Preferred Stock
Adjustments to the Conversion Rate for additional
discussion of adjustments that may be made to the conversion
rate. |
|
Mandatory conversion |
|
On or after April 5, 2010, we may, at our option, cause the
preferred stock to be automatically converted into that number
of shares of common stock that are issuable at the then
prevailing conversion rate. We may exercise our conversion right
only if, for 20 trading days within any period of 30 consecutive
trading days (including the last trading day of such period),
the closing price of our common stock exceeds 130% of the then
prevailing conversion price of the preferred stock. |
|
Limited optional redemption |
|
On or after April 5, 2010, we will have the option to
redeem all outstanding shares of preferred stock if (1) the
total number of preferred shares then outstanding is less than
10% of the total number of such shares issued in this offering
and (2) the closing price of our common stock for 20
trading days within a period of 30 consecutive trading days
ending on the trading day before we give notice of redemption
equals or exceeds the conversion price in effect on such day. We
will pay the redemption price in cash. |
|
Fundamental change |
|
If a fundamental change (as described under Description of
the Preferred Stock Conversion Rights
Fundamental Change Requires Us to Redeem Shares of Preferred
Stock at the Option of the Holder) occurs prior to
April 1, 2015, each holder of shares of preferred stock
will, subject to legally available funds, have the right to
require us to redeem any or all of its shares at a redemption
price equal to 100% of the liquidation preference, plus an
amount equal to any accumulated and unpaid dividends, including
liquidated damages, if any, to, but excluding, the date of
redemption. We will pay the redemption price in cash. Holders
will have no other right to require us to redeem the preferred
stock at any time. Our ability to redeem all or a portion of the
preferred stock for cash is subject to our obligation to repay
or repurchase any outstanding debt that may be required to be
repaid or repurchased in connection with a fundamental change
and to any contractual restrictions contained in the terms of
any indebtedness that we have at that time. If a fundamental
change occurs at a time when we are prohibited from redeeming
shares of preferred stock for cash, we could seek the consent of
our lenders to redeem the preferred stock or attempt to
refinance the debt containing such prohibition. |
|
|
|
In addition, holders of shares of preferred stock shall not have
the right to require us to repurchase shares of preferred stock
upon a |
4
|
|
|
|
|
fundamental change unless and until our board of directors has
approved such fundamental change or elected to take a neutral
position with respect to such fundamental change. |
|
Voting rights |
|
Holders of preferred stock will not have any voting rights
except as set forth below or as otherwise from time to time
required by law. Whenever (1) dividends on the preferred
stock or any other class or series of stock ranking on a parity
with the preferred stock with respect to the payment of
dividends are in arrears for dividend periods, whether or not
consecutive, containing in the aggregate a number of days
equivalent to six calendar quarters, or (2) we fail to pay
the redemption price on the date shares of preferred stock are
called for redemption (whether the redemption is pursuant to the
optional redemption provisions or the redemption is in
connection with a fundamental change) then, immediately prior to
the next annual meeting of shareholders, the total number of
directors constituting the entire board will automatically be
increased by two and, in each case, the holders of preferred
stock (voting separately as a class with all other series of
preferred stock upon which like voting rights have been
conferred and are exercisable) will be entitled to vote for the
election of such directors at the next annual meeting of
stockholders and at each subsequent meeting until all dividends
accumulated or the redemption price on the preferred stock have
been fully paid or set apart for payment. Directors elected by
the holders of the preferred stock shall not be divided into
classes of the board of directors and the term of office of all
directors elected by the holders of preferred stock will
terminate immediately upon the termination of the right of the
holders of preferred stock to vote for directors and upon such
termination the total number of directors constituting the
entire board will automatically be reduced by two. Holders of
shares of preferred stock will have one vote for each share of
preferred stock held. |
|
Ranking |
|
The preferred stock will be, with respect to dividend rights and
rights upon liquidation, winding up or dissolution: |
|
|
|
junior to all our existing and future debt
obligations; |
|
|
junior to every other class or series of our capital
stock other than (1) our common stock and any other class
or series of our capital stock the terms of which provide that
such class or series will rank junior to the preferred stock and
(2) any other class or series of our capital stock the
terms of which provide that such class or series will rank on a
parity with the preferred stock; |
|
|
on a parity with any class or series of our capital
stock the terms of which provide that such class or series will
rank on a parity with the preferred stock; |
|
|
senior to our common stock and any other class or
series of our capital stock the terms of which provide that such
class or series will rank junior to the preferred stock; and |
|
|
effectively junior to all of our subsidiaries
(1) existing and future liabilities and (2) capital
stock held by others. |
|
|
|
Trading |
|
The shares of preferred stock issued in the initial private
placement are eligible for trading in the
PortalSM
Market of the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. Shares of preferred
stock sold using this prospectus, however, will no longer be
eligible for trading in the
PortalSM
Market of the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. We do not intend to list |
5
|
|
|
the preferred stock on any national securities exchange or
automated quotation system. |
|
|
|
NYSE symbol for our common stock |
|
Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under
the symbol EP. |
For further information regarding the preferred stock,
including, among other things, more complete descriptions of our
dividend obligations, the conversion of the preferred stock, and
the anti-dilution adjustments and voting rights applicable to
the preferred stock, please see Description of the
Preferred Stock.
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For The |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months |
|
|
|
|
Ended |
|
|
For The Years Ended December 31, |
|
June 30, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2000 |
|
2001 |
|
2002 |
|
2003 |
|
2004 |
|
2004 |
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratio of earnings to fixed
charges(1)
|
|
|
1.31 |
x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Earnings were inadequate to cover fixed charges by
$393 million, $1,440 million, $1,121 million and
$1,065 million for the years ended December 31, 2001,
2002, 2003 and 2004, respectively, and $77 million and
$231 million for the six months ended June 30, 2004
and 2005. |
For purposes of computing these ratios, earnings means pre-tax
income (loss) from continuing operations before:
|
|
|
|
|
minority interests in consolidated subsidiaries; |
|
|
|
income or loss from equity investees, adjusted to reflect actual
distributions from equity investments; and |
|
|
|
fixed charges; |
less:
|
|
|
|
|
capitalized interest; and |
|
|
|
preferred returns on consolidated subsidiaries. |
Fixed charges means the sum of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
interest costs, not including interest on rate refunds; |
|
|
|
amortization of debt costs; |
|
|
|
that portion of the rental expense which we believe represents
an interest factor; |
|
|
|
preferred stock dividends; and |
|
|
|
preferred returns on consolidated subsidiaries. |
Risk Factors
An investment in the preferred stock and the common stock
subject to issuance upon conversion thereof involves certain
risks that a potential investor should carefully evaluate prior
to making an investment in the preferred stock. See Risk
Factors beginning on page 7.
6
RISK FACTORS
Before you invest in our preferred stock and common stock,
you should consider the risks, uncertainties and factors that
may adversely affect us that are discussed below.
Risks Relating to the Preferred Stock
|
|
|
The preferred stock ranks junior to all of our
liabilities. |
In the event of our bankruptcy, liquidation or winding-up, our
assets will be available to pay obligations on the preferred
stock, including the purchase of your shares of the preferred
stock for cash upon a fundamental change, only after all of our
indebtedness and other liabilities have been paid. In addition,
we are a holding company and the preferred stock will
effectively rank junior to all existing and future liabilities
of our subsidiaries and any capital stock of our subsidiaries
held by others. The rights of holders of the preferred stock to
participate in the distribution of assets of our subsidiaries
will rank junior to the prior claims of that subsidiarys
creditors and any other equity holders. Consequently, if we are
forced to liquidate our assets to pay our creditors, we may not
have sufficient assets remaining to pay amounts due on any or
all of the preferred stock then outstanding. We and our
subsidiaries may incur substantial amounts of additional debt
and other obligations that will rank senior to the preferred
stock.
|
|
|
We may not be able to pay cash dividends on the preferred
stock. |
We are required to pay all declared dividends on the preferred
stock in cash. Our existing revolving credit facilities and
indentures limit, and any indentures and other financing
agreements that we enter into in the future will likely limit,
our ability to pay cash dividends on our capital stock.
Specifically, under our existing revolving credit agreement, we
may pay cash dividends and make other distributions on or in
respect of our capital stock, including the preferred stock,
only if certain financial tests are met. In addition, the
indentures or other credit facilities of certain of our
subsidiaries include limitations on the ability of such
subsidiaries to pay dividends or make other distributions to us.
For a description of the restrictive covenants included in our
existing revolving credit agreement and references to
restrictive covenants to which we or our subsidiaries are
subject, see Notes to our Consolidated Financial Statements,
Note 15 on page F-81. In the event that any of our
revolving credit facilities, indentures or other financing
agreements in the future restrict our ability to pay cash
dividends on the preferred stock, we will be unable to pay cash
dividends on the preferred stock unless we can refinance amounts
outstanding under those agreements. Furthermore, in the event
the credit facilities, indentures or other financing agreements
of our subsidiaries limit the ability of such subsidiaries to
pay dividends or make distributions to us, our ability to pay
dividends on the preferred stock could be adversely affected.
Under Delaware law, cash dividends on capital stock may only be
paid from surplus or, if there is not
surplus, from the corporations net profits for
the then current or the preceding fiscal year. Unless we
continue to operate profitably, our ability to pay cash
dividends on the preferred stock would require the availability
of adequate surplus, which is defined as the excess,
if any, of our net assets (total assets less total liabilities)
over our capital. Further, even if adequate surplus is available
to pay cash dividends on the preferred stock, we may not have
sufficient cash to pay dividends on the preferred stock.
|
|
|
There is no public market for the preferred stock. |
The preferred stock is eligible for trading in PORTAL. Shares of
preferred stock sold using this prospectus will no longer be
eligible for trading in PORTAL, and will not be listed for
trading on any national securities exchange or on the National
Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotation System
(Nasdaq). In addition, we cannot assure when or how
many shares of preferred stock may be sold pursuant to this
prospectus, which will be a factor affecting the depth and
liquidity of the market, if any, for shares of our preferred
stock. Accordingly, there may not be development of, or
significant liquidity in, any market for shares of preferred
stock sold using this prospectus. If a market for the preferred
stock were to develop, the preferred stock could trade at prices
that may be higher or lower than the price paid to any of the
selling stockholders for shares sold pursuant to this prospectus
depending upon many factors, including the price of
7
our common stock into which the preferred stock may be
converted, prevailing interest rates, our operating results and
the markets for similar securities.
|
|
|
We may not be able to pay the redemption price of the
preferred stock in cash upon a fundamental change. We also could
be prevented from paying dividends on shares of the preferred
stock. |
In the event of a fundamental change you will have the right to
require us to purchase with cash all your shares of preferred
stock. However, we may not have sufficient cash to purchase your
shares of preferred stock upon a fundamental change or may be
otherwise unable to pay the purchase price in cash.
In addition, holders of shares of preferred stock will not have
the right to require us to repurchase shares of preferred stock
upon a fundamental change unless our board of directors has
approved such fundamental change or elected to take a neutral
position with respect to such fundamental change.
Further, because we are a holding company, our ability to
purchase the preferred stock for cash may be limited by
restrictions on our ability to obtain funds for such repurchase
through dividends from our subsidiaries.
|
|
|
If you convert your shares of preferred stock into shares
of common stock, you may experience immediate dilution. |
If you convert your shares of preferred stock into shares of
common stock, you may experience immediate dilution because the
per share conversion price of the preferred stock is higher than
the then net tangible book value per share of our outstanding
common stock. In addition, you will also experience dilution
when and if we issue additional shares of common stock, which we
may be required to issue pursuant to options, warrants, our
stock option plan or other employee or director compensation
plans.
|
|
|
The price of our common stock, and therefore of the
preferred stock, may fluctuate significantly, which may make it
difficult for you to resell the preferred stock, or common stock
issuable upon conversion thereof, when you want or at prices you
find attractive. |
The price of our common stock on the New York Stock Exchange
constantly changes. We expect that the market price of our
common stock will continue to fluctuate. Because the preferred
stock is convertible into shares of our common stock, volatility
or depressed prices for our common stock could have a similar
effect on the trading price of the preferred stock. Holders who
have received common stock upon conversion will also be subject
to the risk of volatility and depressed prices.
Our stock price can fluctuate as a result of a variety of
factors, many of which are beyond our control. In addition, the
stock market in general has experienced extreme volatility that
has often been unrelated to the operating performance of a
particular company. These broad market fluctuations may
adversely affect the market price of our common stock.
|
|
|
The additional shares of our common stock payable on our
preferred stock in connection with a fundamental change may not
adequately compensate you for the lost option time value of your
shares of our preferred stock as a result of such fundamental
change. |
If a fundamental change occurs, we will, in certain
circumstances, increase the conversion rate of our preferred
stock by a number of additional shares of common stock. The
number of additional shares of our common stock will be
determined based on the date on which the fundamental change
becomes effective, and the price paid per share of common stock
in the fundamental change transaction as described under
Description of the Preferred Stock Conversion
Rights Make Whole Payment Upon the Occurrence of a
Fundamental Change. While the increase in the conversion
rate upon conversion is designed to compensate you for the lost
option time value of your shares of preferred stock as a result
of the fundamental change, the increase is only an approximation
of this lost value and may not adequately compensate you for
your loss. If the price paid per share of common stock in the
fundamental change transaction is less than the price per share
of the common stock at the date of issuance of our preferred
stock or above a specified price, there will
8
be no increase in the conversion rate. In addition, in certain
circumstances, upon a fundamental change arising from our
acquisition by a public company, we may elect to adjust the
conversion rate as described under Description of the
Preferred Stock Conversion Rights Make
Whole Payment Upon the Occurrence of a Fundamental Change
and, if we so elect, holders of shares of our preferred stock
will not be entitled to the increase in the conversion rate
described above.
|
|
|
We may issue additional series of preferred stock that
rank equally to the preferred stock as to dividend payments and
liquidation preference. |
Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and the
certificate of designation for the preferred stock do not
prohibit us from issuing additional series of preferred stock
that would rank equally to the preferred stock as to dividend
payments and liquidation preference. Including the 750,000
shares of the preferred stock issued for sale pursuant to this
prospectus our amended and restated certificate of incorporation
provides that we have the authority to issue
50,000,000 shares of preferred stock. The issuances of
other series of preferred stock could have the effect of
reducing the amounts available to the preferred stock in the
event of our liquidation. It may also reduce dividend payments
on the preferred stock if we do not have sufficient funds to pay
dividends on all preferred stock outstanding and outstanding
parity preferred stock.
|
|
|
Future issuances of preferred stock may adversely affect
the market price for our common stock. |
Additional issuances and sales of preferred stock, or the
perception that such issuances and sales could occur, may cause
prevailing market prices for our common stock to decline and may
adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital in the
financial markets at a time and price favorable to us.
|
|
|
We may not have sufficient earnings and profits in order
for distributions on the preferred stock to be treated as
dividends. |
The dividends payable by us on the preferred stock may exceed
our current and accumulated earnings and profits, as calculated
for U.S. federal income tax purposes, at the time of payment. If
that occurs, it will result in the amount of the dividends that
exceed such earnings and profits being treated first as a return
of capital to the extent of the holders adjusted tax basis
in the preferred stock, and the excess, if any, over such
adjusted tax basis as capital gain. Such treatment will
generally be unfavorable for corporate holders and may also be
unfavorable to certain other holders. See Certain United
States Federal Income Tax Considerations U.S.
Holders.
|
|
|
Our corporate documents and Delaware law contain
provisions that could discourage, delay or prevent a change in
control of our company even if some stockholders might consider
such a development favorable, which may adversely affect the
price of our common stock. |
Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of
incorporation and amended and restated by-laws may discourage,
delay or prevent a merger or acquisition involving us that our
stockholders may consider favorable. For example, our amended
and restated certificate of incorporation authorizes our board
of directors to issue shares of preferred stock to which special
rights are attached, including voting and dividend rights.
We are also subject to the anti-takeover provisions of
Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Under
these provisions, if anyone becomes an interested
stockholder, we may not enter into a business
combination with that person for three years without
special approval, which could discourage a third party from
making a takeover offer and could delay or prevent a change of
control. For purposes of Section 203, interested
stockholder means, generally, someone owning 15% or more
of our outstanding voting stock or an affiliate of ours that
owned 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock during the
past three years, subject to certain exceptions as described in
Section 203.
Upon a change in control as defined in our existing credit
facilities, the lenders under such existing credit facilities
will have the right to require us to repay all of our
outstanding obligations under the facility. In addition, the
holders of certain series of indebtedness of certain of our
subsidiaries will have the right upon the occurrence of a change
of control as defined in such indebtedness or the indenture
relating thereto, subject to
9
certain conditions, to require us to repurchase their notes at a
price equal to 100% or 101% of their principal amount, plus
accrued and unpaid interest to the date of repurchase. Because a
change of control as defined in our existing credit facilities
and as defined in our subsidiaries indentures provides for
repurchase rights under terms that are different from the
definition of a fundamental change under the preferred stock
offered hereby, holders of our other indebtedness may have the
ability to require us to repay or repurchase those debt
obligations before the holders of the preferred stock would have
such repurchase rights.
Risks Related to Our Business
|
|
|
Our operations are subject to operational hazards and
uninsured risks. |
Our operations are subject to the inherent risks normally
associated with those operations, including pipeline ruptures,
explosions, pollution, release of toxic substances, fires and
adverse weather conditions, and other hazards, each of which
could result in damage to or destruction of our facilities or
damages to persons and property. In addition, our operations
face possible risks associated with acts of aggression on our
domestic and foreign assets. If any of these events were to
occur, we could suffer substantial losses.
While we maintain insurance against many of these risks to the
extent and in amounts that we believe are reasonable, our
financial condition and operations could be adversely affected
if a significant event occurs that is not fully covered by
insurance.
|
|
|
The success of our pipeline business depends, in part, on
factors beyond our control. |
Most of the natural gas and natural gas liquids we transport and
store are owned by third parties. As a result, the volume of
natural gas and natural gas liquids involved in these activities
depends on the actions of those third parties, and is beyond our
control. Further, the following factors, most of which are
beyond our control, may unfavorably impact our ability to
maintain or increase current throughput, to renegotiate existing
contracts as they expire, or to remarket unsubscribed capacity
on our pipeline systems:
|
|
|
|
|
service area competition; |
|
|
|
expiration and/or turn back of significant contracts; |
|
|
|
changes in regulation and action of regulatory bodies; |
|
|
|
future weather conditions; |
|
|
|
price competition; |
|
|
|
drilling activity and availability of natural gas supplies; |
|
|
|
decreased availability of conventional gas supply sources and
the availability and timing of other gas supply sources, such as
LNG; |
|
|
|
increased availability or popularity of alternative energy
sources such as hydroelectric power; |
|
|
|
increased cost of capital; |
|
|
|
opposition to energy infrastructure development, especially in
environmentally sensitive areas; |
|
|
|
adverse general economic conditions; |
|
|
|
expiration and/or renewal of existing interests in real
property, including real property on Native American
lands, and |
|
|
|
unfavorable movements in natural gas and liquids prices. |
|
|
|
The revenues of our pipeline businesses are generated
under contracts that must be renegotiated periodically. |
Substantially all of our pipeline subsidiaries revenues
are generated under contracts which expire periodically and must
be renegotiated and extended or replaced. We cannot assure you
that we will be able to
10
extend or replace these contracts when they expire or that the
terms of any renegotiated contracts will be as favorable as the
existing contracts.
In particular, our ability to extend and/or replace contracts
could be adversely affected by factors we cannot control,
including:
|
|
|
|
|
competition by other pipelines, including the proposed
construction by other companies of additional pipeline capacity
or LNG terminals in markets served by our interstate pipelines; |
|
|
|
changes in state regulation of local distribution companies,
which may cause them to negotiate short-term contracts or turn
back their capacity when their contracts expire; |
|
|
|
reduced demand and market conditions in the areas we serve; |
|
|
|
the availability of alternative energy sources or gas supply
points; and |
|
|
|
regulatory actions. |
If we are unable to renew, extend or replace these contracts or
if we renew them on less favorable terms, we may suffer a
material reduction in our revenues, earnings and cash flows.
|
|
|
Fluctuations in energy commodity prices could adversely
affect our pipeline businesses. |
Revenues generated by our transmission, storage, and processing
contracts depend on volumes and rates, both of which can be
affected by the prices of natural gas and natural gas liquids.
Increased prices could result in a reduction of the volumes
transported by our customers, such as power companies who,
depending on the price of fuel, may not dispatch gas-fired power
plants. Increased prices could also result from industrial plant
shutdowns or load losses to competitive fuels as well as local
distribution companies loss of customer base. We also
experience earnings volatility when the amount of gas utilized
in operations differs from amounts we receive for that purpose.
The success of our transmission, storage and processing
operations is subject to continued development of additional oil
and natural gas reserves and our ability to access additional
suppliers from interconnecting pipelines to offset the natural
decline from existing wells connected to our systems. A decline
in energy prices could precipitate a decrease in these
development activities and could cause a decrease in the volume
of reserves available for transmission, storage and processing
through our systems or facilities. We retain a fixed percentage
of natural gas transported for use as fuel and to replace lost
and unaccounted for gas, and we are at risk for the difference
between the retained amount and actual gas consumed or lost and
unaccounted. Pricing volatility may also impact the value of
under or over recoveries of this retained gas. If natural gas
prices in the supply basins connected to our pipeline systems
are higher on a delivered basis to our off-system markets than
delivered prices from other natural gas producing regions, our
ability to compete with other transporters may be negatively
impacted. Fluctuations in energy prices are caused by a number
of factors, including:
|
|
|
|
|
regional, domestic and international supply and demand; |
|
|
|
availability and adequacy of transportation facilities; |
|
|
|
energy legislation; |
|
|
|
federal and state taxes, if any, on the sale or transportation
of natural gas and natural gas liquids; |
|
|
|
abundance of supplies of alternative energy sources; and |
|
|
|
political unrest among oil producing countries. |
|
|
|
Natural gas and oil prices are volatile. A substantial
decrease in natural gas and oil prices could adversely affect
the financial results of our exploration and production
business. |
Our future financial condition, revenues, results of operations,
cash flows and future rate of growth depend primarily upon the
prices we receive for our natural gas and oil production.
Natural gas and oil prices historically have been volatile and
are likely to continue to be volatile in the future, especially
given current
11
world geopolitical conditions. The prices for natural gas and
oil are subject to a variety of additional factors that are
beyond our control. These factors include:
|
|
|
|
|
the level of consumer demand for, and the supply of, natural gas
and oil; |
|
|
|
commodity processing, gathering and transportation availability; |
|
|
|
the level of imports of, and the price of, foreign natural gas
and oil; |
|
|
|
the ability of the members of the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries to agree to and maintain oil price and
production controls; |
|
|
|
domestic governmental regulations and taxes; |
|
|
|
the price and availability of alternative fuel sources; |
|
|
|
the availability of pipeline capacity; |
|
|
|
weather conditions; |
|
|
|
market uncertainty; |
|
|
|
political conditions or hostilities in natural gas and oil
producing regions; |
|
|
|
worldwide economic conditions; and |
|
|
|
decreased demand for the use of natural gas and oil because of
market concerns about global warming or changes in governmental
policies and regulations due to climate change initiatives. |
Further, because approximately 82 percent of our proved
reserves at December 31, 2004 were natural gas reserves, we
are substantially more sensitive to changes in natural gas
prices than we are to changes in oil prices. Declines in natural
gas and oil prices would not only reduce revenue, but could
reduce the amount of natural gas and oil that we can produce
economically and, as a result, could adversely affect the
financial results of our production business. Changes in natural
gas and oil prices can have a significant impact on the
calculation of our full cost ceiling test. A significant decline
in natural gas and oil prices could result in a downward
revision of our reserves and a write-down of the carrying value
of our natural gas and oil properties, which could be
substantial, and would negatively impact our net income and
stockholders equity.
|
|
|
The success of our natural gas and oil exploration and
production businesses is dependent, in part, on factors that are
beyond our control. |
In addition to prices, the performance of our natural gas and
oil exploration and production businesses is dependent, in part,
upon a number of factors that we cannot control, including:
|
|
|
|
|
the results of future drilling activity; |
|
|
|
our ability to identify and precisely locate prospective
geologic structures and to drill and successfully complete wells
in those structures in a timely manner; |
|
|
|
our ability to expand our leased land positions in desirable
areas, which often are subject to intensely competitive
conditions; |
|
|
|
increased competition in the search for and acquisition of
reserves; |
|
|
|
future drilling, production and development costs, including
drilling rig rates and oil field services costs; |
|
|
|
future tax policies, rates, and drilling or production
incentives by state, federal, or foreign governments; |
|
|
|
increased federal or state regulations, including environmental
regulations, or adverse court decisions that limit or restrict
the ability to drill natural gas or oil wells, reduce
operational flexibility, or increase capital and operating costs; |
|
|
|
decreased demand for the use of natural gas and oil because of
market concerns about global warming or changes in governmental
policies and regulations due to climate change initiatives; |
12
|
|
|
|
|
declines in production volumes, including those from the Gulf of
Mexico; and |
|
|
|
continued access to sufficient capital to fund drilling programs
to develop and replace a reserve base with rapid depletion
characteristics. |
|
|
|
Our natural gas and oil drilling and producing operations
involve many risks and may not be profitable. |
Our operations are subject to all the risks normally incident to
the operation and development of natural gas and oil properties
and the drilling of natural gas and oil wells, including well
blowouts, cratering and explosions, pipe failure, fires,
formations with abnormal pressures, uncontrollable flows of
natural gas, oil, brine or well fluids, release of contaminants
into the environment and other environmental hazards and risks.
The nature of the risks is such that some liabilities could
exceed our insurance policy limits, or, as in the case of
environmental fines and penalties, cannot be insured. As a
result, we could incur substantial costs that could adversely
affect our future results of operations, cash flows or financial
condition.
In addition, in our drilling operations we are subject to the
risk that we will not encounter commercially productive
reservoirs. New wells drilled by us may not be productive, or we
may not recover all or any portion of our investment in those
wells. Drilling for natural gas and oil can be unprofitable, not
only because of dry holes but wells that are productive may not
produce sufficient net reserves to return a profit at then
realized prices after deducting drilling, operating and other
costs.
|
|
|
Estimating our reserves, production and future net cash
flow is difficult. |
Estimating quantities of proved natural gas and oil reserves is
a complex process that involves significant interpretations and
assumptions. It requires interpretations of available technical
data and various estimates, including estimates based upon
assumptions relating to economic factors, such as future
commodity prices, production costs, severance and excise taxes,
capital expenditures and workover and remedial costs, and the
assumed effect of governmental regulation. As a result, our
reserve estimates are inherently imprecise. Also, the use of a
10 percent discount factor for estimating the value of our
reserves, as prescribed by the SEC, may not necessarily
represent the most appropriate discount factor, given actual
interest rates and risks to which our production business or the
natural gas and oil industry, in general, are subject. Any
significant variations from the interpretations or assumptions
used in our estimates or changes of conditions could cause the
estimated quantities and net present value of our reserves to
differ materially.
Our reserve data represents an estimate. You should not assume
that the present values referred to in this prospectus represent
the current market value of our estimated natural gas and oil
reserves. The timing of the production and the expenses from
development and production of natural gas and oil properties
will affect both the timing of actual future net cash flows from
our proved reserves and their present value. Changes in the
present value of these reserves could cause a write-down in the
carrying value of our natural gas and oil properties, which
could be substantial, and would negatively affect our net income
and stockholders equity.
As of December 31, 2004, approximately 29 percent of
our estimated proved reserves were undeveloped. Recovery of
undeveloped reserves requires significant capital expenditures
and successful drilling operations. The reserve data assumes
that we can and will make these expenditures and conduct these
operations successfully, but future events, including commodity
price changes, may cause these assumptions to change. In
addition, estimates of proved undeveloped reserves and proved
but non-producing reserves are subject to greater uncertainties
than estimates of proved producing reserves.
|
|
|
The success of our power activities depends, in part, on
many factors beyond our control. |
The success of our remaining domestic and international power
projects could be adversely affected by factors beyond our
control, including:
|
|
|
|
|
alternative sources and supplies of energy becoming available
due to new technologies and interest in self generation and
cogeneration; |
|
|
|
increases in the costs of generation, including increases in
fuel costs; |
13
|
|
|
|
|
uncertain regulatory conditions resulting from the ongoing
deregulation of the electric industry in the United States and
in foreign jurisdictions; |
|
|
|
our ability to negotiate successfully, and enter into
advantageous power purchase and supply agreements; |
|
|
|
the possibility of a reduction in the projected rate of growth
in electricity usage as a result of factors such as regional
economic conditions, excessive reserve margins and the
implementation of conservation programs; |
|
|
|
risks incidental to the operation and maintenance of power
generation facilities; |
|
|
|
the inability of customers to pay amounts owed under power
purchase agreements; |
|
|
|
the increasing price volatility due to deregulation and changes
in commodity trading practices; and |
|
|
|
over-capacity of generation in markets served by the power
plants we own or in which we have an interest. |
|
|
|
Our use of derivative financial instruments could result
in financial losses. |
Some of our subsidiaries use futures, swaps and option contracts
traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, over-the-counter
options and price and basis swaps with other natural gas
merchants and financial institutions. To the extent we have
positions that are not designated or qualify as hedges, changes
in commodity prices, interest rates, volatility, correlation
factors, the liquidity of the market could cause our revenues,
net income and cash requirements to be volatile.
We could incur financial losses in the future as a result of
volatility in the market values of the energy commodities we
trade, or if one of our counterparties fails to perform under a
contract. The valuation of these financial instruments involves
estimates. Changes in the assumptions underlying these estimates
can occur, changing our valuation of these instruments and
potentially resulting in financial losses. To the extent we
hedge our commodity price exposure and interest rate exposure,
we forego the benefits we would otherwise experience if
commodity prices were to increase, or interest rates were to
change. The use of derivatives also requires the posting of cash
collateral with our counterparties which can impact our working
capital (current assets and liabilities) when commodity prices
or interest rates change. For additional information concerning
our derivative financial instruments, see
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations Quantitative and
Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk on pages 69
and 97, Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements,
Note 8, on page F-16, and Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements, Note 10, on page F-73.
|
|
|
Our businesses are subject to the risk of payment defaults
by our counterparties. |
We frequently extend credit to our counterparties following the
performance of credit analysis. Despite performing this
analysis, we are exposed to the risk that we may not be able to
collect amounts owed to us. Although in many cases we have
collateral to secure the counterpartys performance, it
could be inadequate and we could suffer credit losses.
|
|
|
Our foreign operations and investments involve special
risks. |
Our activities in areas outside the United States, including
material investment exposure in our power, pipeline and
production projects in Brazil and Pakistan, are subject to the
risks inherent in foreign operations, including:
|
|
|
|
|
loss of revenue, property and equipment as a result of hazards
such as expropriation, nationalization, wars, insurrection and
other political risks; |
|
|
|
the effects of currency fluctuations and exchange controls, such
as devaluation of foreign currencies and other economic
problems; and |
|
|
|
changes in laws, regulations and policies of foreign
governments, including those associated with changes in the
governing parties. |
14
|
|
|
Retained liabilities associated with businesses that we
have sold could exceed our estimates. |
We have sold a significant number of assets over the years,
including the sale of many assets since 2001. Pursuant to
various purchase and sale agreements relating to businesses and
assets that we have divested, we have either retained certain
liabilities or indemnified certain purchasers against
liabilities that they might incur in the future. These
liabilities in many cases relate to breaches of warranties,
environmental, tax, litigation, personal injury and other
representations that we have provided. Although we believe that
we have established appropriate reserves for these liabilities,
we could be required to accrue additional reserves in the future
and these amounts could be material. In addition, as we exit
businesses, we have experienced substantial reductions and
turnover in our workforce that previously supported the
ownership and operation of such assets. There is the risk that
such reductions and turnover in our workforce could result in
errors or mistakes in managing the businesses that we are
exiting prior to closing. There is also the risk that such
reductions could result in errors or mistakes in managing the
retained liabilities after closing, including the lack of any
historical knowledge with regard to such assets and businesses
in managing the liabilities or defending any associated
litigation.
Risks Related to Legal and Regulatory Matters
|
|
|
Ongoing litigation and investigations related to our
financial statements associated with our reserve estimates and
hedges could significantly adversely affect our business. |
In 2004, we restated our historical financial statements as a
result of a downward revision of our natural gas and oil
reserves and because of the manner in which we applied the
accounting rules related to many of our historical hedges,
primarily those associated with hedges of our anticipated
natural gas production. As a result of this reduction in reserve
estimates, several class action lawsuits were filed against us
and several of our subsidiaries. The reserve revisions are also
the subject of investigations by the SEC and the
U.S. Attorney and the hedging matters are also the subject
of an investigation by the U.S. Attorney and the SEC, any
of which could result in significant fines against us. These
investigations and lawsuits, and possible future claims based on
these same facts, may further negatively impact our credit
ratings and place further demands on our liquidity. We cannot
provide assurance at this time that the effects and results of
these or other investigations or of the class action lawsuits
will not be material to our financial conditions, results of
operations and liquidity.
|
|
|
The outcome of pending governmental investigations could
be materially adverse to us. |
As described under the caption Note 10. Commitment
and Contingencies Governmental Investigations
of the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and
Note 17. Commitments and Contingencies
Governmental Investigations of the Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements, included in this prospectus, we are
subject to numerous governmental investigations including those
involving our round trip trades, price reporting of
transactional data to the energy trade press, natural gas and
oil reserve revisions, sales of crude oil of Iraqi origin under
the United Nations Oil for Food Program and the rupture of
one of our pipelines near Carlsbad, New Mexico. These
investigations involve, among others, one or more of the
following governmental agencies: the SEC, FERC, U.S. Attorney,
grand jury of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee of
Investigations, House of Representatives International Relations
Subcommittee, U.S. Department of Transportation Office of
Pipeline Safety, National Transportation Safety Board and the
Department of Justice. We are cooperating with the governmental
agency or agencies in each of these investigations. The outcome
of each of these investigations is uncertain. Because of the
uncertainties associated with the ultimate outcome of each of
these investigations and the costs to the Company of responding
and participating in these on-going investigations, no assurance
can be given that the ultimate costs to, and sanction(s), if
any, that may be imposed upon, us will not have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results
of operation.
|
|
|
The agencies that regulate our pipeline businesses and
their customers affect our profitability. |
Our pipeline businesses are regulated by the FERC, the
U.S. Department of Transportation, and various state and
local regulatory agencies. Regulatory actions taken by those
agencies have the potential to adversely affect our
profitability. In particular, the FERC regulates the rates our
pipelines are permitted to charge their customers for their
services. In setting authorized rates of return in a few recent
FERC decisions, the FERC has utilized a proxy group of companies
that includes local distribution companies that are not faced
with as
15
much competition or risks as interstate pipelines. The inclusion
of these companies creates downward pressure on approved tariff
rates. If our pipelines tariff rates were reduced in a
future proceeding, if our pipelines volume of business
under their currently permitted rates was decreased
significantly, or if our pipelines were required to
substantially discount the rates for their services because of
competition or because of regulatory pressure, the profitability
of our pipeline businesses could be reduced.
In addition, increased regulatory requirements relating to the
integrity of our pipelines requires additional spending in order
to maintain compliance with these requirements. Any additional
requirements that are enacted could significantly increase the
amount of these expenditures.
Further, state agencies that regulate our pipelines local
distribution company customers could impose requirements that
could impact demand for our pipelines services.
|
|
|
Costs of environmental liabilities, regulations and
litigation could exceed our estimates. |
Our operations are subject to various environmental laws and
regulations. These laws and regulations obligate us to install
and maintain pollution controls and to clean up various sites at
which regulated materials may have been disposed of or released.
Some of these sites have been designated as Superfund sites by
the EPA under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act. We are also party to legal
proceedings involving environmental matters pending in various
courts and agencies, including matters relating to methyl
tertiary-butyl ether found in water supplies and the clean up
of, or exposure to, hazardous substances.
Compliance with environmental laws and regulations can require
significant costs, such as costs of installing and maintaining
pollution controls and clean-up and damages, including natural
resources damages, arising out of contaminated properties, and
the failure to comply with environmental laws and regulations
may result in fines and penalties being imposed. It is not
possible for us to estimate reliably the amount and timing of
all future expenditures related to environmental matters because
of:
|
|
|
|
|
the uncertainties in estimating pollution control and clean up
costs; |
|
|
|
the discovery of new sites or information; |
|
|
|
the uncertainty in quantifying liability under environmental
laws that impose joint and several liability on all potentially
responsible parties; |
|
|
|
the nature of environmental laws and regulations; and |
|
|
|
potential changes in environmental laws and regulations,
including changes in the interpretation and enforcement thereof. |
Although we believe we have established appropriate reserves for
liabilities, including clean up costs, we could be required to
set aside additional reserves in the future due to these
uncertainties, and these amounts could be material. For
additional information concerning our environmental matters, see
Business Legal Proceedings, on
page 123, Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements, Note 10, on page F-19, and Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 17, on
page F-89.
|
|
|
Costs of litigation matters and other contingencies could
exceed our estimates. |
We are involved in various lawsuits in which we or our
subsidiaries have been sued. We also have other contingent
liabilities and exposures. Although we believe we have
established appropriate reserves for these liabilities, we could
be required to set aside additional reserves in the future and
these amounts could be material. For additional information
concerning our litigation matters and other contingent
liabilities, see Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements, Note 10, on page F-19, and Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 17, on
page F-89.
16
|
|
|
Our system of internal controls ensures the accuracy or
completeness of our disclosures and a loss of public confidence
in the quality of our internal controls or disclosures could
have a negative impact on us. |
Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOA),
requires us to provide an annual report on our internal controls
over financial reporting, including an assessment as to whether
or not our internal controls over financial reporting are
effective. We are also required to have our auditors attest to
our assessment and to opine on the effectiveness of our internal
controls over financial reporting. Based upon such review, we
concluded that as of December 31, 2004 we did not maintain
effective internal control over financial reporting. As more
fully described on pages F-118 through F-120, we identified
several deficiencies in internal control over financial
reporting that management concluded constituted material
weaknesses at December 31, 2004. In addition, we reported
restatements of our financial statements on April 8, 2005
and June 16, 2005 as a result of the material weaknesses
that existed at December 31, 2004. Since December 31,
2004, we have made various changes in our internal controls, as
described in Controls and Procedures on pages F-37 to F-38,
which we believe remediate the material weaknesses previously
identified by the company. We are in the process of testing
these changes. If, upon completing the testing and evaluation of
our remediated internal controls as required by Section 404
of the SOA, we determine that our remediation has been
ineffective, or we identify additional deficiencies in our
internal controls over financial reporting, we could be
subjected to additional regulatory scrutiny, future delays in
filing our financial statements and a loss of public confidence
in the reliability of our financial statements, which could have
a negative impact on our liquidity, access to capital markets,
financial condition and the market value of our common stock.
In addition, we do not expect that our disclosure controls and
procedures or our internal controls over financial reporting
will prevent all mistakes, errors and fraud. Any system of
internal controls, no matter how well designed or implemented,
can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the
objectives of the control system are met. The design of a
control system must reflect the fact that the benefits of
controls must be considered relative to their costs. The design
of any system of controls also is based in part upon certain
assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can
be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its
stated goals under all potential future conditions. Therefore,
any system of internal controls is subject to inherent
limitations, including the possibility that controls may be
circumvented or overridden, that judgments in decision-making
can be faulty, and that misstatements due to mistakes, errors or
fraud may occur and may not be detected. Also, while we document
our assumptions and review financial disclosures with the Audit
Committee of our Board of Directors, the regulations and
literature governing our disclosures are complex and reasonable
persons may disagree as to their application to a particular
situation or set of facts.
Risks Related to Our Liquidity
|
|
|
We have significant debt and below investment grade credit
ratings, which have impacted and will continue to impact our
financial condition, results of operations and liquidity. |
We have significant debt and significant debt service and debt
maturity obligations. The ratings assigned to our senior
unsecured indebtedness are below investment grade, currently
rated Caa1 by Moodys Investor Service (Moodys) and
B- by Standard & Poors. These ratings have
increased our cost of capital and our operating costs,
particularly in our trading operations, and could impede our
access to capital markets. Moreover, we must retain greater
liquidity levels to operate our business than if we had
investment grade credit ratings. Our debt maturities as of
December 31, 2004 for 2005, 2006 and 2007 are
$948 million, $1,155 million and $835 million,
respectively. If our ability to generate or access capital
becomes significantly restrained, our financial condition and
future results of operations could be significantly adversely
affected. See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements, Note 9, on page F-17 and Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 15, on
page F-81, for further discussions of our debt.
|
|
|
We may not achieve all of the objectives set forth in our
Long-Range Plan in a timely manner or at all. |
Our ability to achieve the objectives of our Long-Range Plan, as
well as the timing of their achievement, if at all, is subject,
in part, to factors beyond our control. These factors include
(1) our ability to raise cash
17
from asset sales, which may be impacted by our ability to locate
potential buyers in a timely fashion and obtain a reasonable
price, (2) our ability to manage our working capital,
(3) our ability to generate additional cash by improving
the performance of our pipeline and production operations,
(4) our ability to exit the power and trading businesses in
the manner and within the time period we expect, (5) our
ability to significantly reduce debt, and (6) our ability
to preserve sufficient cash flow to service our debt and other
obligations. If we fail to achieve in a timely manner the
targets of our Long-Range Plan, our liquidity or financial
position could be materially adversely affected. In addition, it
is possible that any of the asset sales contemplated by our
Long-Range Plan could be at prices that are below our current
book value for the assets, which could result in losses that
could be substantial.
|
|
|
A breach of the covenants applicable to our debt and other
financing obligations could affect our ability to borrow funds
and could accelerate our debt and other financing obligations
and those of our subsidiaries. |
Our debt and other financing obligations contain restrictive
covenants and cross-acceleration provisions, which become more
restrictive over time. A breach of any of these covenants could
preclude us or our subsidiaries from issuing letters of credit
and from borrowing under our $3 billion credit agreement,
and could accelerate our long-term debt and other financing
obligations and those of our subsidiaries. If this were to
occur, we may not be able to repay such debt and other financing
obligations upon such acceleration.
Our $3 billion credit agreement is collateralized by our
equity interests in Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, ANR Pipeline
Company, El Paso Natural Gas Company, Colorado Interstate
Gas Company, Wyoming Interstate Company Ltd., Southern Gas
Storage Company and ANR Storage Company. A breach of the
covenants under the $3 billion agreement could permit the
lender to exercise their rights to the collateral, and we could
be required to liquidate these interests.
|
|
|
Our ability to access capital markets is limited to
private placements or filing new registration statements as a
result of the restatement of our historical financial
results. |
In 2004, we restated our historical financial statements as a
result of a downward revision of our natural gas and oil
reserves and because of the manner in which we applied the
accounting rules related to our hedges of our natural gas
production and certain other derivatives. As a result of the
time required to complete these revisions, our 2003
Form 10-K and our 2004 Forms 10-Q were not filed in a
timely manner. As a result, until February 2006, our ability to
access approximately $926 million of capacity under our
existing shelf registration statement without filing additional
disclosure information with the SEC is restricted. The
additional disclosure requirements, and any related review by
the SEC, could be expensive and impede our ability to access
capital in a timely fashion. If our ability to access capital
becomes significantly restrained, our financial condition and
future results of operations could be significantly adversely
affected.
|
|
|
We are subject to financing and interest rate exposure
risks. |
Our future success depends on our ability to access capital
markets and obtain financing at cost effective rates. Our
ability to access financial markets and obtain cost-effective
rates in the future are dependent on a number of factors, many
of which we cannot control, including changes in:
|
|
|
|
|
our credit ratings; |
|
|
|
interest rates; |
|
|
|
the structured and commercial financial markets; |
|
|
|
market perceptions of us or the natural gas and energy industry; |
|
|
|
changes in tax rates due to new tax laws; |
|
|
|
our stock price; and |
|
|
|
changes in market prices for energy. |
18
USE OF PROCEEDS
All of the shares of preferred stock and common stock offered
hereby are being sold by the selling stockholders. We will not
receive any proceeds from the sale of preferred stock by selling
stockholders pursuant to this prospectus or shares of common
stock issuable upon conversion thereof.
19
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The following historical selected financial data excludes
certain of our international natural gas and oil production
operations and our petroleum markets and coal mining businesses,
which are presented as discontinued operations in our financial
statements for all periods. The selected financial data below
should be read together with Managements Discussion
and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations beginning on page 22 of this prospectus
and Financial Statements beginning on page F-1 of this
prospectus. These selected historical results are not
necessarily indicative of results to be expected in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of or for the | |
|
|
As of or for the Year Ended December 31, | |
|
Six Months | |
|
|
| |
|
Ended June 30, | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
(Restated)(3) | |
|
(Restated)(1)(2)(3) | |
|
(Restated)(1) | |
|
2001 | |
|
2000(4) | |
|
2005(5) | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited) | |
|
|
(In millions, except per common share amounts) | |
Operating Results Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
5,874 |
|
|
$ |
6,668 |
|
|
$ |
6,881 |
|
|
$ |
10,186 |
|
|
$ |
6,179 |
|
|
$ |
2,366 |
|
|
$ |
3,081 |
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations available to common
stockholders(6)
|
|
$ |
(833 |
) |
|
$ |
(595 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,242 |
) |
|
$ |
(223 |
) |
|
$ |
481 |
|
|
$ |
(140 |
) |
|
$ |
(191 |
) |
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(947 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,883 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,875 |
) |
|
$ |
(447 |
) |
|
$ |
665 |
|
|
$ |
(132 |
) |
|
$ |
(191 |
) |
|
Basic income (loss) per common share from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(1.30 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.99 |
) |
|
$ |
(2.22 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.44 |
) |
|
$ |
0.98 |
|
|
$ |
0.22 |
|
|
$ |
(0.30 |
) |
|
Diluted income (loss) per common share from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(1.30 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.99 |
) |
|
$ |
(2.22 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.44 |
) |
|
$ |
0.95 |
|
|
$ |
(0.22 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.30 |
) |
|
Cash dividends declared per common
share(7)
|
|
$ |
0.16 |
|
|
$ |
0.16 |
|
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
$ |
0.85 |
|
|
$ |
0.82 |
|
|
$ |
0.08 |
|
|
$ |
0.08 |
|
|
Basic average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
639 |
|
|
|
597 |
|
|
|
560 |
|
|
|
505 |
|
|
|
494 |
|
|
|
640 |
|
|
|
639 |
|
|
Diluted average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
639 |
|
|
|
597 |
|
|
|
560 |
|
|
|
505 |
|
|
|
506 |
|
|
|
640 |
|
|
|
639 |
|
Financial Position Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
assets(8)
|
|
$ |
31,383 |
|
|
$ |
36,943 |
|
|
$ |
41,923 |
|
|
$ |
44,271 |
|
|
$ |
43,992 |
|
|
$ |
29,676 |
|
|
$ |
31,383 |
|
|
Long-term financing obligations
(9)
|
|
|
18,241 |
|
|
|
20,275 |
|
|
|
16,106 |
|
|
|
12,840 |
|
|
|
11,206 |
|
|
|
16,379 |
|
|
|
18,241 |
|
|
Securities of
subsidiaries(9)
|
|
|
367 |
|
|
|
447 |
|
|
|
3,420 |
|
|
|
4,013 |
|
|
|
3,707 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
367 |
|
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
|
3,438 |
|
|
|
4,346 |
|
|
|
5,749 |
|
|
|
6,666 |
|
|
|
6,145 |
|
|
|
3,800 |
|
|
|
3,438 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
During the completion of the financial statements for the year
ended December 31, 2004, we identified an error in the
manner in which we had originally adopted the provisions of SFAS
No. 141, Business Combinations, and SFAS
No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, in
2002. Upon adoption of these standards, we incorrectly adjusted
the cost of investments in unconsolidated affiliates and the
cumulative effect of change in accounting principle for the
excess of our share of the affiliates fair value of the net
assets over their original cost, which we believed was negative
goodwill. The amount originally recorded as a cumulative effect
of accounting change was $154 million and related to our
investments in Citrus Corporation, Portland Natural Gas, several
Australian investments and an investment in the Korea
Independent Energy Corporation. We subsequently determined that
the amounts we adjusted were not negative goodwill, but rather
amounts that should have been allocated to the long-lived assets
underlying our investments. As a result, we were required to
restate our 2002 financial statements to reverse the amount we
recorded as a cumulative effect of an accounting change on
January 1, 2002. This adjustment also impacted a deferred
tax adjustment and an unrealized loss we recorded on our
Australian investments during 2002, requiring a further
restatement of that year. The restatements also affected the
investment, deferred tax liability and stockholders equity
balances we reported as of December 31, 2002 and 2003.
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 1, on
page F-46, for a further discussion of the restatements. |
20
|
|
|
(2) |
|
After filing our 2004 Form 10-K, we determined that in our
discontinued Canadian exploration and production operations, we
had previously recorded deferred tax benefits of
$82 million in 2003 in continuing operations that we have
now properly reflected in discontinued operations. |
|
(3) |
|
After filing our amended 2004 Form 10-K, we identified
errors related to the accounting and reporting of foreign
currency translation adjustments (CTA) on several of our foreign
operations. In addition, we determined that upon initially
recognizing U.S. deferred income taxes on our investment in
certain foreign operations, we did not properly allocate taxes
to CTA. These errors resulted in us having to record additional
income tax benefits in 2003 in our continuing operations of
$10 million and in our discontinued operations of
$35 million. In 2004, we determined that we should have
recorded a reduction in our loss from discontinued operations of
$32 million and an increase in our loss from continuing
operations of $31 million, related to CTA balances and
related tax adjustments. As a result of these errors, we
restated our 2003 and 2004 financial statements, related
quarterly information, and interim period financial statements.
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 1, on
pages F-46 and F-8 for a further discussion of the restatements. |
|
(4) |
|
These amounts are derived from unaudited financial statements.
Such amounts were restated in 2003 for the accounting impact of
adjustments to our historical reserve estimates. |
|
(5) |
|
During the second quarter of 2005, we discontinued our south
Louisiana gathering and processing operations, which were part
of our Field Services segment. Our operating results for the
quarter and six months ended June 30, 2005 reflect these
operations as discontinued. Prior period amounts have not been
adjusted as these operations were not material to prior period
results or historical trends. |
|
(6) |
|
We incurred losses of $1.1 billion in 2004,
$1.2 billion in 2003 and $0.9 billion in 2002 related
to impairments of assets and equity investments as well as
restructuring charges related to industry changes and the
related realignment of our businesses in response to those
changes. In 2003, we also entered into an agreement in principle
to settle claims associated with the western energy crisis of
2000 and 2001. This settlement resulted in charges of
$104 million in 2003 and $899 million in 2002, both
before income taxes. In addition, we incurred ceiling test
charges of $5 million, $5 million and
$1,895 million in 2003, 2002 and 2001 on our full cost
natural gas and oil properties. During 2001, we merged with The
Coastal Corporation and incurred costs and asset impairments
related to this merger that totaled approximately
$1.5 billion. We recognized net losses of $349 million
and $297 million for the six months ended June 30,
2005 and June 30, 2004, related to sales and impairments of
long-lived assets and equity investments. For further
discussions of events affecting comparability of our results in
2004, 2003 and 2002, see Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements, Notes 2 through 5, on pages F-58 to F-68. |
|
(7) |
|
Cash dividends declared per share of common stock represent the
historical dividends declared by El Paso for all periods
presented. |
|
(8) |
|
Decreases in 2002, 2003, 2004 and the first quarter of 2005,
were a result of asset sales activities during these periods.
See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements,
Note 3, on page F-11, and Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements, Note 3, on page F-62. |
|
(9) |
|
The increases in total long-term financing obligations in 2002
and 2003 was a result of the consolidations of our Chaparral and
Gemstone power investments, the restructuring of other financing
transactions, and the reclassification of securities of
subsidiaries as a result of our adoption of
SFAS No. 150, Accounting for Certain Financial
Instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity,
during 2003. |
21
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL
CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Our Managements Discussion and Analysis includes
forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and
uncertainties. Actual results may differ substantially from the
statements we make in this section due to a number of factors
that are discussed beginning on page 7. Certain historical
financial information in this section has been restated, as
further described in Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements, Note 1, on page F-8, and Notes to Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 1, on
page F-46.
The following discussion is intended to provide investors with
an understanding of our financial condition and results of our
operations for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and
2002, as well as the six month periods ended June 30, 2005
and 2004, and should be read in conjunction with our historical
consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. In mid
2004, we discontinued our Canadian and certain other
international natural gas and oil production operations. Our
results for all periods reflect these operations as discontinued.
Years Ended
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
Overview
Our business purpose is to provide natural gas and related
energy products in a safe, efficient and dependable manner. We
own North Americas largest natural gas pipeline system and
are a large independent natural gas producer. We also own and
operate an energy marketing and trading business, a power
business, midstream assets and investments, and have an
investment in a small telecommunications business. Our power
business primarily consists of international assets.
Since the end of 2001, our business activities have largely been
focused on maintaining our core businesses of pipelines and
production, while attempting to liquidate or otherwise divest of
those businesses and operations that were not core to our
long-term objectives, or that were not performing consistently
with the expectations we had for them at the time we made the
investment. Our overall objective during this period has been to
reduce debt and improve liquidity, while at the same time invest
in our core business activities. Our actions during this period
have significantly impacted our financial condition, with the
sale of almost $10 billion of operating assets. These
actions have also resulted in significant financial losses
through asset impairments, realized losses on asset sales and
reduction of income from the businesses sold.
We believe that 2004 was a watershed year for us. We were able
to meet and exceed a number of the goals established under our
2003 Long Range Plan. As part of our efforts in 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
We focused capital investment on our core pipeline and
production businesses, where in 2002, 2003 and 2004, we spent
87 percent, 91 percent, and 97 percent of our
total capital dollars; |
|
|
|
We completed the sale of a number of assets and investments
including international production properties, a substantial
portion of our general and limited partnership interests in
GulfTerra, a significant portion of our worldwide petroleum
markets operations, a significant portion of our domestic power
generation operations and our merchant LNG business. Total
proceeds from these sales were approximately $3.3 billion; |
|
|
|
We reduced our net debt (debt, net of cash) by $3.4 billion
in 2004, lowering our net debt to $17.1 billion as of
December 31, 2004; and |
|
|
|
We continued our cost-reduction efforts with a goal of achieving
$150 million of savings by the end of 2006. |
As noted above, in 2004, we focused on expanding our pipeline
operations and beginning the turnaround of our production
business. During the year, we completed major expansions in our
pipeline operations, including our Cheyenne Plains project to
provide transmission outlets for natural gas supply in the Rocky
Mountains, and we are moving forward on our Cypress project to
fulfill demand for natural gas in the southeastern United
22
States, primarily Florida. Additionally, we continue to work in
recontracting capacity on our systems and have been successful
to date in these efforts. In our production operations, we
instituted a new, more rigorous, risk analysis process which
emphasizes strict capital discipline. Over the second half of
2004, this process resulted in a shifting of capital to areas
with higher returns, improved drilling results and helped us to
begin the stabilization of our domestic production. In addition,
we have recently made several strategic acquisitions of
production properties in Texas. In 2005, we will continue to
work to achieve our long-range goals by:
|
|
|
|
|
Simplifying our capital structure; |
|
|
|
Continuing to focus on expansions in our core pipeline business
and completing the turnaround of our production business; |
|
|
|
Selling additional assets that we expect will generate proceeds
from $1.8 billion to $2.2 billion; |
|
|
|
Reducing outstanding debt (net of cash) to $15 billion by
the end of 2005; and |
|
|
|
Continuing to reduce costs to achieve the cost savings outlined
in our plan. |
Capital Resources and Liquidity
We rely on cash generated from our internal operations as our
primary source of liquidity, as well as available credit
facilities, project and bank financings, proceeds from asset
sales and the issuance of long-term debt, preferred securities
and equity securities. From time to time, we have also used
structured financing transactions that are sometimes referred to
as off-balance sheet arrangements. We expect that our future
funding for working capital needs, capital expenditures,
long-term debt repayments, dividends and other financing
activities will continue to be provided from some or all of
these sources, although we do not expect to use off-balance
sheet arrangements to the same degree in the future. Each of our
existing and projected sources of cash are impacted by
operational and financial risks that influence the overall
amount of cash generated and the capital available to us. For
example, cash generated by our business operations may be
impacted by, among other things, changes in commodity prices,
demands for our commodities or services, success in
recontracting existing contracts, drilling success and
competition from other providers or alternative energy sources.
Collateral demands or recovery of cash posted as collateral are
impacted by natural gas prices, hedging levels and the credit
quality of us and our counterparties. Cash generated by future
asset sales may depend on the condition and location of the
assets and the number of interested buyers. In addition, our
future liquidity will be impacted by our ability to access
capital markets which may be restricted due to our credit
ratings, general market conditions, and by limitations on our
ability to access our existing shelf registration statement as
further discussed in Note 15 to our Consolidated Financial
Statements, on page F-81. For a further discussion of risks
that can impact our liquidity, see Risk Factors
beginning on page 7.
Our subsidiaries are a significant potential source of liquidity
to us and they participate in our cash management program to the
extent they are permitted under their financing agreements and
indentures. Under the cash management program, depending on
whether a participating subsidiary has short-term cash surpluses
or requirements, we either provide cash to them or they provide
cash to us.
During 2004, we took additional steps to reduce our overall debt
obligations. These actions included entering into a new
$3 billion credit agreement and selling entities with
substantial debt obligations as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt obligations as of December 31, 2003
|
|
$ |
21,732 |
|
Principal amounts
borrowed(1)
|
|
|
1,513 |
|
Repayment of
principal(2)
|
|
|
(3,370 |
) |
Sale of
entities(3)
|
|
|
(887 |
) |
Other
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt as of December 31, 2004
|
|
$ |
19,196 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes proceeds from a $1.25 billion term loan under our
new $3 billion credit agreement. |
|
(2) |
Includes $850 million of repayments under our previous
$3 billion revolving credit facility. |
|
(3) |
Consists of $815 million of debt related to Utility
Contract Funding and $72 million of debt related to Mohawk
River Funding IV. |
23
For a further discussion of our long-term debt, other financing
obligations and other credit facilities, see Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 15, on
page F-81.
As of December 31, 2004, we had available liquidity as
follows (in billions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available cash
|
|
$ |
1.8 |
|
Available capacity under our $3 billion credit agreement
|
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net available liquidity at December 31, 2004
|
|
$ |
2.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to our available liquidity, we expect to generate
significant operating cash flow in 2005. We will supplement this
operating cash flow with proceeds from asset sales, which we
expect will range from $1.8 billion to $2.2 billion
over the next 12 to 24 months (of which $0.7 billion
has already closed through March 25, 2005). We will
also utilize proceeds from our financing activities as needed.
In March 2005, we completed a $200 million financing at
CIG. The proceeds will be used to refinance $180 million of
bonds at CIG that will mature in June 2005 and for other general
purposes.
In 2005 we expect to spend between $1.6 billion and
$1.7 billion on capital investments mainly in our core
pipeline and production businesses. We have also spent
approximately $0.3 billion on acquisitions in our natural
gas and oil operations through March 25, 2005, and may make
additional acquisitions during 2005. As of
December 31, 2004, our contractual debt maturities for
2005 and 2006 were approximately $0.6 billion and
$1.3 billion. Additionally, we had approximately
$0.8 billion of zero-coupon debentures that have a stated
maturity of 2021, but contain an option whereby the holders can
require us to redeem the obligations in February 2006. We
currently expect the holders to exercise this right, which
combined with our contractual maturities could require us to
retire up to $2.1 billion of debt in 2006. Through
March 25, 2005 we have prepaid approximately
$0.7 billion of our Euro denominated debt originally
scheduled to mature in March 2006 and $0.2 billion of our
zero-coupon debentures. As a result of these prepayments, we
have reduced our 2006 expected maturities to approximately
$1.2 billion which will give us greater financial
flexibility next year.
Finally, in 2005 we may also prepay a number of other
obligations including derivative positions in our marketing and
trading operations and possibly amounts outstanding for the
Western Energy Settlement, among other items. These prepayments
could total approximately $1.1 billion. Of this amount, we
have already prepaid approximately $240 million of
obligations through the transfer of derivative contracts to
Constellation Power in March 2005, in connection with the
sale of Cedar Brakes I and II.
Our net available liquidity includes our $3 billion credit
agreement. As of December 31, 2004, we had borrowed
$1.25 billion as a term loan and issued approximately
$1.2 billion of letters of credit under this agreement. The
availability of borrowings under this credit agreement and our
ability to incur additional debt is subject to various
conditions as further described in Note 15 to our
Consolidated Financial Statements, which we currently meet.
These conditions include compliance with the financial covenants
and ratios required by those agreements, absence of default
under the agreements, and continued accuracy of the
representations and warranties contained in the agreements. The
financial coverage ratios under our $3 billion credit
agreement change over time. However, these covenants currently
require our Debt to Consolidated EBITDA not to exceed 6.5 to 1
and our ratio of Consolidated EBITDA to interest expense and
dividends to be equal to or greater than 1.6 to 1, each as
defined in the credit agreement. As of
December 31, 2004, our ratio of Debt to Consolidated
EBITDA was 4.88 to 1 and our ratio of Consolidated EBITDA to
interest expense and dividends was 1.91 to 1.
24
Our $3 billion credit agreement is collateralized by our
equity interests in TGP, EPNG, ANR, CIG, WIC, Southern Gas
Storage Company, and ANR Storage Company. Based upon a review of
the covenants contained in our indentures and our other
financing obligations, acceleration of the outstanding amounts
under the credit agreement could constitute an event of default
under some of our other debt agreements. If there was an event
of default and the lenders under the credit agreement were to
exercise their rights to the collateral, we could be required to
liquidate our interests in these entities that collateralize the
credit agreement. Additionally, we would be unable to obtain
cash from our pipeline subsidiaries through our cash management
program in an event of default under some of our
subsidiaries indentures. Finally, three of our
subsidiaries have indentures associated with their public debt
that contain $5 million cross-acceleration provisions.
We believe we will be able to meet our ongoing liquidity and
cash needs through the combination of available cash and
borrowings under our $3 billion credit agreement. We also
believe that the actions we have taken to date will allow us
greater financial flexibility for the remainder of 2005 and into
2006 than we had in 2004. However, a number of factors could
influence our liquidity sources, as well as the timing and
ultimate outcome of our ongoing efforts and plans. These factors
are discussed in detail beginning on page 17.
25
Overview of Cash Flow Activities for 2004 Compared to 2003
For the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, our cash
flows are summarized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In billions) | |
Cash inflows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss before discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
(0.8 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.6 |
) |
|
|
Non-cash income adjustments
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
1.8 |
|
|
|
Payment on Western Energy Settlement
|
|
|
(0.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in assets and liabilities
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net proceeds from the sale of assets and investments
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
|
2.5 |
|
|
|
Net proceeds from restricted cash
|
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.6 |
|
|
|
2.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt
|
|
|
1.3 |
|
|
|
3.6 |
|
|
|
Borrowings under long-term credit facility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
Proceeds from the issuance of common stock
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
Net discontinued operations activity
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
4.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash inflows
|
|
$ |
6.1 |
|
|
$ |
9.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash outflows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to property, plant, and equipment
|
|
$ |
1.8 |
|
|
$ |
2.4 |
|
|
|
Net cash paid to acquire Chaparral and Gemstone
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
Net payments of restricted cash
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8 |
|
|
|
4.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments to retire long-term debt and redeem preferred interests
|
|
|
2.5 |
|
|
|
4.1 |
|
|
|
Payments of revolving credit facilities
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
|
Dividends paid to common stockholders
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.6 |
|
|
|
5.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash outflows
|
|
|
5.4 |
|
|
|
9.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash
|
|
$ |
0.7 |
|
|
$ |
(0.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26
Cash From Continuing Operating Activities
Overall, cash generated from continuing operating activities
decreased by $1.2 billion largely due to a payment of
$0.6 billion related to the principal litigation under the
Western Energy Settlement in 2004 and higher cash recovered from
margin deposits in 2003. We recovered $0.7 billion of cash
in 2003 from our margin deposits by substituting letters of
credit for cash on deposit as compared to $0.1 billion
recovered in 2004.
Cash From Continuing Investing Activities
For the year ended December 31, 2004, net cash provided by
our continuing investing activities was $0.8 billion.
During the year, we received net proceeds of approximately
$0.9 billion from sales of our domestic power assets as
well as $1.0 billion from the sales of our general and
limited partnership interests in GulfTerra and various other
Field Services assets. We also released restricted cash of
$0.6 billion out of escrow, which was paid to the settling
parties to the Western Energy Settlement as discussed above.
Our 2004 capital expenditures included the following (in
billions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production exploration, development and acquisition expenditures
|
|
$ |
0.7 |
|
Pipeline expansion, maintenance and integrity projects
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
Other (primarily power projects)
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital expenditures and net additions to equity
investments
|
|
$ |
1.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
In 2005, we expect our total capital expenditures, including
acquisitions, to be approximately $1.9 billion, divided
approximately equally between our Production and Pipelines
segments. In 2004, our Production segment received funds of
approximately $110 million from third parties under net
profits interest agreements. In March 2005, we purchased all of
the interests held by one of the parties to these agreements for
$62 million. See Supplemental Financial Information, under
the heading Supplemental Natural Gas and Oil Operations
(Unaudited) beginning on page F-126, for a further
discussion of these agreements.
In September 2004, we incurred significant damage to sections of
our offshore pipeline facilities due to Hurricane Ivan. Cost
estimates are currently in the $80 million to
$95 million range with damage assessment still in progress.
We expect insurance reimbursement with the exception of a
$2 million deductible for this event; however the timing of
such reimbursements may occur later than the capital
expenditures on the damaged facilities which may increase our
net capital expenditures for 2005.
In January 2005, we sold our remaining interests in Enterprise
and its general partner for $425 million. We also sold our
membership interest in two subsidiaries that own and operate
natural gas gathering systems and the Indian Springs processing
facility to Enterprise for $75 million. During 2005, we
will continue to divest, where appropriate, our non-core assets
based on our long-term business strategy, including additional
power assets in Asia and other countries (see
Business, on page 98, and Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements, Note 3, on page F-62, for a further
discussion of these divestitures and the asset divestitures of
our discontinued operations). The timing and extent of these
additional sales will be based on the level of market interest
and based upon obtaining the necessary approvals.
Cash From Continuing Financing Activities
Net cash used in our continuing financing activities was
$1.2 billion for the year ended
December 31, 2004. During 2004, our significant
financing cash inflows included $1.25 billion borrowed as a
term loan under our new $3 billion credit agreement. We
also had $1.0 billion of cash contributed by our
discontinued operations. Of the amount contributed by our
discontinued operations, $0.2 billion was generated from
operations, $1.2 billion was received as proceeds from the
sales of our Eagle Point and Aruba refineries and our
international production operations, primarily in western
Canada, and $0.4 billion was used to repay long-term debt
related to the Aruba refinery.
27
Our significant financing cash outflows included net repayments
of $0.9 billion on our previous $3 billion revolving
credit facilities during 2004, prior to entering into our new
$3 billion credit agreement. We also made $2.5 billion
of payments to retire third party long-term debt and redeem
preferred interests as we continued in our efforts to reduce our
overall debt obligations under our Long-Range Plan. See Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 15, on
page F-81, for further detail of our financing activities.
Contractual Obligations and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
In the course of our business activities, we enter into a
variety of financing arrangements and contractual obligations.
The following discusses those contingent obligations, often
referred to as off-balance sheet arrangements. We also present
aggregated information on our contractual cash obligations, some
of which are reflected in our financial statements, such as
short-term and long-term debt and other accrued liabilities;
other obligations, such as operating leases; and capital
commitments are not reflected in our financial statements.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Related Liabilities
We are involved in various joint ventures and other ownership
arrangements that sometimes require additional financial support
in the form of financial and performance guarantees. In a
financial guarantee, we are obligated to make payments if the
guaranteed party fails to make payments under, or violates the
terms of, the financial arrangement. In a performance guarantee,
we provide assurance that the guaranteed party will execute on
the terms of the contract. If they do not, we are required to
perform on their behalf. For example, if the guaranteed party is
required to deliver natural gas to a third party and then fails
to do so, we would be required to either deliver that natural
gas or make payments to the third party equal to the difference
between the contract price and the market value of the natural
gas. We also periodically provide indemnification arrangements
related to assets or businesses we have sold. These arrangements
include indemnifications for income taxes, the resolution of
existing disputes, environmental matters, and necessary
expenditures to ensure the safety and integrity of the assets
sold.
We evaluate our guarantees and indemnity arrangements at the
time they are entered into and in each period thereafter to
determine whether a liability exists and, if so, if it can be
estimated. We record accruals when both these criteria are met.
As of December 31, 2004, we had accrued $70 million
related to these arrangements. As of December 31, 2004, we
also had approximately $40 million of financial and
performance guarantees and indemnification arrangements not
otherwise reflected in our financial statements.
28
Contractual Obligations
The following table summarizes our contractual obligations as of
December 31, 2004, for each of the years presented (all
amounts are undiscounted):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
2007 | |
|
2008 | |
|
2009 | |
|
Thereafter | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Long-term financing
obligations:(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principal
|
|
$ |
948 |
|
|
$ |
1,155 |
|
|
$ |
835 |
|
|
$ |
733 |
|
|
$ |
2,637 |
|
|
$ |
13,031 |
|
|
$ |
19,339 |
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
1,356 |
|
|
|
1,330 |
|
|
|
1,257 |
|
|
|
1,191 |
|
|
|
1,127 |
|
|
|
11,762 |
|
|
|
18,023 |
|
Western Energy
Settlement(2)
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
634 |
|
|
|
854 |
|
Other contractual
liabilities(3)
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
160 |
|
Operating
leases(4)
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
442 |
|
Other contractual commitments and purchase
obligations:(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tolling, transportation and
storage(6)
|
|
|
178 |
|
|
|
144 |
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
127 |
|
|
|
122 |
|
|
|
779 |
|
|
|
1,481 |
|
|
Commodity
purchases(7)
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
149 |
|
|
Other(8)
|
|
|
151 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
224 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total contractual obligations
|
|
$ |
2,817 |
|
|
$ |
2,850 |
|
|
$ |
2,383 |
|
|
$ |
2,192 |
|
|
$ |
3,990 |
|
|
$ |
26,440 |
|
|
$ |
40,672 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 15, on
page F-81. |
|
(2) |
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 17, on
page F-89. |
|
(3) |
Includes contractual, environmental and other obligations
included in other noncurrent liabilities in our balance sheet.
Excludes expected contributions to our pension and other
postretirement benefit plans of $68 million in 2005 and
$209 million for the four year period ended
December 31, 2009, because these expected contributions are
not contractually required. |
|
(4) |
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 17, on
page F-89. |
|
(5) |
Other contractual commitments and purchase obligations are
defined as legally enforceable agreements to purchase goods or
services that have fixed or minimum quantities and fixed or
minimum variable price provisions, and that detail approximate
timing of the underlying obligations. |
|
(6) |
These are commitments for demand charges on our tolling
arrangements and for firm access to natural gas transportation
and storage capacity. |
|
(7) |
Includes purchase commitments for natural gas and power. |
|
(8) |
Includes commitments for drilling and seismic activities in our
production operations and various other maintenance,
engineering, procurement and construction contracts, as well as
service and license agreements, used by our other operations. |
Commodity-based Derivative Contracts
We utilize derivative financial instruments in hedging
activities, power contract restructuring activities and in our
historical energy trading activities. In the tables below,
derivatives designated as hedges primarily consist of
instruments used to hedge natural gas production. Derivatives
from power contract restructuring activities relate to power
purchase and sale agreements that arose from our activities in
that business and other commodity-based derivative contracts
relate to our historical energy trading activities as well as
other derivative contracts not designated as hedges.
29
The following table details the fair value of our
commodity-based derivative contracts by year of maturity and
valuation methodology as of December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maturity | |
|
Maturity | |
|
Maturity | |
|
Maturity | |
|
Maturity | |
|
Total | |
|
|
Less Than | |
|
1 to 3 | |
|
4 to 5 | |
|
6 to 10 | |
|
Beyond | |
|
Fair | |
Source of Fair Value |
|
1 Year | |
|
Years | |
|
Years | |
|
Years | |
|
10 Years | |
|
Value | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Derivatives designated as hedges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
$ |
92 |
|
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
125 |
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
(416 |
) |
|
|
(222 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(661 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total derivatives designated as hedges
|
|
|
(324 |
) |
|
|
(189 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(536 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets from power contract restructuring
derivatives(1)(2)
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
199 |
|
|
|
151 |
|
|
|
210 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
665 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other commodity-based derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exchange-traded
positions(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
315 |
|
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
(107 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(108 |
) |
|
Non-exchange traded
positions(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
431 |
|
|
|
271 |
|
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
166 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
1,100 |
|
|
|
Liabilities(1)
|
|
|
(372 |
) |
|
|
(448 |
) |
|
|
(267 |
) |
|
|
(230 |
) |
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
(1,368 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other commodity-based derivatives
|
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(64 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(61 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total commodity-based derivatives
|
|
$ |
(248 |
) |
|
$ |
52 |
|
|
$ |
132 |
|
|
$ |
137 |
|
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
|
$ |
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes $259 million of intercompany derivatives that
eliminate in consolidation and have no impact on our
consolidated assets and liabilities from price risk management
activities. |
|
(2) |
In March 2005, we sold our Cedar Brakes I and II
subsidiaries and their related restructured power contracts,
which had a fair value of $596 million as of
December 31, 2004. In connection with this sale, we also
assigned or terminated other commodity-based derivatives that
had a fair value loss of $240 million as of
December 31, 2004. |
|
(3) |
Exchange-traded positions are traded on active exchanges such as
the New York Mercantile Exchange, the International Petroleum
Exchange and the London Clearinghouse. |
30
The following is a reconciliation of our commodity-based
derivatives for the years ended December 31, 2004 and
2003.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives from | |
|
Other | |
|
Total | |
|
|
Derivatives | |
|
Power Contract | |
|
Commodity- | |
|
Commodity- | |
|
|
Designated | |
|
Restructuring | |
|
Based | |
|
Based | |
|
|
as Hedges | |
|
Activities | |
|
Derivatives | |
|
Derivatives | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Fair value of contracts outstanding at
December 31, 2002
|
|
$ |
(21 |
) |
|
$ |
968 |
|
|
$ |
(525 |
) |
|
$ |
422 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of contract settlements during the period
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
(405 |
) |
|
|
602 |
|
|
|
212 |
|
|
Change in fair value of contracts
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
(477 |
) |
|
|
(362 |
) |
|
Original fair value of contracts consolidated as a result of
Chaparral acquisition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,222 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,222 |
|
|
Option premiums received, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(88 |
) |
|
|
(88 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in contracts outstanding during the period
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
957 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
984 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of contracts outstanding at
December 31, 2003
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
1,925 |
|
|
|
(488 |
) |
|
|
1,406 |
|
|
Fair value of contract settlements during the period
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
(1,132 |
)(1) |
|
|
284 |
|
|
|
(799 |
) |
|
Change in fair value of contracts
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
(128 |
)(2) |
|
|
(513 |
)(3) |
|
|
(603 |
) |
|
Other commodity-based derivatives designated as hedges
|
|
|
(592 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
592 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option premiums paid, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in contracts outstanding during the period
|
|
|
(505 |
) |
|
|
(1,260 |
) |
|
|
427 |
|
|
|
(1,338 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of contracts outstanding at
December 31, 2004
|
|
$ |
(536 |
) |
|
$ |
665 |
|
|
$ |
(61 |
) |
|
$ |
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes $861 million and $75 million of derivative
contracts sold in conjunction with the sales of Utility Contract
Funding and Mohawk River Funding IV in 2004. See Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements, Notes 3 and 5, on
pages F-62 and F-68, for additional information on these
sales. |
|
(2) |
In the fourth quarter of 2004, we recorded a $227 million
charge associated with the sale of our Cedar Brakes I and II
subsidiaries and their related restructured power contracts. See
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Notes 3 and 5,
on pages F-62 and F-68, for additional information on this
sale. |
|
(3) |
In the second quarter of 2004, we reclassified a
$69 million liability from our Western Energy Settlement
obligation to our price risk management activities. |
The fair value of contract settlements during the period
represents the estimated amounts of derivative contracts settled
through physical delivery of a commodity or by a claim to cash
as accounts receivable or payable. The fair value of contract
settlements also includes physical or financial contract
terminations due to counterparty bankruptcies and the sale or
settlement of derivative contracts through early termination or
through the sale of the entities that own these contracts. The
change in fair value of contracts during the year represents the
change in value of contracts from the beginning of the period,
or the date of their origination or acquisition, until their
settlement, early termination or, if not settled or terminated,
until the end of the period. During 2003, in conjunction with
our acquisition of Chaparral, we consolidated a number of
derivative contracts. The majority of the value of these
contracts was for power purchase agreements and power supply
agreements related to power contract restructuring activities
conducted by Chaparral.
31
In December 2004, we designated a number of our other
commodity-based derivative contracts in our Marketing and
Trading segment as hedges of our 2005 and 2006 natural gas
production. As a result, we reclassified this amount to
derivatives designated as hedges beginning in the fourth quarter
of 2004. The combination of these positions and our Production
segments other hedges will result in us receiving the
following prices on our natural gas production:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volume | |
|
Hedge Price(1) | |
|
Cash Price | |
|
|
(TBtu) | |
|
(per MMBtu) | |
|
(per MMBtu) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
2005
|
|
|
132 |
|
|
$ |
6.75 |
|
|
$ |
3.74 |
(2) |
2006
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
$ |
6.34 |
|
|
$ |
4.01 |
(2) |
2007
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
$ |
3.56 |
|
|
$ |
3.56 |
|
2008 to 2012
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
$ |
3.67 |
|
|
$ |
3.67 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Our Production segment will record revenues related to these
natural gas volumes at this price in their operating results. |
|
(2) |
The difference between our Production segments hedge price
and the cash price we will receive upon settlement of the
derivative transactions was previously recorded as losses in our
Marketing and Trading segment. |
To stabilize the companys pricing outlook for 2005 to
2007, our Marketing and Trading segment entered into additional
contracts that provide a floor price on a portion of our
unhedged production in 2005, 2006 and 2007 and a ceiling price
on a portion of our unhedged 2006 production. These contracts,
which are reported on a mark-to-market basis, will result in us
receiving the following cash prices on our natural gas
production:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Floor | |
|
Ceiling | |
|
Ceiling | |
|
|
Floor Price(1) | |
|
Volume | |
|
Price(2) | |
|
Volume | |
|
|
(per MMBtu) | |
|
(TBtu) | |
|
(per MMBtu) | |
|
(TBtu) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
2005
|
|
$ |
6.00 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
$ |
6.00 |
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
$ |
9.50 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
2007
|
|
$ |
6.00 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
The floor price is the minimum cash price to be received under
the option contract. |
|
(2) |
The ceiling price is the maximum cash price to be received under
the option contract. |
Results of Operations
Overview
Since 2001, we have experienced tremendous change in our
businesses. Prior to this time, we had grown through mergers and
acquisitions and internal growth initiatives, and at the same
time had incurred significant amounts of debt and other
obligations. In late 2001, driven by the bankruptcy of a number
of energy sector participants, followed by increased scrutiny of
our debt levels and credit rating downgrades of our debt and the
debt of many of our competitors, our focus changed to improving
liquidity, paying down debt, simplifying our capital structure,
reducing our cost of capital, resolving substantial
contingencies and returning to our core natural gas businesses.
Accordingly, our operating results during the three year period
from 2002 to 2004 have been substantially impacted by a number
of significant events, such as asset sales, significant legal
settlements and ongoing business restructuring efforts as part
of this change in focus.
As of December 31, 2004, our operating business segments
were Pipelines, Production, Marketing and Trading, Power and
Field Services. These segments provide a variety of energy
products and services. They are managed separately and each
requires different technology and marketing strategies. Our
businesses are divided into two primary business lines:
regulated and non-regulated. Our regulated business includes our
Pipelines segment, while our non-regulated business includes our
Production, Marketing and Trading, Power and Field Services
segments.
Our management uses EBIT to assess the operating results and
effectiveness of our business segments. We define EBIT as net
income (loss) adjusted for (i) items that do not impact our
income (loss) from
32
continuing operations, such as extraordinary items, discontinued
operations and the impact of accounting changes,
(ii) income taxes, (iii) interest and debt expense and
(iv) distributions on preferred interests of consolidated
subsidiaries.
Our businesses consist of consolidated operations as well as
investments in unconsolidated affiliates. We exclude interest
and debt expense and distributions on preferred interests of
consolidated subsidiaries so that investors may evaluate our
operating results independently from our financing methods or
capital structure. We believe EBIT is helpful to our investors
because it allows them to more effectively evaluate the
operating performance of both our consolidated businesses and
our unconsolidated investments using the same performance
measure analyzed internally by our management. EBIT may not be
comparable to measurements used by other companies.
Additionally, EBIT should be considered in conjunction with net
income and other performance measures such as operating income
or operating cash flow.
Below is a reconciliation of our EBIT (by segment) to our
consolidated net loss for each of the three years ended
December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
(Restated)(1) | |
|
(Restated)(1) | |
|
(Restated)(1) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Regulated Business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pipelines
|
|
$ |
1,331 |
|
|
$ |
1,234 |
|
|
$ |
828 |
|
Non-regulated Businesses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
734 |
|
|
|
1,091 |
|
|
|
808 |
|
|
Marketing and Trading
|
|
|
(539 |
) |
|
|
(809 |
) |
|
|
(1,977 |
) |
|
Power
|
|
|
(599 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
12 |
|
|
Field Services
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
289 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment EBIT
|
|
|
1,047 |
|
|
|
1,621 |
|
|
|
(40 |
) |
Corporate and other
|
|
|
(217 |
) |
|
|
(852 |
) |
|
|
(387 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated EBIT
|
|
|
830 |
|
|
|
769 |
|
|
|
(427 |
) |
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
(1,607 |
) |
|
|
(1,791 |
) |
|
|
(1,297 |
) |
Distributions on preferred interests of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
|
(159 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
479 |
|
|
|
641 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
|
(833 |
) |
|
|
(595 |
) |
|
|
(1,242 |
) |
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(114 |
) |
|
|
(1,279 |
) |
|
|
(425 |
) |
Cumulative effect of accounting changes, net of income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(208 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(947 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,883 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,875 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 1, on
page F-46, for a discussion of the restatements of our
2002, 2003 and 2004 financial statements. The restatement of our
2002 financial statements affected our Pipelines segment results
and the amounts reported as a cumulative effect of accounting
change in 2002. The restatement of our 2003 financial statements
affected the classification of income taxes between continuing
and discontinued operations as well as the amount of income
taxes recorded in both continuing and discontinued operations
related to certain of our foreign investments with CTA balances.
The restatement of our 2004 financial statements affected the
amount of losses on long-lived assets, earnings from
unconsolidated affiliates and other income for certain foreign
operations in our Power and Marketing and Trading segments, in
our corporate operations, and in our discontinued operations, as
well as the related amount of income taxes recorded on these
assets and investments. |
As we refocused our activities on our core businesses by
divesting of non-core businesses and restructuring our
organization, we incurred losses and incremental costs in each
year. During this period, we also resolved significant legal
contingencies. These items are described in the table below. For
a more detailed discussion of these factors and other items
impacting our financial performance, see the individual segment
33
and other results included in Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements, Notes 3 through 5, on pages F-62
through F-68, and Note 21, on page F-105.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Segments | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Marketing | |
|
|
|
|
Pipelines | |
|
|
|
and | |
|
Power | |
|
Field | |
|
Corporate & | |
|
|
(Restated) | |
|
Production | |
|
Trading | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
Services | |
|
Other | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset and investment impairments, net of gain (loss) on
sales(1)
|
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(994 |
) |
|
$ |
(7 |
) (2) |
|
$ |
3 |
|
Restructuring charges
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(91 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
(22 |
) |
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
$ |
(999 |
) |
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
|
$ |
(88 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset and investment impairments, net of gain (loss) on
sales(1)
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
(525 |
) |
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
(525 |
) |
Ceiling test charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restructuring charges
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(91 |
) |
Western Energy Settlement
(3)
|
|
|
(140 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
(133 |
) |
|
$ |
(16 |
) |
|
$ |
(39 |
) |
|
$ |
(530 |
) |
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
(620 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002 (Restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset and investment impairments, net of gain (loss) on
sales(1)
|
|
$ |
(125 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(642 |
) |
|
$ |
129 |
|
|
$ |
(212 |
) |
Ceiling test charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restructuring charges
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(51 |
) |
Western Energy Settlement
|
|
|
(412 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(487 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net gain on power contract
restructurings(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
578 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
(538 |
) |
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
|
$ |
(497 |
) |
|
$ |
(78 |
) |
|
$ |
128 |
|
|
$ |
(263 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes net impairments of cost-based investments included in
other income and expense. |
|
(2) |
Includes the gain on our transactions with Enterprise and a
goodwill impairment. |
|
(3) |
Includes $66 million of accretion expense and other charges
included in operation and maintenance expense associated with
the Western Energy Settlement. |
|
(4) |
Excludes intercompany transactions related to the UCF
restructuring transaction which were eliminated in consolidation. |
In our Pipelines segment, we experienced improved financial
performance from 2002 to 2004, benefitting from the completion
of a number of expansion projects and from the resolution of
significant legal issues related to the western energy crisis of
2001.
In our Production segment, we have experienced earnings
volatility from 2002 to 2004. During this three-year period, our
Production segment sold a significant number of natural gas and
oil properties which, coupled with a reduced capital spending
program, generally disappointing drilling results and mechanical
failures on certain wells, produced a steady decline in
production volumes during that timeframe. However, in 2004, we
benefited from a favorable pricing environment that allowed for
better than anticipated results. The favorable
34
pricing environment is expected to continue to provide benefits
to the Production segment during 2005, although its future
results will largely be impacted by our production levels. The
volumes we produce will be driven by our ability to grow the
existing reserve base through a successful drilling program
and/or acquisitions.
In our Marketing and Trading segment, we also experienced
significant earnings volatility during 2002, 2003 and 2004.
Beginning in 2002, we began a process of exiting the trading
business. At the same time, the overall energy trading industry
has declined. The combination of these actions and events and a
decrease in the value of our fixed-price natural gas derivative
contracts due to natural gas price increases resulted in
substantial losses in our Marketing and Trading segment in 2002,
2003 and 2004. We expect that this segment will continue to
experience losses in 2005 as it continues performing under its
transportation and tolling contracts. However, due to the
repositioning of a number of our natural gas derivative
contracts as hedges in December 2004, we expect future losses in
this segment to be less than those experienced in 2002 through
2004.
Finally, during 2002 through 2004, as we continued to refocus
and restructure our company around our core businesses, we
incurred significant charges related to asset sales, impairments
and other restructuring costs in our Field Services and Power
segments as well as in our corporate results. We also incurred
approximately $1.8 billion (including $1.3 billion
during 2003) in after tax losses in exiting certain of our
international natural gas and oil production operations and our
petroleum markets and coal businesses, which are classified as
discontinued operations.
Below is a further discussion of the year over year results of
each of our business segments, our corporate activities and
other income statement items.
Individual Segment Results
Information related to EBIT in our individual segment results
and in our corporate activities has been restated. In 2002, the
results in our Pipelines segment and the amounts reported as a
cumulative effect of accounting change were restated for errors
resulting from the misinterpretation of FAS 141 and 142
upon the adoption of these standards. In 2004, our Power and
Marketing and Trading segments and corporate operations were
restated for the amount of losses on long-lived assets, earnings
from unconsolidated affiliates and other income for certain
foreign operations with CTA balances. See Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements, Note 1, on page F-46, for a
further discussion of the restatement.
Regulated Business Pipelines Segment
Our Pipelines segment consists of interstate natural gas
transmission, storage, LNG terminalling and related services,
primarily in the United States. We face varying degrees of
competition in this segment from other pipelines and proposed
LNG facilities, as well as from alternative energy sources used
to generate electricity, such as hydroelectric power, nuclear,
coal and fuel oil.
The FERC regulates the rates we can charge our customers. These
rates are a function of the cost of providing services to our
customers, including a reasonable return on our invested
capital. As a result, our revenues have historically been
relatively stable. However, our financial results can be subject
to volatility due to factors such as changes in natural gas
prices and market conditions, regulatory actions, competition,
the creditworthiness of our customers and weather. In 2004,
84 percent of our transportation service, storage and LNG
terminalling revenues were attributable to reservation charges
paid by firm customers. The remaining 16 percent of our
revenues are variable. We also experience earnings volatility
when the amount of natural gas utilized in operations differs
from the amounts we receive for that purpose.
Historically, much of our business was conducted through
long-term contracts with customers. However, over the past
several years some of our customers have shifted from a
traditional dependence solely on long-term contracts to a
portfolio approach which balances short-term opportunities with
long-term commitments. This shift, which can increase the
volatility of our revenues, is due to changes in market
conditions and
35
competition driven by state utility deregulation, local
distribution company mergers, new supply sources, volatility in
natural gas prices, demand for short-term capacity and new power
plants markets.
In addition, our ability to extend existing customer contracts
or re-market expiring contracted capacity is dependent on the
competitive alternatives, the regulatory environment at the
federal, state and local levels and market supply and demand
factors at the relevant dates these contracts are extended or
expire. The duration of new or renegotiated contracts will be
affected by current prices, competitive conditions and judgments
concerning future market trends and volatility. Subject to
regulatory constraints, we attempt to re-contract or re-market
our capacity at the maximum rates allowed under our tariffs,
although, at times, we discount these rates to remain
competitive. The level of discount varies for each of our
pipeline systems. Our existing contracts mature at various times
and in varying amounts of throughput capacity. We continue to
manage our recontracting process to limit the risk of
significant impacts on our revenues. The weighted average
remaining contract term for active contracts is approximately
five years as of December 31, 2004. Below is the expiration
schedule for contracts executed as of December 31, 2004,
including those whose terms begin in 2005 or later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of Total | |
|
|
MDth/d | |
|
Contracted Capacity | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
2005
|
|
|
3,838 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
2006(1)(2)
|
|
|
6,414 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
2007
|
|
|
4,539 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
2008 and beyond
|
|
|
15,540 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Reflects the impact of an agreement, that we entered into to
extend 750 MMcf/d of SoCals current capacity,
effective September 1, 2006, for terms of three to five
years. The agreement is subject to FERC approval. |
|
(2) |
Includes approximately 1,564 MMcf/d currently under
contract on EPNGs system through 2011 and beyond that is
subject to early termination in August 2006 provided customers
give timely notice of an intent to terminate. |
Below are the operating results and analysis of these results
for our Pipelines segment for each of the three years ended
December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pipelines Segment Results |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
(In millions, except volume amounts) | |
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
2,651 |
|
|
$ |
2,647 |
|
|
$ |
2,610 |
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
(1,522 |
) |
|
|
(1,584 |
) |
|
|
(1,822 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
1,129 |
|
|
|
1,063 |
|
|
|
788 |
|
Other income
|
|
|
202 |
|
|
|
171 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
1,331 |
|
|
$ |
1,234 |
|
|
$ |
828 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Throughput volumes
(BBtu/d)(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TGP
|
|
|
4,519 |
|
|
|
4,760 |
|
|
|
4,610 |
|
|
EPNG and MPC
|
|
|
4,235 |
|
|
|
4,066 |
|
|
|
4,065 |
|
|
ANR
|
|
|
4,067 |
|
|
|
4,232 |
|
|
|
4,130 |
|
|
CIG, WIC and CPG
|
|
|
2,795 |
|
|
|
2,743 |
|
|
|
2,768 |
|
|
SNG
|
|
|
2,163 |
|
|
|
2,101 |
|
|
|
2,151 |
|
|
Equity investments (our ownership share)
|
|
|
2,798 |
|
|
|
2,433 |
|
|
|
2,408 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total throughput
|
|
|
20,577 |
|
|
|
20,335 |
|
|
|
20,132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Throughput volumes exclude volumes related to our equity
investments in Portland Natural Gas Transmission System, EPIC
Energy Australia Trust and Alliance Pipeline, which have been
sold. In addition, volumes exclude intrasegment activities.
Throughput volumes include volumes related to our Mexico
investments which were transferred from our Power segment
effective January 1, 2004. |
36
The following contributed to our overall EBIT increases in 2004
as compared to 2003 and in 2003 as compared to 2002:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 to 2003 | |
|
2003 to 2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
EBIT | |
|
|
|
EBIT | |
|
|
Revenue | |
|
Expense | |
|
Other | |
|
Impact | |
|
Revenue | |
|
Expense | |
|
Other | |
|
Impact | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Favorable/(Unfavorable) | |
|
|
|
Favorable/(Unfavorable) | |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
(In millions) | |
Contract modifications/terminations
|
|
$ |
(93 |
) |
|
$ |
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(56 |
) |
|
$ |
(52 |
) |
|
$ |
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(59 |
) |
Gas not used in operations and other natural gas sales
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
|
Mainline expansions
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
Sale of Panhandle fields and other production properties in 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(29 |
) |
Operation and maintenance
costs(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(69 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(69 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
Other regulatory matters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
Equity earnings from Citrus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mexico investments
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Australia investment impairment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
141 |
|
Western Energy Settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
272 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
272 |
|
Other(2)
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total impact on EBIT
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
62 |
|
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
$ |
37 |
|
|
$ |
238 |
|
|
$ |
131 |
|
|
$ |
406 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Consists of costs of operations, electric and power purchase
costs, shared services allocations and environmental costs. |
|
(2) |
Consists of individually insignificant items across several of
our pipeline systems. |
The following provides further discussion on the items listed
above as well as an outlook on events that may affect our
operations in the future.
Contract Modifications/ Terminations. Included in this
item are (i) the impacts of the expiration of EPNGs
historical risk sharing provisions which reduced revenues by
$24 million in 2004 (ii) the impact of EPNGs
FERC ordered restrictions on remarketing expiring capacity
contracts which reduced EPNGs 2003 revenues by
$35 million compared to 2002 (iii) the renegotiation
or restructuring of several contracts on our pipeline systems,
including ANRs contracts with We Energies which
contributed to the decrease in revenues by $36 million in
2004 and $12 million in 2003, and (iv) the termination
of the Dakota gasification facility contract on ANRs
system, which resulted in lower operating revenues and lower
operating expenses during 2004, without a significant overall
impact on operating income and EBIT.
During 2003, EPNG was prohibited from remarketing expiring
capacity contracts due to certain FERC orders. While these
capacity restrictions terminated with the completion of
Phases I and II of EPNGs Line 2000 Power-up project
in 2004, EPNG remains at risk for that portion of capacity which
was turned back to it on a permanently released basis. EPNG is
able, however, to re-market that capacity subject to the general
requirement that it demonstrate that any sale of capacity does
not adversely impact its service to its firm customers.
EPNG has entered into an agreement effective September 1,
2006, to extend 750 MMcf/d of capacity on its pipeline
system with SoCalGas. The new service agreements will have a
primary term of three to five years to serve SoCalGas core
customers. SoCalGas is currently contracted on EPNGs
system for approximately 1.3 Bcf/d of capacity. EPNG
continues in its efforts to market the remaining capacity,
including marketing efforts to serve, directly or indirectly,
SoCalGas non-core customers or to serve new markets. At
this time, we are uncertain whether this remaining capacity will
be re-contracted.
Guardian Pipeline, which is owned in part by We Energies,
currently provides a portion of We Energies firm
transportation requirements and, therefore, directly competes
with ANR for a portion of the markets in Wisconsin. This could
impact ANRs existing customer contracts as well as future
contractual negotiations with We Energies. In addition, ANR has
entered into an agreement with a shipper to restructure one of
its
37
transportation contracts on its Southeast Leg as well as a
related gathering contract. In March 2005, this restructuring
was completed and ANR received approximately $26 million,
which will be included in its earnings during the first quarter
of 2005.
Gas Not Used in Operations and Other Natural Gas Sales.
For some of our regulated pipelines, the financial impact of
operational gas, net of gas used in operations is based on the
amount of natural gas we are allowed to recover and dispose of
according to the applicable tariff, relative to the amounts of
gas we use for operating purposes, and the price of natural gas.
The disposition of gas not needed for operations results in
revenues to us, which are driven by volumes and prices during
the period. During 2003 and 2004, we recovered, fairly
consistently, volumes of natural gas that were not utilized for
operations for some of our regulated pipeline systems. These
recoveries were and are based on factors such as system
throughput, facility enhancements and the ability to operate the
systems in the most efficient and safe manner. Additionally, a
steadily increasing natural gas price environment during this
timeframe also resulted in favorable impacts on our operating
results in both 2004 versus 2003 and in 2003 versus 2002. We
anticipate that this area of our business will continue to vary
in the future and will be impacted by things such as rate
actions, some of which have already been implemented, efficiency
of our pipeline operations, natural gas prices and other factors.
Expansions. During the three years ended
December 31, 2004, we completed a number of expansion
projects that have generated or will generate new sources of
revenues the more significant of which were our ANR WestLeg
Expansion, SNG South System Expansions, TGP South Texas
Expansion and CIG Front Range Expansion. Our expansions during
this three year period added approximately 1,968 MMcf/d to
our overall pipeline system.
Our pipeline systems connect the principal gas supply regions to
the largest consuming regions in the U.S. We are
well-positioned to capture growth opportunities in the Rocky
Mountains and deepwater Gulf of Mexico, and have an
infrastructure that complements LNG growth. We are aggressively
seeking to attach new supplies of natural gas to our systems in
order to maintain an adequate supply of gas to serve our growing
markets and to replace quantities lost due to the natural
decline in production from wells currently attached to our
system.
Expansion projects currently in process include:
Rocky Mountain Expansions. In order to provide an outlet
for the growing supply of Rocky Mountain natural gas to markets
in the Midwest region of the United States, we have several
expansion projects that will increase our transportation
capacity, subject to regulatory approval as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline commenced free-flow operations in
December 2004 and as of January 31, 2005 is fully
in-service. Approval has already been received for Cheyenne
Plains Phase II which will add an additional
179 MMcf/d of capacity that is scheduled to be available by
the end of 2005. |
|
|
|
CIGs Raton Basin 2005 Expansion will add 104 MMcf/d
of capacity that is scheduled to be available by the end of 2005. |
|
|
|
WIC expects to complete its Piceance lateral with capacity of
333 MMcf/d by the end of 2005. |
|
|
|
EPNGs Line 1903 project, consisting of an expansion from
Cadiz, California to Ehrenberg, Arizona, that is expected to be
in-service by end of 2005 and will increase its capacity by
372 MMcf/d. |
LNG Related Expansions and Other. In order to help serve
the growing electrical generation needs in the state of Florida,
we (i) have commenced a 3.5 Bcf expansion at our Elba
Island LNG facility, which is targeted to be completed in the
first quarter of 2006, (ii) have begun developing our
Cypress Project, which will transport these additional supplies
into the Florida market.
On our TGP and ANR systems, we continue to experience intense
competition along their mainline corridors; however, both are
well-positioned to provide transportation service from
discoveries in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico and LNG supply
growth along the Gulf Coast. These new supplies are expected to
offset the continued decline of production from the Gulf of
Mexico shelf. Additionally, TGP is developing its
38
ConneXion Expansions in the Northeast market area and ANR is
proceeding with its East Leg and North Leg expansions in its
Wisconsin market area.
Other Regulatory Matters. In November 2004, the FERC
issued a proposed accounting release that may impact certain
costs our interstate pipelines incur related to their pipeline
integrity programs. If the release is enacted as written, we
would be required to expense certain future pipeline integrity
costs instead of capitalizing them as part of our property,
plant and equipment. Although we continue to evaluate the impact
of this potential accounting release, we currently estimate that
if the release is enacted as written, we would be required to
expense an additional amount of pipeline integrity expenditures
in the range of approximately $25 million to
$41 million annually over the next eight years.
In 2003, we re-applied Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards (SFAS) No. 71, Accounting for the Effects
of Certain Types of Regulation, on our CIG and WIC systems,
resulting in income from recording the regulatory assets of
these systems. SFAS No. 71 allows a company to
capitalize items that will be considered in future rate
proceedings and $18 million in income resulted from the
capitalization of those items that we believe will be considered
in CIGs and WICs future rate cases. At the same time
CIG and WIC re-applied SFAS No. 71, they adopted the
FERC depreciation rate for their regulated plant and equipment.
This change resulted in an increase in depreciation expense of
approximately $9 million in 2004, an increase which will
continue in the future. As of December 31, 2004, ANR
Storage Company re-applied SFAS No. 71 which had an
immaterial impact and also adopted the FERC depreciation rate
which will result in future depreciation expense increases of
approximately $4 million annually.
Our pipeline systems periodically file for changes in their
rates which are subject to the approval of the FERC. Changes in
rates and other tariff provisions resulting from these
regulatory proceedings have the potential to negatively impact
our profitability. Listed below is a status of our rate
proceedings:
|
|
|
|
|
SNG filed a rate case in August 2004; settlement
discussions with major customers are underway with a settlement
conference to be scheduled in early 2005. |
|
|
|
EPNG expected to file for new rates that would be
effective January 2006. |
|
|
|
CIG required to file for new rates that would be
effective October 2006. |
|
|
|
MPC expected to file for new rates that would be
effective February 2007. |
Our other pipelines have no requirements to file new rate cases
and expect to continue operating under their existing rates.
Australian Impairment. In 2002, our impairment of EPIC
Energy Australia Trust of $141 million occurred due to an
unfavorable regulatory environment, increased competition and
operational complexities in Australia. During the second quarter
of 2004, we substantially exited our investments in Australian
operations.
Western Energy Settlement. In 2003, El Paso entered
into the Western Energy Settlement. EPNG was a party to that
settlement and recorded a charge in its 2002 operating expenses
of $412 million for its share of the expected settlement
amounts. This charge represented the value of El Paso stock
and cash that EPNG paid to the settling parties. In the second
quarter of 2003, the settlement was finalized and EPNG recorded
an additional net pretax charge of $127 million. Also
during 2003, accretion expense and other miscellaneous charges
of $13 million were recorded and included in operating
expenses.
Non-regulated Business Production Segment
Our Production segment conducts our natural gas and oil
exploration and production activities. Our operating results are
driven by a variety of factors including the ability to locate
and develop economic natural gas and oil reserves, extract those
reserves with minimal production costs, sell the products at
attractive prices and minimize our total administrative costs.
Our long-term strategy includes developing our production
opportunities primarily in the United States and Brazil, while
prudently divesting of production properties outside of these
regions. We emphasize strict capital discipline designed to
improve capital efficiencies through the use of standardized
risk analysis and a
39
heightened focus on cost control. We also implemented a more
rigorous process for booking proved natural gas and oil
reserves, which includes multiple layers of reviews by personnel
independent of the reserve estimation process. Our plan is to
stabilize production by improving the production mix across our
operating areas and to generate more predictable returns. We
intend to improve our production mix by allocating more capital
to long-life, slower decline projects and to develop projects in
longer reserve life areas. This is being accomplished through
our more rigorous capital review process and a more balanced
allocation of our capital to development and exploration
projects, supplemented by acquisition activities with low-risk
development locations that provide operating synergies with our
existing operations. In January 2005, we announced two
acquisitions in east Texas and south Texas for
$211 million. In March 2005, we acquired the interests held
by one of the parties under our net profits interest agreements
for $62 million. See Supplemental Financial Information,
under the heading Supplemental Natural Gas and Oil Operations
(Unaudited) beginning on page F-126, for a further
discussion of these net profits interest agreements. These
acquisitions added properties with approximately 139 Bcfe
of existing proved reserves and 52 MMcfe/d of current
production. More importantly, the Texas acquisitions offer
additional exploration upside in two of our key operating areas.
|
|
|
Reserves, Production and Costs |
Our estimate of proved natural gas and oil reserves as of
December 31, 2004 reflects 2.0 Tcfe of proved reserves
in the United States and 0.2 Tcfe of proved reserves in
Brazil. These estimates were prepared internally by us. Ryder
Scott Company, an independent petroleum engineering firm,
prepared an estimate of our natural gas and oil reserves for
88 percent of our properties. The total estimate of proved
reserves prepared by Ryder Scott is within four percent of our
internally prepared estimates. Ryder Scott was retained by and
reports to the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors. The
properties reviewed by Ryder Scott represented 88 percent
of our properties based on value. For additional information on
our estimated proved reserves and the processes by which they
are developed, see Critical Accounting
Policies, page 66, Business
Non-regulated Business Production Segment,
page 109, Risk Factors, page 7, and
Supplemental Financial Information, under the heading
Supplemental Natural Gas and Oil Operations (Unaudited), on
page F-126.
For 2004, our total equivalent production declined 112 Bcfe
or 27 percent as compared to 2003. The decrease was due to
steep production declines in our Texas Gulf Coast and offshore
Gulf of Mexico regions, the sale of properties in Oklahoma and
New Mexico at the end of the first quarter of 2003, and a
significantly reduced capital expenditure program in 2004
compared to 2003. We began to see our production stabilize in
the third and fourth quarters of 2004 as we instituted our more
rigorous capital review process and a more balanced allocation
of our capital described above. Our depletion rate is determined
under the full cost method of accounting. Due to disappointing
drilling performance in 2004 that resulted in higher finding and
development costs, we expect our domestic unit of production
depletion rate to increase from $1.80/ Mcfe in the fourth
quarter of 2004 to $1.97/ Mcfe in the first quarter of 2005. Our
future trends in production and depletion rates will be
dependent upon the amount of capital allocated to our Production
segment, the level of success in our drilling programs and any
future sale or acquisition activities relating to our proved
reserves.
|
|
|
Production Hedge Position |
As part of our overall strategy, we hedge our natural gas and
oil production to stabilize cash flows, reduce the risk of
downward commodity price movements on our sales and to protect
the economic assumptions associated with our capital investment
programs. We conduct our hedging activities through natural gas
and oil derivatives on our natural gas and oil production.
Because this hedging strategy only partially reduces our
exposure to downward movements in commodity prices, our reported
results of operations, financial position and cash flows can be
impacted significantly by movements in commodity prices from
period to period. For 2005, we expect to have hedged
approximately 50 percent of our anticipated daily natural
gas production and
40
approximately 8 percent of our anticipated daily oil
production. Below are the hedging positions on our anticipated
natural gas and oil production as of December 31, 2004:
Natural Gas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31 | |
|
June 30 | |
|
September 30 | |
|
December 31 | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Hedged | |
|
|
|
Hedged | |
|
|
|
Hedged | |
|
|
|
Hedged | |
|
|
|
Hedged | |
|
|
|
|
Price | |
|
|
|
Price | |
|
|
|
Price | |
|
|
|
Price | |
|
|
|
Price | |
|
|
Volume | |
|
(per | |
|
Volume | |
|
(per | |
|
Volume | |
|
(per | |
|
Volume | |
|
(per | |
|
Volume | |
|
(per | |
|
|
(BBtu) | |
|
MMBtu) | |
|
(BBtu) | |
|
MMBtu) | |
|
(BBtu) | |
|
MMBtu) | |
|
(BBtu) | |
|
MMBtu) | |
|
(BBtu) | |
|
MMBtu) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
2005
|
|
|
33,019 |
|
|
$ |
7.26 |
|
|
|
33,037 |
|
|
$ |
6.47 |
|
|
|
33,055 |
|
|
$ |
6.49 |
|
|
|
33,055 |
|
|
$ |
6.77 |
|
|
|
132,166 |
|
|
$ |
6.75 |
|
2006
|
|
|
21,349 |
|
|
$ |
7.07 |
|
|
|
21,367 |
|
|
$ |
6.01 |
|
|
|
21,385 |
|
|
$ |
6.01 |
|
|
|
21,385 |
|
|
$ |
6.28 |
|
|
|
85,486 |
|
|
$ |
6.34 |
|
2007
|
|
|
1,579 |
|
|
$ |
3.79 |
|
|
|
1,447 |
|
|
$ |
3.64 |
|
|
|
1,155 |
|
|
$ |
3.35 |
|
|
|
1,155 |
|
|
$ |
3.35 |
|
|
|
5,336 |
|
|
$ |
3.56 |
|
2008 through 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,620 |
|
|
$ |
3.67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31 | |
|
June 30 | |
|
September 30 | |
|
December 31 | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Hedged | |
|
|
|
Hedged | |
|
|
|
Hedged | |
|
|
|
Hedged | |
|
|
|
Hedged | |
|
|
Volume | |
|
Price | |
|
Volume | |
|
Price | |
|
Volume | |
|
Price | |
|
Volume | |
|
Price | |
|
Volume | |
|
Price | |
|
|
(MBbls) | |
|
(per Bbl) | |
|
(MBbls) | |
|
(per Bbl) | |
|
(MBbls) | |
|
(per Bbl) | |
|
(MBbls) | |
|
(per Bbl) | |
|
(MBbls) | |
|
(per Bbl) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
2005
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
$ |
35.15 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
$ |
35.15 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
$ |
35.15 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
$ |
35.15 |
|
|
|
383 |
|
|
$ |
35.15 |
|
2006
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
$ |
35.15 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
$ |
35.15 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
$ |
35.15 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
$ |
35.15 |
|
|
|
383 |
|
|
$ |
35.15 |
|
2007
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
$ |
35.15 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
$ |
35.15 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
$ |
35.15 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
$ |
35.15 |
|
|
|
192 |
|
|
$ |
35.15 |
|
The hedged natural gas prices listed above for 2005 and 2006
include the impact of designating trading contracts in our
Marketing and Trading segment as hedges of our anticipated
natural gas production on December 1, 2004. For a summary
of the overall cash price El Paso will receive on natural
gas production including the effect of these contracts, see
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations Commodity-based
Derivative Contracts beginning on page 29.
|
|
|
Operational Factors Affecting the Year Ended
December 31, 2004 |
During 2004, our Production segment experienced the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Higher realized prices. Realized natural gas prices,
which include the impact of our hedges, increased eight percent
and oil, condensate and NGL prices increased 33 percent
compared to 2003. |
|
|
|
Average daily production of 814 MMcfe/d (excluding
discontinued Canadian and other international operations of
15 MMcfe/d). We achieved the low end of our projected
production volume despite the impact of hurricanes in the Gulf
of Mexico. |
|
|
|
Capital expenditures and acquisitions of $790 million
(excluding discontinued Canadian and other international
expenditures of $29 million). During the first quarter
of 2004, we experienced disappointing drilling results. As a
result, we significantly reduced our drilling activities and
instituted a new, more rigorous, risk analysis program, with an
emphasis on strict capital discipline. After implementing this
new program, we increased our domestic drilling activities in
the third and fourth quarters of 2004 with improved drilling
results. During 2004, we drilled 325 wells with a
96 percent success rate. We also acquired the remaining
50 percent interest in UnoPaso in Brazil in July 2004. This
acquisition has performed above expectations in the fourth
quarter of 2004. |
|
|
|
Sale of Canadian and other international operations.
These operations were sold in order to focus our operations in
the United States and Brazil. |
41
Below are our Production segments operating results and
analysis of these results for each of the three years ended
December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas
|
|
$ |
1,428 |
|
|
$ |
1,831 |
|
|
$ |
1,574 |
|
|
Oil, condensate and NGL
|
|
|
305 |
|
|
|
305 |
|
|
|
350 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues
|
|
|
1,735 |
|
|
|
2,141 |
|
|
|
1,931 |
|
Transportation and net product costs
|
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
(82 |
) |
|
|
(109 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating margin
|
|
|
1,681 |
|
|
|
2,059 |
|
|
|
1,822 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
(548 |
) |
|
|
(576 |
) |
|
|
(601 |
) |
Production
costs(1)
|
|
|
(210 |
) |
|
|
(229 |
) |
|
|
(285 |
) |
Ceiling test and other
charges(2)
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
(173 |
) |
|
|
(160 |
) |
|
|
(122 |
) |
Taxes, other than production and income
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating
expenses(3)
|
|
|
(955 |
) |
|
|
(986 |
) |
|
|
(1,019 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
726 |
|
|
|
1,073 |
|
|
|
803 |
|
Other income
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
734 |
|
|
$ |
1,091 |
|
|
$ |
808 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent | |
|
|
|
Percent | |
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
Variance | |
|
2003 | |
|
Variance | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Volumes, prices and costs per unit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volumes (MMcf)
|
|
|
244,857 |
|
|
|
(28 |
)% |
|
|
338,762 |
|
|
|
(28 |
)% |
|
|
470,082 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average realized prices including hedges
($/Mcf)(4)
|
|
$ |
5.83 |
|
|
|
8 |
% |
|
$ |
5.40 |
|
|
|
61 |
% |
|
$ |
3.35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average realized prices excluding hedges
($/Mcf)(4)
|
|
$ |
5.90 |
|
|
|
7 |
% |
|
$ |
5.51 |
|
|
|
74 |
% |
|
$ |
3.17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average transportation costs ($/Mcf)
|
|
$ |
0.17 |
|
|
|
(6 |
)% |
|
$ |
0.18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0.18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil, condensate and NGL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volumes (MBbls)
|
|
|
8,818 |
|
|
|
(25 |
)% |
|
|
11,778 |
|
|
|
(28 |
)% |
|
|
16,462 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average realized prices including hedges
($/Bbl)(4)
|
|
$ |
34.61 |
|
|
|
33 |
% |
|
$ |
25.96 |
|
|
|
22 |
% |
|
$ |
21.28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average realized prices excluding hedges
($/Bbl)(4)
|
|
$ |
34.75 |
|
|
|
30 |
% |
|
$ |
26.64 |
|
|
|
25 |
% |
|
$ |
21.38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average transportation costs ($/Bbl)
|
|
$ |
1.12 |
|
|
|
7 |
% |
|
$ |
1.05 |
|
|
|
8 |
% |
|
$ |
0.97 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equivalent volumes(MMcfe)
|
|
|
297,766 |
|
|
|
(27 |
)% |
|
|
409,432 |
|
|
|
(28 |
)% |
|
|
568,852 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production costs($/Mcfe)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average lease operating costs
|
|
$ |
0.60 |
|
|
|
43 |
% |
|
$ |
0.42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0.42 |
|
|
|
Average production taxes
|
|
|
0.11 |
|
|
|
(21 |
)% |
|
|
0.14 |
|
|
|
75 |
% |
|
|
0.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total production
cost(1)
|
|
$ |
0.71 |
|
|
|
27 |
% |
|
$ |
0.56 |
|
|
|
12 |
% |
|
$ |
0.50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average general and administrative expenses ($/Mcfe)
|
|
$ |
0.58 |
|
|
|
49 |
% |
|
$ |
0.39 |
|
|
|
86 |
% |
|
$ |
0.21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unit of production depletion cost ($/Mcfe)
|
|
$ |
1.69 |
|
|
|
29 |
% |
|
$ |
1.31 |
|
|
|
28 |
% |
|
$ |
1.02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Production costs include lease operating costs and production
related taxes (including ad valorem and severance taxes). |
|
(2) |
Includes ceiling test charges, restructuring charges, asset
impairments and gains on asset sales. |
|
(3) |
Transportation costs are included in operating expenses on our
consolidated statements of income. |
|
(4) |
Prices are stated before transportation costs. |
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2004 Compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2003 |
Our EBIT for 2004 decreased $357 million as compared to
2003. Despite an eight percent increase in natural gas prices
including hedges, we experienced a significant decrease in
operating revenues due to lower production volumes as a result
of normal production declines, asset sales, a lower capital
spending program
43
and disappointing drilling results. The table below lists the
significant variances in our operating results in 2004 as
compared to 2003:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variance | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Operating | |
|
Operating | |
|
|
|
EBIT | |
|
|
Revenue | |
|
Expense | |
|
Other(1) | |
|
Impact | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Favorable/(Unfavorable) | |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
Natural Gas Revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher prices in 2004
|
|
$ |
96 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
96 |
|
|
Lower production volumes in 2004
|
|
|
(518 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(518 |
) |
|
Impact from hedge program in 2004 versus 2003
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19 |
|
Oil, Condensate and NGL Revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher realized prices in 2004
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
Lower production volumes in 2004
|
|
|
(79 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(79 |
) |
|
Impact from hedge program in 2004 versus 2003
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
Depreciation, Depletion and Amortization Expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher depletion rate in 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(115 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(115 |
) |
|
Lower production volumes in 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
146 |
|
Production Costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher lease operating costs in 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
Lower production taxes in 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher general and administrative expenses in 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
Other
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total variance 2004 to 2003
|
|
$ |
(406 |
) |
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
$ |
18 |
|
|
$ |
(357 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Consists primarily of changes in transportation costs and other
income. |
Operating revenues. In 2004, we experienced a significant
decrease in production volumes. The decline in our production
volumes was due to normal production declines in the Offshore
Gulf of Mexico and Texas Gulf Coast regions, asset sales, the
impact of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, lower capital
expenditures and disappointing drilling results. These declines
were partially offset by increased natural gas production in our
coal seam operations in the Raton, Arkoma, and Black Warrior
basins. We also had increased oil production in Brazil as a
result of our acquisition of the remaining interest in UnoPaso
in July 2004. In addition, we experienced higher average
realized prices for natural gas and oil, condensate and NGL and
a favorable impact from our hedging program as our hedging
losses were $18 million in 2004 as compared to
$44 million in 2003.
Depreciation, depletion, and amortization expense. Lower
production volumes in 2004 due to the production declines
discussed above reduced our depreciation, depletion, and
amortization expense. Partially offsetting this decrease were
higher depletion rates due to higher finding and development
costs.
Production costs. In 2004, we experienced higher workover
costs due to the implementation of programs in the second half
of 2004 to improve production in the Offshore Gulf of Mexico and
Texas Gulf Coast regions. We also incurred higher utility
expenses and higher salt water disposal costs in the Onshore
region. More than offsetting these increases were lower
production taxes as a result of higher tax credits taken in 2004
on high cost natural gas wells. The cost per unit increased due
to the higher lease operating costs and lower production volumes
discussed above.
Other. Our general and administrative expenses increased
primarily due to higher contract labor costs and lower
capitalized costs in 2004. The cost per unit increased due to a
combination of higher costs and lower production volumes
discussed above.
44
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2003 Compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2002 |
Our EBIT for 2003 increased $283 million as compared to
2002. For the year ended December 31, 2003, natural gas
prices, including hedges, increased 61 percent; however, we
also experienced a significant decrease in production volumes as
a result of asset sales, normal production declines, mechanical
failures in several of our producing wells, a lower capital
spending program and disappointing drilling results. The table
below lists the significant variances in our operating results
in 2003 as compared to 2002:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variance | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Operating | |
|
Operating | |
|
|
|
EBIT | |
|
|
Revenue | |
|
Expense | |
|
Other(1) | |
|
Impact | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Favorable/(Unfavorable) | |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
Natural Gas Revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher realized prices in 2003
|
|
$ |
792 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
792 |
|
|
Lower production volumes in 2003
|
|
|
(416 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(416 |
) |
|
Impact from hedge program in 2003 versus 2002
|
|
|
(119 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(119 |
) |
Oil, Condensate and NGL Revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher prices in 2003
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
Lower production volumes in 2003
|
|
|
(100 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(100 |
) |
|
Impact from hedge program in 2003 versus 2002
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
Depreciation, Depletion and Amortization Expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher depletion rate in 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(116 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(116 |
) |
|
Lower production volumes in 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
163 |
|
|
Higher accretion expense for asset retirement obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
Production Costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lower lease operating costs in 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
Higher production taxes in 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ceiling test and other charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
Higher general and administrative costs in 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
Other
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total variance 2003 to 2002
|
|
$ |
210 |
|
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
40 |
|
|
$ |
283 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Consists primarily of changes in transportation costs and other
income. |
Operating revenues. During 2003, we experienced a
significant decrease in production volumes due to the sale of
properties in New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Utah, and
Offshore Gulf of Mexico, normal production declines, mechanical
failures primarily in the Texas Gulf Coast and Offshore Gulf of
Mexico regions, a lower capital spending program and
disappointing drilling results. In addition, we incurred an
unfavorable impact from our hedging program as our hedging
losses were $44 million in 2003 as compared to
$82 million of hedging gains in 2002. Despite lower
production and unfavorable hedging results, revenues were higher
due to higher average realized prices for natural gas and oil,
condensate and NGL during 2003.
Depreciation, depletion, and amortization expense. Lower
volumes in 2003 due to the production declines discussed above
reduced our depreciation, depletion, and amortization expense.
Partially offsetting this decrease were higher depletion rates
due to higher finding and development costs. We also recorded
accretion expense related to our liabilities for asset
retirement obligations in connection with the adoption of
SFAS No. 143 in 2003.
Production costs. In 2003, we experienced lower
production costs primarily due to the asset sales discussed
above. However, we also incurred higher production taxes in 2003
as a result of higher natural gas
45
and oil prices and larger tax credits taken in 2002 on high cost
natural gas wells. Our cost per unit increased due to the higher
production taxes and lower production volumes.
Ceiling test and other charges. In 2003, we incurred an
impairment charge related to non-full cost pool assets of
$5 million, net of gains on asset sales, non-cash ceiling
test charges of $5 million associated with our operations
in Brazil and $6 million in employee severance costs. In
2002, we incurred a non-cash ceiling test charge of
$3 million associated with our operations in Brazil.
General and administrative expenses. Higher corporate
overhead allocations and lower capitalized costs were the main
factors leading to the increase in general and administrative
expenses in 2003. The cost per unit increased due to a
combination of higher costs and lower production volumes
discussed above.
Non-regulated Business Marketing and Trading
Segment
Our Marketing and Trading segments operations focus on the
marketing of our natural gas and oil production and the
management of our remaining trading portfolio. Over the past
several years, a number of significant events occurred in this
business and in the industry:
|
|
|
|
|
The deterioration of the energy trading environment followed by
our announcement in November 2002 that we would reduce our
involvement in the energy marketing and trading business and
pursue an orderly liquidation of our trading portfolio. |
|
|
|
|
|
A challenging trading environment with reduced liquidity, lower
credit standing of industry participants and a general decline
in the number of trading counterparties. |
|
|
|
The ongoing liquidation of our historical trading portfolio. |
|
|
|
The announcement in December 2003 that we would change our
operations to primarily focus on the physical marketing of
natural gas and oil produced in our Production segment. |
Currently, we do not anticipate that we will liquidate all of
the transactions in our trading portfolio before the end of
their contract term. We may retain contracts because
(i) they are either uneconomical to sell or terminate in
the current environment due to their contractual terms or credit
concerns of the counterparty, (ii) a sale would require an
acceleration of cash demands, or (iii) they represent
hedges associated with activities reflected in other segments of
our business, including our Production and Power segments.
Changes to our liquidation strategy may impact the cash flows
and the financial results of this segment.
Our Marketing and Trading segments portfolio includes both
contracts with third parties and contracts with affiliates that
require physical delivery of a commodity or financial
settlement. The following is a discussion of the significant
types of contracts used by our Marketing and Trading segment and
how they impact our financial results:
|
|
|
Production-related and other natural gas derivatives |
Derivatives designated as hedges. We enter into contracts
with third parties, primarily fixed for floating swaps, on
behalf of our Production segment to hedge its anticipated
natural gas production. These natural gas contracts consist of
obligations to deliver natural gas at fixed prices. As of
December 31, 2004, these contracts effectively hedged a
total of 244 TBtu of our anticipated natural gas production
through 2012. Of this total amount, 84 percent of these
contracts were designated as accounting hedges on
December 1, 2004. All contracts that are designated as
hedges of our Production segments natural gas and oil
production are accounted for in the operating results of that
segment.
46
Production-related options. These contracts, which are
marked to market in our results each period, and are not
accounting hedges, provide price protection to El Paso from
natural gas price declines related to our natural gas production
in 2005 and 2006. Entered into in the fourth quarter of 2004,
these contracts will allow El Paso to achieve a floor price
of $6.00 per MMBtu on 60 TBtu of our natural gas production
in 2005 and 120 TBtu in 2006.
In the first quarter of 2005, we entered into additional
contracts that provide El Paso with a floor price of
$6.00 per MMBtu on 30 TBtu of our natural gas production in
2007, and also capped us at a ceiling price of $9.50 per
MMBtu on 60 TBtu of our natural gas production in 2006.
Other natural gas derivatives. Other natural gas
derivatives consist of physical and financial natural gas
contracts that impact our earnings as the fair values of these
contracts change. These contracts obligate us to either purchase
or sell natural gas at fixed prices. Our exposure to natural gas
price changes will vary from period to period based on whether,
overall, we purchase more or less natural gas than we sell under
these contracts.
|
|
|
Transportation-related contracts |
Our transportation contracts provide us with approximately
1.5 Bcf of pipeline capacity per day, for which we are
charged approximately $149 million in annual demand
charges. These contracts are accrual-based contracts that impact
our gross margin as delivery or service under the contracts
occurs. The following table details our transportation contracts:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alliance | |
|
Texas Intrastate | |
|
Other | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Daily capacity (MMBtu/day)
|
|
|
160,000 |
|
|
|
435,000 |
|
|
|
910,000 |
|
Annual demand charges (in millions)
|
|
|
$66 |
|
|
|
$21 |
|
|
|
$62 |
|
Expiration
|
|
|
2015 |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
2005 to 2028 |
|
Receipt points
|
|
|
AECO Canada |
|
|
|
South Texas |
|
|
|
Various |
|
Delivery points
|
|
|
Chicago |
|
|
|
Houston Ship Channel |
|
|
|
Various |
|
Historically, these contracts have resulted in significant
losses to El Paso. The extent of these losses is dependent
upon our ability to utilize the contracted pipeline capacity,
which is impacted by:
|
|
|
|
|
The difference in natural gas prices at contractual receipt and
delivery locations; |
|
|
|
The capital needed to use this capacity (i.e. cash margins or
letters of credit associated with the purchase and sale of
natural gas to use the capacity); and |
|
|
|
The capacity required to meet our other long term obligations. |
During 2003, we eliminated a significant portion of our natural
gas storage capacity contracts through the ongoing liquidation
of our trading portfolio. We retained storage capacity of
4.7 Bcf at TGPs Bear Creek Storage Field and
Enterprise Products Partners Wilson storage facilities for
operational and balancing purposes. We do not anticipate that
our retained storage contracts will significantly impact our
earnings in the future.
Tolling contracts. We have two tolling contracts under
which we supply fuel to power plants and receive the power
generated by these plants. In exchange for this right to the
power generated, we pay a demand charge. Our ability to recover
these demand charges is primarily dependent upon the difference
between the cost of fuel we supply to the plant and the value of
the power we receive from the plant under the contract. Our
tolling contracts are derivatives that impact our earnings as
their fair value changes each period.
47
Our largest tolling contract provides us with approximately
548 MW of generating capacity at the Cordova power plant
through 2019, for which we are charged $27 million to
$32 million in annual demand charges. In addition, the
Cordova power plant has the option to repurchase up to
50 percent of this generating capacity from us. We have
historically experienced significant volatility in the fair
value of this tolling contract, primarily due to changes in
natural gas and power prices in the market that Cordova serves.
We expect this volatility to continue. Our other tolling
contract provides us with approximately 257 MW of
generating capacity in the Alberta power pool through the third
quarter of 2005, for which we expect to be charged
$14 million of demand charges in 2005.
Contracts related to power restructuring activities.
These contracts consist of long-term obligations to provide
power for the restructured power contracts in our Power segment.
With the sale of substantially all of our restructured power
contracts, we have or are in the process of eliminating
substantially all of these obligations, with the exception of
our contract with Morgan Stanley related to UCF. This contract,
which calls for us to deliver of up to 1,700 MMWh per year
through 2016 at a fixed price, may continue to impact our
earnings in the future.
48
Below are the overall operating results and analysis of these
results for our Marketing and Trading segment for each of the
three years ended December 31. Because of the substantial
changes in the composition of our portfolio, year-to-year
comparability was affected:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Restated) | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Overall EBIT:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
margin(1)
|
|
$ |
(508 |
) |
|
$ |
(636 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,316 |
) |
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
(183 |
) |
|
|
(677 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating loss
|
|
|
(562 |
) |
|
|
(819 |
) |
|
|
(1,993 |
) |
|
Other income
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
(539 |
) |
|
$ |
(809 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,977 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Margin by Significant Contract Type:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas Contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production-related and other natural gas derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in fair value on positions designated as hedges on
December 1, 2004
|
|
$ |
(439 |
) |
|
$ |
(425 |
) |
|
$ |
(601 |
) |
|
|
|
Changes in fair value on production-related options
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in fair value on other natural gas positions
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(486 |
) |
|
|
|
Early contract terminations
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total production-related and other natural gas derivatives
|
|
|
(294 |
) |
|
|
(431 |
) |
|
|
(1,087 |
) |
|
|
Transportation-related contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demand charges
|
|
|
(149 |
) |
|
|
(156 |
) |
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
|
Settlements
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total transportation-related contracts
|
|
|
(110 |
) |
|
|
(152 |
) |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
Storage contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demand charges
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
Settlements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
|
Early contract terminations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total storage contracts
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross margin natural gas contracts
|
|
|
(406 |
) |
|
|
(590 |
) |
|
|
(1,066 |
) |
Power Contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in fair value on Cordova tolling agreement
|
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
(112 |
) |
|
|
Other power derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in fair value
|
|
|
(85 |
) |
|
|
(96 |
) |
|
|
(138 |
) |
|
|
|
Early contract terminations
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other power derivatives
|
|
|
(66 |
) |
|
|
(121 |
) |
|
|
(138 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross margin power contracts
|
|
|
(102 |
) |
|
|
(46 |
) |
|
|
(250 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross margin
|
|
$ |
(508 |
) |
|
$ |
(636 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,316 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Gross margin for our Marketing and Trading segment consists of
revenues from commodity trading and origination activities less
the costs of commodities sold, including changes in the fair
value of our derivative contracts. |
49
Overall, during 2004, 2003 and 2002, we experienced substantial
losses in gross margin on our trading contracts due to a number
of factors. In 2002, we experienced losses in our natural gas
and power contracts as a result of general market declines in
energy trading resulting from lower price volatility in the
natural gas and power markets and a generally weaker trading and
credit environment. Also contributing to the deterioration of
the market valuations of our trading and marketing assets was
the announcement in the fourth quarter of 2002 by many
participants in the trading industry, including us, to
discontinue or significantly reduce trading operations.
Following this announcement, we liquidated a number of positions
earlier than their scheduled maturity, which caused us to incur
additional losses in gross margin in 2002 and 2003 than had we
held those contracts to maturity. We also experienced difficulty
in 2002 and 2003 in collecting on several claims from various
industry participants experiencing financial difficulty, several
of whom sought bankruptcy protection. Any settlements under
ongoing proceedings in these matters could impact our future
financial results.
Listed below is a discussion of other factors, by significant
contract type, that affected the profitability of our Marketing
and Trading segment during each of the three years ended
December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
Production-related and other natural gas derivatives |
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives designated as hedges. The amounts in the
above table represent changes in the fair values of derivative
contracts that were designated as accounting hedges of our
Production segments natural gas production on
December 1, 2004. The losses indicated were a result of
increases in natural gas prices in 2002, 2003 and 2004 relative
to the fixed prices in these contracts and these losses were
historically included in our financial results. Following their
designation as accounting hedges, future income impacts of these
contracts will be reflected in our Production segment. However,
the act of designating these contracts as hedges will have no
impact on El Pasos overall cash flows in any period. |
|
|
|
Production-related options. As natural gas prices
decreased in the fourth quarter of 2004, the fair value of the
options we entered into in 2004 increased. These contracts had a
fair value of $120 million as of December 31, 2004,
which includes the premium we initially paid for the options. If
gas prices remain above the option price of $6.00 per
MMBtu, the fair value of these contracts will decrease over
their term since they would expire unexercised. We paid a total
net premium of $64 million for these options and the
additional option contracts we entered into in the first quarter
of 2005. |
|
|
|
Other natural gas derivatives. Because we were obligated
to purchase more natural gas at a fixed price than we sold under
these contracts during 2003 and 2004, the fair value of these
contracts increased as natural gas prices increased during those
years. In 2002, we incurred significant losses on these
contracts because of lower price volatility and the
deterioration of the energy trading environment described above. |
|
|
|
Early contract terminations. This amount includes a
$50 million gain recognized on the termination of an LNG
contract at the Elba Island facility in 2004. |
50
|
|
|
Transportation-related contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
In the fourth quarter of 2002, we began accounting for our
transportation contracts as accrual-based contracts with the
adoption of EITF Issue No. 02-3. As a result, our 2002
results include the demand charges and accrual settlements we
recorded during the fourth quarter of 2002. The mark-to-market
losses on these contracts during the first nine months of 2002
are included in the change in fair value of our other natural
gas derivatives above. Our annual demand charges on these
contracts were approximately $149 million in 2004 and
$156 million in 2003. The decrease in 2004 was due to the
liquidation of a number of these positions prior to their
original settlement dates. |
|
|
|
Our ability to use our Alliance pipeline capacity contract was
relatively consistent during 2003 and 2004, allowing us to
recover approximately 73 percent of the demand charges we
paid each year. This resulted from the price differentials
between the receipt and delivery points staying relatively
consistent during these years, which resulted in EBIT losses
from this contract of $15 million in 2003 and
$17 million during 2004. Our Texas Intrastate
transportation contracts incurred EBIT losses of
$36 million in 2003 and $26 million in 2004. We were
unable to utilize a significant portion of the capacity on these
pipelines primarily due to a decrease in the price differentials
between South Texas receipt points and Houston Ship Channel
delivery locations under the contracts. If the differences in
these prices do not improve, we will continue to experience
losses on these contracts. |
In the fourth quarter of 2002, we began accounting for our
storage contracts as accrual-based contracts with the adoption
of EITF Issue No. 02-3. As a result, our 2002 results
include the demand charges and accrual settlements we recorded
during the fourth quarter of 2002. The mark-to-market losses on
these contracts during the first nine months of 2002 are
included in the change in fair value of our other natural gas
derivatives. Our annual demand charges on these contracts were
approximately $2 million in 2004 and $21 million in
2003. In 2002 and 2003, we terminated a significant number of
our storage positions and recognized a $56 million gain in
2002 and a $31 million gain in 2003 on the withdrawal and sale
of the gas held in these storage locations. Based on our
actions, our remaining contracts with the Wilson and Bear Creek
storage facilities should not have a significant impact on the
future financial results of this segment.
|
|
|
Cordova tolling agreement |
Our Cordova agreement is sensitive to changes in forecasted
natural gas and power prices. In 2003, forecasted power prices
increased relative to natural gas prices, resulting in a
significant increase in the fair value of this contract. In
2004, forecasted natural gas prices increased relative to power
prices, resulting in a decrease in the fair value of the
contract. Additionally, although the Cordova power plant
historically sold its power into a relatively illiquid power
market in the Midwest, this power market was incorporated into
the more liquid Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland power pool in
2004. We believe that this change will reduce the volatility of
the fair value of the contract in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
Historically, many of our contract origination activities
related to power contracts. Because of the changes in the energy
trading environment and the change in focus of our Marketing and
Trading segment, these activities substantially decreased from
2002 to 2004. |
|
|
|
The ongoing liquidation of our trading book significantly
impacted our power contracts. We also recorded a
$25 million gain on the termination of a power contract
with our Power segment in 2004, which was eliminated in
El Pasos consolidated results. |
|
|
|
In the first quarter of 2005, we assigned our contracts to
supply power to our Power segments Cedar Brakes I and II
entities to Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc. We
recorded a loss of approximately $30 million during the
fourth quarter of 2004 upon signing the assignment and |
51
|
|
|
|
|
termination agreement. These contracts decreased in fair value
by $64 million, $67 million and $48 million in
2004, 2003 and 2002. |
|
|
|
In the first quarter of 2002, we recorded an $80 million
gain related to a power supply agreement that we entered into
with our Power segment. The gain, which was associated with the
UCF restructured power contract, was eliminated from
El Pasos consolidated results. Later in 2002, we
terminated this contract and entered into a new power supply
agreement with Morgan Stanley related to UCF. The Morgan Stanley
contract decreased in fair value by $72 million,
$77 million and $58 million in 2004, 2003 and 2002. |
|
|
|
Our remaining power contracts, which include those that are used
to manage the risk associated with our obligations to supply
power, increased in fair value by $81 million in 2004 and
$48 million in 2003. |
Operating expenses in our Marketing and Trading segment
decreased significantly each year due primarily to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
In 2002 and 2003, we recorded $487 million and
$26 million of charges in operating expenses related to the
Western Energy Settlement. In late 2003, this obligation was
transferred to our corporate operations. |
|
|
|
In 2003 and 2004, we recorded $28 million and
$10 million of bad debt expense associated with a fuel
supply agreement we have with the Berkshire power plant. |
|
|
|
As a result of the decision in November 2002 to reduce the size
of our trading portfolio, we experienced a significant decline
in employee headcount, which resulted in lower general and
administrative expenses in 2003. This decline in headcount,
coupled with the closing of our London office in 2003,
contributed to further decreases in general and administrative
expenses in 2004. |
|
|
|
Overall cost reduction efforts at the corporate level and our
reduced level of operations resulted in lower corporate overhead
being allocated to us in 2003 and 2004. |
Non-regulated Business Power Segment
As of December 31, 2004, our power segment primarily
consisted of an international power business. Historically, this
segment also included domestic power plant operations and a
domestic power contract restructuring business. We have sold or
announced the sale of substantially all of these domestic
businesses. Our ongoing focus within the power segment will be
to maximize the value of our assets in Brazil. We have
designated our other international power operations as non-core
activities, and expect to exit these activities in the future as
market conditions warrant.
|
|
|
International Power Plant Operations |
Brazil. As of December 31, 2004, our Brazilian
operations include our Macae, Porto Velho, Manaus, Rio Negro,
and Araucaria power plants and our investments in the Bolivia to
Brazil and Argentina to Chile pipelines.
|
|
|
|
|
Macae. Our Macae power plant sells a majority of its
power to the wholesale Brazilian power market. Macae also has a
contract that requires Petrobras to make minimum revenue
payments until August 2007. Petrobras did not pay amounts due
under the contract for December 2004 and January 2005 and filed
a lawsuit and for arbitration. For a further discussion of this
matter, see Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements,
Note 17, on page F-89. The future financial
performance of the Macae plant will be affected by the outcome
of this dispute and by regional changes in power markets. |
|
|
|
Porto Velho. Our Porto Velho plant sells power to
Eletronorte under two power sales agreements that expire in 2010
and 2023. Eletronorte absorbs substantially all of the
plants fuel costs and purchases all of the power the plant
is able to generate, as long as the plant operates within
availability levels |
52
|
|
|
|
|
required by these contracts. As a result, the profitability of
the plant is dependent primarily on maintaining these
availability levels through efficient operations and maintenance
practices. These availability levels are expected to decrease in
2005 because of an equipment failure at the plant during 2004
that is expected to be repaired by the first quarter of 2006. In
addition, we are negotiating potential contractual amendments
with Eletronorte that may alter the volumes and prices of power
to be sold under the contracts and may affect our future
earnings. For a further discussion of these negotiations, see
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 17, on
page F-89. |
|
|
|
Manaus and Rio Negro. In January 2005, we signed new
power sales contracts for our Manaus and Rio Negro power plants
with Manaus Energia. Under these new contracts, Manaus Energia
will pay a price for its power that is similar to that in the
previous contracts. In addition, Manaus Energia will assume
ownership of the Manaus and Rio Negro plants in 2008. Based on
this ownership transfer and the contract terms, we will
deconsolidate the plants in the first quarter of 2005 and begin
to account for them as equity investments. In addition, the
earnings from these assets will decrease as a result of the new
contracts. |
|
|
|
Other. The power sales contract of the Araucaria power
plant is currently in international arbitration due to
non-payment by the utility that purchases power from the plant.
As a result, Araucaria ceased its operations in 2003. For a
further discussion of these arbitration proceedings, see Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 17, on
page F-89. |
Our two pipelines began operations in 2003 and generate income
through the transportation of natural gas to various customers
in South America.
Asia. Our Asian operations include interests in 15 power
plants, 13 of which are equity investments. These facilities
sell electricity and electrical generating capacity under
long-term power sales agreements with local transmission and
distribution companies, many of which are government controlled.
The majority of these contracts allow for changes in fuel costs
to be passed through to the customer through power prices. The
economic performance of these facilities is impacted by the
level of electricity demand and changes in the political and
regulatory environment in the countries they serve as well as
the relative cost of producing that power. We recorded an
impairment of these assets in 2004 in connection with our
decision to sell these assets.
Other International. We have interests in 10 power
facilities located in South and Central America and Europe, most
of which are equity investments. These facilities sell
electricity and electrical generating capacity under long-term
and short-term power sales agreements with local transmission
and distribution companies as well as to the local spot markets.
The economic performance of these facilities is impacted by fuel
prices, the level of demand for electricity, the level of
competition from other power generators, changes in the
political and regulatory environment in the countries they
serve, and the relative cost of producing power. The performance
of our facilities in Central America is also affected by
variances in the level of rainfall in the region. As the level
of rainfall increases, the level of generation from
hydroelectric plants increases which can negatively impact power
pricing in the spot market. We have recently announced that we
are considering the sale of a number of these assets, although
at this time we have not actively marketed them. As this process
progresses we will continue to assess the value of these assets
which may result in impairments.
|
|
|
Domestic Power Plant Operations |
Our domestic operations as of December 31, 2004, primarily
consist of an equity ownership in a natural gas-fired power
plant, Midland Cogeneration Venture (MCV). The price of
electricity sold by MCV is indexed to coal, while the plant is
fueled by natural gas, which it purchases under both long-term
contracts and on the spot market. Changes in the relationship
between coal and natural gas prices directly impact the economic
performance of this facility. In 2004, we recorded an impairment
of our interest in this plant based on a decline in the value of
the investment that we considered to be other than temporary.
During 2004 and the first quarter of 2005, we sold our interests
in 33 domestic power plants. With these sales, we incurred
substantial impairments in 2003 and 2004. As a result of these
sales, we will have substantially lower earnings in our Power
segment.
53
|
|
|
Domestic Power Contract Restructuring Business |
In 2002 and 2003, we maintained or completed several contract
restructuring transactions, the largest of which was UCF. During
2004, we completed the sale of UCF and its related restructured
power contract, and entered into an agreement to sell our
ownership in Cedar Brakes I and II, and their related
restructured power contracts. As of December 31, 2004, we
held an interest in Mohawk River Funding II and Cedar
Brakes I and II. We completed the sale of Cedar Brakes I and II
in the first quarter of 2005 and are evaluating potential buyers
for Mohawk River Funding II.
Below are the overall operating results and analysis of
activities within our Power segment for each of the three years
ended December 31. Substantial changes in the business
during these periods affected year-to-year comparability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Restated) | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Overall EBIT:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
margin(1)
|
|
$ |
643 |
|
|
$ |
865 |
|
|
$ |
1,103 |
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
(599 |
) |
|
|
(185 |
) |
|
|
(160 |
) |
|
|
Other operating expenses
|
|
|
(468 |
) |
|
|
(693 |
) |
|
|
(591 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
(424 |
) |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
352 |
|
|
Earnings from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairments and net losses on sale
|
|
|
(395 |
) |
|
|
(347 |
) |
|
|
(426 |
) |
|
|
Equity in earnings
|
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
170 |
|
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
(84 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
(599 |
) |
|
$ |
(28 |
) |
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT by Area:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
International power
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brazilian operations
|
|
$ |
52 |
|
|
$ |
177 |
|
|
$ |
78 |
|
|
|
Asian operations
|
|
|
(148 |
) |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
(243 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(89 |
) |
|
|
296 |
|
|
|
(168 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic power plant operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MCV
|
|
|
(171 |
) |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
Sold or sale announced
|
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
|
(400 |
) |
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(229 |
) |
|
|
(383 |
) |
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic power contract restructuring activities
|
|
|
(228 |
) |
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
341 |
|
|
Power turbine impairments
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
(162 |
) |
|
Other(2)
|
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
|
(79 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
(599 |
) |
|
$ |
(28 |
) |
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Gross margin for our Power segment consists of revenues from our
power plants and the initial net gains and losses incurred in
connection with the restructuring of power contracts, as well as
the subsequent revenues, cost of electricity purchases and
changes in fair value of those contracts. The cost of fuel used
in the power generation process is included in operating
expenses. |
54
|
|
(2) |
Other consists of the indirect expenses and general and
administrative costs associated with our domestic and
international operations, including legal, finance, and
engineering costs. Direct general and administrative expenses of
our domestic and international operations are included in EBIT
of those operations. |
International Power. The following table shows
significant factors impacting EBIT in our international power
business in 2004, 2003 and 2002:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Restated) | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings from consolidated and unconsolidated plant operations
|
|
$ |
235 |
|
|
$ |
177 |
|
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
Manaus and Rio Negro impairment
|
|
|
(183 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contract termination fee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Brazil
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
177 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings from consolidated and unconsolidated plant operations
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
Asian asset impairments
|
|
|
(212 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PPN impairment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
Meizhou Wan impairment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
Other
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Asia
|
|
|
(148 |
) |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other International Power
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings from consolidated and unconsolidated plant operations
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
Argentina gain on sale (impairment)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
(342 |
) |
|
Other impairments
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
Other
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
(243 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
(89 |
) |
|
$ |
296 |
|
|
$ |
(168 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brazil. During 2002 and 2003, we completed the
construction of several power plants and pipelines, which
allowed them to reach full operational capacity. However, our
financial results during each of the three years ended
December 31, 2004 were impacted significantly by regional
economic and political conditions, which affected the
renegotiation of several of the power contracts for our
Brazilian power plants. Below is a discussion of each of our
significant assets in Brazil.
Through the first quarter of 2003, we conducted a majority of
our power plant operations in Brazil through Gemstone, an
unconsolidated joint venture. In April 2003, we acquired the
joint venture partners interest in Gemstone and began
consolidating Gemstones debt and its interests in the
Macae and Porto Velho power plants. As a result, our operating
results for 2002 and the first quarter of 2003 include the
equity earnings we earned from Gemstone, while our consolidated
operating results for all other periods in 2003 and 2004 include
the revenues, expenses and equity earnings from Gemstones
assets.
The EBIT we earned from our Macae plants operations was
$172 million, $156 million, and $136 million in
2004, 2003, and 2002. The increase in 2003 was primarily due to
Macae reaching full operational capacity in the third quarter of
2002. In addition, the consolidation of Gemstone described above
improved our EBIT in 2003 and 2004 since the interest and taxes
incurred by Gemstone were no longer included in EBIT.
The EBIT we earned from our Porto Velho plants operations
was $28 million, $28 million and $23 million in
2004, 2003, and 2002. The increase in 2003 was primarily due to
Porto Velho reaching full
55
operational capacity in mid-2003. In the fourth quarter of 2004,
our Porto Velho plant experienced an equipment failure that is
expected to temporarily reduce the output of the plant by
approximately 30 percent. This equipment failure is
expected to be repaired by the first quarter of 2006.
Our combined net exposure on the Macae and Porto Velho plants
was approximately $0.8 billion at December 31, 2004.
We are currently in negotiations over the Porto Velho contracts
with Eletronorte and in a dispute with Petrobras over the Macae
contract. As these negotiations and disputes progress, it is
possible that impairments of these assets may occur, and these
impairments may be significant. For a further discussion of
these negotiations and disputes, see Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements, Note 17, on page F-89.
In 2003, we began negotiating the extension of the Manaus and
Rio Negro power contracts, which were to expire in 2005 and
2006. Based on the status of our negotiations to extend the
contracts, which was negatively impacted by changes in the
Brazilian political environment in 2004, we recorded a
$183 million impairment of our investment in Manaus and Rio
Negro in 2004. We completed an extension of these contracts
during the first quarter of 2005. The Manaus and Rio Negro
plants had earnings from plant operations of $30 million in
2004, $12 million in 2003 and $18 million in 2002.
The EBIT for our Brazilian operations includes EBIT earned by
our Bolivia to Brazil and Argentina to Chile pipelines. This
amount was $28 million in 2004 and $18 million in
2003. Our EBIT earned by these pipelines was not significant in
2002. Increases during the three year period were primarily due
to the Bolivia to Brazil pipeline reaching full operational
capacity in the third quarter of 2003.
Asia. During the fourth quarter of 2004, we recorded a
$212 million charge on our Asian power assets in connection
with our decision to pursue the sale of these assets. These
impairment amounts were based on our estimates of the fair value
of these projects. In 2005, we engaged a financial advisor to
assist us in the sale of these assets. In the first quarter of
2005, we sold our investment in the PPN power facility in India
for $20 million. We had impaired this plant in 2002
primarily because of regional political and economic events at
that time. As the sales process continues, we will continue to
update the fair value of our Asian assets, which may result in
further impairments.
From 2002 to 2004, earnings from our Asian power assets were
relatively stable as the underlying plants maintained steady
levels of availability and production. Higher fuel costs during
these periods did not materially impact these plants
operations as substantially all of the higher fuel costs were
passed through to the power purchasers through higher contracted
power prices.
However, during this three year period, several other
significant events occurred that improved our financial
performance from these assets, including:
|
|
|
|
|
The conversion of two of our Chinese power plants from heavy
fuel oil to natural gas, which lowered the production costs at
these facilities; |
|
|
|
The issuance of debt at our Meizhou Wan plant in 2004, which
reduced liquidity concerns about the plants operation.
This plant had been partially impaired in 2002 based on those
concerns; |
|
|
|
The favorable completion of negotiations with Philippine
regulators on fuel and power prices at our East Asia
plants; and |
|
|
|
The closing of our Singapore office in 2002, which lowered
operating expenses. |
Other International. The earnings from our other
international operations have decreased from 2002 to 2004 due
primarily to economic difficulties in some of the countries that
we serve as well as specific
56
transactions that affected the profitability of the underlying
plants. Major factors contributing to the decreases were:
|
|
|
|
|
Dominican Republic. An economic crisis in the Dominican
Republic during 2002 and 2003 significantly reduced the amount
of power generated and impacted our ability to collect some of
the receivables at our power plants in the country during 2003
and 2004. The Dominican Republics economy began to improve
in late 2004 following the election of a new president. See
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 22, on
page F-110 for a further discussion of our investments in
the Dominican Republic. |
|
|
|
El Salvador. In 2002, we restructured a power contract at
our El Salvador power facility, which resulted in a
$77 million gain in 2002. This restructuring converted the
plant to a merchant facility that sells power under short-term
contracts and on the open market. As a result, the power and
resulting earnings generated by this plant in 2002 were higher
than in 2003 and 2004. |
|
|
|
Argentina. In 2002, we impaired our investment in
Argentina based on new legislation resulting from an economic
crisis in Argentina. We sold these plants in 2003 and are
attempting to recover a portion of these losses through
international arbitration. |
|
|
|
Other. Our other international operations are also
sensitive to changes in the local demand for power and the cost
of fuel to run the power facilities. Our power plant in England
benefited from increases in demand and power prices in 2004, but
this was largely offset by higher fuel prices at our Central
American power plants. |
As part of our long term business strategy, we are considering
the sale of a number of our other international power assets. As
these sales occur and/or as market indicators of fair value
become available, it is possible that impairments of these
assets may occur, and these impairments may be significant.
Domestic Power. The following table shows significant
factors impacting EBIT within our domestic power business in
2004, 2003, and 2002:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
MCV
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings from plant operations
|
|
$ |
(10 |
) |
|
$ |
29 |
|
|
$ |
28 |
|
|
Impairments
|
|
|
(161 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets sold or expected to be sold in 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings from consolidated and unconsolidated plant
operations(1)
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
103 |
|
|
|
144 |
|
|
Impairments and write-offs
|
|
|
(105 |
) |
|
|
(503 |
) |
|
|
(89 |
) |
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
(229 |
) |
|
$ |
(383 |
) |
|
$ |
80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
During 2004 and 2003, we recorded $60 million and
$105 million of operating income generated by the power
plants from Chaparral, an equity investment we consolidated
effective January 1, 2003. Prior to January 2003, we
recorded our earnings from the Chaparral power plants through
the equity earnings and management fees we received which were
approximately $124 million in 2002. |
MCV. Our MCV power plant is a natural gas-fired plant,
which sells its power at a contracted price that is indexed to
coal prices. During 2004, MCV experienced reduced EBIT primarily
because natural gas prices increased at a faster rate than coal
prices. This decrease in EBIT was magnified by an increase in
the volume of power MCV was required to generate. In January
2005, MCV received regulatory approval to reduce the required
level of power generation. In the fourth quarter of 2004, we
impaired our investment in MCV based on a decline in the value
of the investment due to increased fuel costs. We will continue
to assess our ability to recover our investment in MCV and its
related operations in the future.
57
Assets sold or to be sold in 2005. During the three years
ended December 31, 2004, we recorded significant
impairments in our domestic power business as discussed below.
|
|
|
|
|
In 2004, 2003, and 2002, we incurred approximately
$105 million, $208 million and $89 million of
asset impairments, net of realized gains and losses, in our
domestic power business based on the anticipated sale of these
assets as well as operational and contractual issues at several
of these facilities. During 2004, these amounts included
$81 million related to impairing the earnings of assets
held for sale, in addition to $24 million of impairments,
net of gains and losses, on long-lived assets related to our
held for sale merchant and contracted plants. We also incurred a
$25 million loss on the termination of a power contract
with our Marketing and Trading segment related to one of the
assets sold, which is reflected in our 2004 earnings from plant
operations. |
|
|
|
In 2003, we also: |
|
|
|
|
|
Recorded an impairment of our Chaparral investment of
$207 million based on a decline in the investments
value that was considered to be other than temporary. See Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements, Notes 2 and 3, on
pages F-58 to F-62, and Note 22, on page F-110, for
further discussion of these matters. |
|
|
|
Wrote-off a receivable of $88 million from Milford Power
LLC related to the transfer of our interest in Milford Power LLC
to its lenders after continued difficulties with this facility. |
Domestic Power Contract Restructuring. The following
table shows significant factors impacting EBIT within our
domestic power contract restructuring activities in 2004, 2003
and 2002:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Restructuring gain
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
331 |
|
Impairments and gains (losses) on sale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UCF
|
|
|
(99 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cedar Brakes I and II
|
|
|
(227 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Change in fair value of contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
UCF, Cedar Brakes I and II
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
MRF II
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
(228 |
) |
|
$ |
150 |
|
|
$ |
341 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2002, we restructured several above-market, long-term power
sales contracts with regulated utilities that were originally
tied to older power plants. These contracts were amended so that
the power sold to the utilities was not required to be delivered
from the specified power generation plant, but could be obtained
in the wholesale power market. As a result of our credit rating
downgrades and economic changes in the power market, we are no
longer pursuing additional power contract restructuring
activities and are exiting such activities which will reduce our
EBIT in future periods. For a further discussion of our power
restructuring activities, see below and Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements, Note 10, on page F-73.
Restructuring Gain. During 2002, we restructured the
power sales contracts at our Eagle Point power facility (also
known as UCF) and our Mount Carmel power plant, which resulted
in combined net gains of $501 million (net of minority
interest.) Prior to restructuring the contracts, the power
plants power purchase contracts were accounted for using
accrual accounting. Following the restructuring, the power
purchase agreements were accounted for as derivatives and
recorded at fair value, resulting in a net gain on the date the
contracts were restructured. In conjunction with the UCF
restructuring in 2002, we paid a $90 million contract
termination fee to terminate a steam contract between our Eagle
Point power plant and the Eagle Point
58
refinery and we recorded an $80 million loss on a power
supply agreement that we entered into with our Marketing and
Trading segment. The $90 million and $80 million
losses eliminated in El Pasos consolidated results.
Sale of UCF/ Cedar Brakes I and II. During 2004, we sold
UCF and in March 2005 we sold Cedar Brakes I and II. These sales
resulted in impairments on the Cedar Brakes I and II entities
and on UCF in 2004.
Non-regulated Business Field Services Segment
Our Field Services segment conducts our remaining midstream
activities, which primarily include gathering and processing
assets in south Louisiana. During 2002, 2003 and 2004, we held
significant general and limited partner interests in GulfTerra
and Enterprise. From December 2003 to January 2005, we sold all
of our general and limited partner interests in GulfTerra and
Enterprise, our South Texas processing plants, and our interests
in the Indian Springs natural gas gathering and processing
assets to Enterprise in a series of transactions described
further in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements,
Note 22, on page F-110.
During 2003 and 2004, the primary source of earnings in our
Field Services segment was from our interests in GulfTerra and
Enterprise. On the sale of our interests in GulfTerra in 2003
and 2004, we recognized significant gains, as well as a goodwill
impairment of $480 million. Prior to the sale of our
interests in GulfTerra, we also received management fees under
an agreement to provide operational and administrative services
to the partnership. In addition, we received reimbursements for
costs paid directly by us on GulfTerras behalf. For the
twelve months ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002, we
received approximately $71 million, $91 million, and
$60 million in management fees and cost reimbursements. As
a result of the sale of our general and limited partnership
interests in September 2004, we no longer receive management
fees and, as the result of the sale of our remaining interest in
January 2005, we will no longer recognize equity earnings
related to these investments.
Our significant remaining obligations to Enterprise are to
provide an estimated $45 million in payments to Enterprise
during the next three years and provide for the reimbursement of
a portion of Enterprises future pipeline integrity costs
related to assets sold by us to GulfTerra in 2002 for which we
recorded a $74 million liability in 2003. As a result of
regulatory changes relating to pipeline integrity and subsequent
negotiations with Enterprise, we reduced our estimated
obligation to Enterprise by approximately $9 million during
the fourth quarter of 2004. In addition, we are to provide for
the reimbursement of a portion of GulfTerras maintenance
expenses on certain previously sold assets for which we recorded
an estimated liability and a charge to operating expenses of
$8 million in 2004. For further discussion of these
indemnification agreements, see Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements, Note 17, on page F-89.
During 2004, our earnings and cash distributions received from
GulfTerra and Enterprise were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings | |
|
Cash | |
|
|
Recognized | |
|
Received | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
General partners share of distributions
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
$ |
67 |
|
Proportionate share of income available to common unit holders
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
Series C units
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
Gain on issuance by GulfTerra of its common units
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
100 |
|
|
$ |
117 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59
Below are the operating results and analysis of the results for
our Field Services segment for each of the three years ended
December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Gathering and processing gross
margins(1)
|
|
$ |
165 |
|
|
$ |
132 |
|
|
$ |
349 |
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (loss) on long-lived assets
|
|
|
(508 |
) |
|
|
(173 |
) |
|
|
179 |
|
|
Other operating expenses
|
|
|
(122 |
) |
|
|
(152 |
) |
|
|
(255 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
(465 |
) |
|
|
(193 |
) |
|
|
273 |
|
Other income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (loss) on unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
501 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
Other income
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
$ |
133 |
|
|
$ |
289 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volumes and Prices:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gathering
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volumes (BBtu/d)
|
|
|
203 |
|
|
|
357 |
|
|
|
3,023 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prices ($/MMBtu)
|
|
$ |
0.10 |
|
|
$ |
0.18 |
|
|
$ |
0.17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Processing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volumes (BBtu/d)
|
|
|
2,780 |
|
|
|
3,206 |
|
|
|
3,920 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prices ($/MMBtu)
|
|
$ |
0.14 |
|
|
$ |
0.10 |
|
|
$ |
0.10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Gross margins consist of operating revenues less cost of
products sold. We believe that this measurement is more
meaningful for understanding and analyzing our Field Services
segments operating results because commodity costs play
such a significant role in the determination of profit from our
midstream activities. |
60
Below is a summary of significant factors and related
discussions affecting EBIT for each of the three years ended
December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Gathering and Processing Activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gathering and processing margins
|
|
$ |
165 |
|
|
$ |
132 |
|
|
$ |
349 |
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
(122 |
) |
|
|
(152 |
) |
|
|
(255 |
) |
|
Other
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GulfTerra/ Enterprise Related Items
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sale of assets to GulfTerra
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
San Juan, Texas, and New Mexico assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
210 |
|
|
|
Release of Chaco lease obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pipeline integrity indemnification
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(74 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Sale of assets/interests to Enterprise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on sale of GP/ LP interests
|
|
|
507 |
|
|
|
266 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Texas
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(167 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indian Springs
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill impairment
|
|
|
(480 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity earnings
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
153 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
245 |
|
|
|
279 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Asset Sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset impairments and gains (losses) on sales
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Louisiana
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(66 |
) |
|
|
Dauphin Island/ Mobile Bay
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(86 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
(85 |
) |
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
$ |
133 |
|
|
$ |
289 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gathering and Processing Activities. During the three
years ended December 31, 2004, we have experienced a
decrease in our gross margin with a corresponding decrease in
our operation and maintenance expenses primarily as a result of
asset sales. Additionally, our gathering and processing margins
during these periods have been impacted by the spread between
NGL prices and natural gas prices. As these spreads increase, we
generally increase the NGL volumes we extract, which affects our
margin. In 2003, our margins were negatively impacted by a
decrease in these spreads as natural gas prices relative to NGL
prices increased, which also caused us to reduce the amount of
NGL extracted as compared to 2002. However, in 2004 these
margins were positively impacted by an increase in these spreads
as NGL prices recovered, which also caused us to increase the
amount of NGL extracted by our natural gas processing facilities
in south Texas. In addition, our margin attributable to the
marketing of NGL increased in 2004 as a result of lower fuel and
transportation costs. In the future, the margins for our
remaining assets will remain sensitive to the spread between
natural gas pricing and NGL pricing.
GulfTerra/ Enterprise Related Items. During 2002 and
2003, we sold a substantial amount of our assets to GulfTerra
which decreased our gross margin and operating expenses, while
at the same time increasing our
61
equity earnings from our general and limited partner interests
in GulfTerra. Listed below are the significant transactions with
GulfTerra:
|
|
|
|
|
2002 the gain on our sale of our Texas and
New Mexico gathering and pipeline assets and our San Juan
gathering assets. |
|
|
|
2003 the release from our Chaco lease
obligation in return for communication assets and clarification
of our obligation to provide for pipeline integrity costs
through 2006. |
From December 2003 to January 2005, we entered into a series of
transactions with Enterprise in which we sold all of our
interests in GulfTerra. In December 2003, we sold
50 percent of our interest in GulfTerra to Enterprise and
recorded a gain on the sale in other income. At the same time,
we recorded an impairment of our south Texas assets in operating
expenses based on the planned sale of these assets to Enterprise
in 2004. In September 2004, we completed the sale of our
remaining 50 percent interest in the general partner of
GulfTerra to Enterprise and recorded a gain on the sale in other
income. As a result of the substantial reduction in our asset
base primarily from these sales to Enterprise, we recorded an
impairment in operating expenses for the entire amount of
goodwill upon determination that the goodwill in this segment
was no longer recoverable. Finally, at the end of 2004, we
entered into negotiations to sell our Indian Springs assets to
Enterprise and recorded an impairment charge in operating
expenses on these assets based on their planned sale in 2005. We
completed the sale of the Indian Springs assets in January 2005.
We also sold our remaining general and limited partnership
interests in Enterprise for $425 million in January 2005.
Other Asset Sales. In 2002, we recorded an impairment in
operating expenses for our north Louisiana assets based on their
planned sale, which was completed in 2003. In 2003, we recorded
an impairment in other income of our investment in our Dauphin
Island Gathering system and Mobile Bay Processing plant based on
the planned sale of these investments. We sold these investments
in August 2004.
Corporate and Other Expenses, Net
Our corporate operations include our general and administrative
functions as well as a telecommunications business, petroleum
ship charter operations and various other contracts and assets,
including financial services and LNG and related items, all of
which are immaterial to our results. The following table
presents items impacting the EBIT in our corporate operations
for the years ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Impairments, contract terminations and gains (losses) on asset
sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Telecommunications business
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(396 |
) |
|
$ |
(168 |
) |
|
LNG business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(108 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Aircraft.
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Earnings from operations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Financial services business
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
Petroleum ship charters
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
Telecommunications business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(44 |
) |
|
|
(65 |
) |
Restructuring charges
|
|
|
(91 |
) |
|
|
(91 |
) |
|
|
(51 |
) |
Debt gains (losses):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency fluctuations on Euro-denominated debt
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
(112 |
) |
|
|
(95 |
) |
|
Early extinguishment/exchange of debt
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(49 |
) |
|
|
21 |
|
Change in litigation, insurance and other reserves
|
|
|
(116 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
14 |
|
Other
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(47 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total EBIT
|
|
$ |
(217 |
) |
|
$ |
(852 |
) |
|
$ |
(387 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62
We have a number of pending litigation matters, including
shareholder and other lawsuits filed against us. During 2004, we
incurred additional legal costs related to changes in our
estimated reserves for these existing legal matters. These
changes were based on ongoing assessments, developments and
evaluations of the possible outcomes of these matters. We also
incurred accretion expense related to our Western Energy
Settlement. Our Western Energy Settlement accrual assumes that
we will make payments to claimants through 2023. If we retire
this obligation earlier than that period, we could incur
additional charges. Finally, in 2004, we increased our insurance
reserves by approximately $30 million. This accrual related
to our decision to withdraw from a mutual insurance company in
which we were a member and an accrual for additional premiums in
another. In all of our legal and insurance matters, we evaluate
each suit and claim as to its merits and our defenses. Adverse
rulings against us and/or unfavorable settlements related to
these and other legal matters would impact our future results.
As discussed in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements,
Note 4, on page F-66, we accrued $80 million in
2004 related to the consolidation of our Houston-based
operations. Our estimated relocation costs are based on a
discounted liability, which includes estimates of future
sublease rentals. Our earnings in future periods will be
impacted by the extent to which actual sublease rentals differ
from our estimates, and by accretion of this discounted
liability, which is estimated to be approximately
$8 million for 2005. In total, had estimates of sublease
rentals for vacated space that was not subleased as of
December 31, 2004 been excluded from our calculations, our
discounted liability would have been approximately
$121 million versus the amount we recorded. For 2005, if we
are unable to collect the estimated sublease rentals included in
our accrual, we could incur an additional $3 million in
rental expense. We are also pursuing the sale of our
telecommunications facility in Chicago. As the sales process
progresses we will continue to assess the value of this facility
which may result in an impairment.
Interest and Debt Expense
Below is an analysis of our interest and debt expense for each
of the three years ended December 31 (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Long-term debt, including current maturities
|
|
$ |
1,510 |
|
|
$ |
1,628 |
|
|
$ |
1,153 |
|
Revolving credit facilities
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
Commercial paper
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26 |
|
Other interest
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
130 |
|
Capitalized interest
|
|
|
(39 |
) |
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest and debt expense
|
|
$ |
1,607 |
|
|
$ |
1,791 |
|
|
$ |
1,297 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2004 Compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2003 |
During 2004, our total interest and debt expense decreased
primarily due to the retirements of long-term debt and other
financing obligations (net of issuances) during 2003 and 2004.
During 2004, we also paid off $850 million of borrowings
under our previous $3 billion revolving credit facility.
However, these repayments were offset by $1.25 billion
borrowed under the new $3 billion credit agreement entered
into in November 2004 and related charges and fees incurred with
entering into the new credit agreement.
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2003 Compared to Year Ended
December 31, 2002 |
During 2003, total interest and debt expense increased compared
with 2002 as we issued additional debt securities and
consolidated various financing obligations including those
associated with Chaparral, Gemstone, Lakeside. We also
reclassified certain of our preferred securities as long-term
debt. Finally, interest expense on revolving credit facilities
increased in 2003 from additional borrowings in 2003 as compared
to 2002.
63
Distributions on Preferred Interests of Consolidated
Subsidiaries
Our distributions on preferred securities decreased
significantly between 2002 and 2004. During this period, we
redeemed a number of obligations including those related to our
Clydesdale, Trinity River, and Coastal Securities financing
arrangements. We also reclassified our Coastal Finance I and
Capital Trust I mandatorily redeemable securities to
long-term debt upon the adoption of SFAS No. 150 in
2003, and began recording the distributions on these securities
as interest expense. Our remaining preferred interests at
December 31, 2004 consists of $300 million of 8.25%
preferred stock of our consolidated subsidiary, El Paso
Tennessee Pipeline Co.
For a further discussion of our borrowings and other financing
activities related to our consolidated subsidiaries, see Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements, Notes 15 and 16, on
pages F-81 through F-88.
Income Taxes
Income taxes for 2004, 2003 and 2002 have been revised to
reflect the effects on income taxes of the restatements
described in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements,
Note 1, on page F-46.
Income taxes for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003
and 2002 were $31 million, ($479) million and
($641) million resulting in effective tax rates of
(4) percent, 45 percent and 34 percent.
Differences in our effective tax rates from the statutory tax
rate of 35 percent were primarily a result of the following
factors:
|
|
|
|
|
state income taxes, net of federal income tax effect; |
|
|
|
earnings/losses from unconsolidated affiliates where we
anticipate receiving dividends; |
|
|
|
foreign income taxed at different rates; |
|
|
|
abandonments and sales of foreign investments; |
|
|
|
valuation allowances; |
|
|
|
non-deductible dividends on the preferred stock of subsidiaries; |
|
|
|
non-conventional fuel tax credits; and |
|
|
|
non-deductible goodwill impairments. |
For a reconciliation of the statutory rate to our effective tax
rate, as well as matters that could impact our future tax
expense, see below and Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements, Note 7, on page F-70.
For 2004, our overall effective tax rate on continuing
operations was significantly different than the statutory rate
due primarily to the GulfTerra transactions and the impairments
of certain of our foreign investments. The sale of our interests
in GulfTerra associated with the merger between GulfTerra and
Enterprise in September 2004 resulted in a significant net
taxable gain (compared to a lower book gain) and significant tax
expense due to the non-deductibility of a significant portion of
the goodwill written off as a result of the transaction. The
impact of this non-deductible goodwill increased our tax expense
in 2004 by approximately $139 million. See Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 22, on
page F-110 for a further discussion of the merger and
related transactions. Additionally, we received no
U.S. federal income tax benefit on the impairment of
certain of our foreign investments. The effective tax rate for
2004 absent these items would have been 32 percent.
For 2003, our overall effective tax rate on continuing
operations was significantly different than the statutory rate
due, in part, to $53 million of tax benefits related to
abandonments and sales of certain of our foreign investments.
The effective tax rate for 2003 absent these tax benefits would
have been 40 percent.
In 2004, Congress proposed but failed to enact legislation that
would disallow deductions for certain settlements made to or on
behalf of governmental entities. It is possible Congress will
reintroduce similar legislation in 2005. If enacted, this tax
legislation could impact the deductibility of the Western Energy
Settlement and could result in a write-off of some or all of the
associated tax benefits. In such an event, our
64
tax expense would increase. Our total tax benefits related to
the Western Energy Settlement were approximately
$400 million as of December 31, 2004.
In October 2004, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 was
signed into law. This legislation creates, among other things, a
temporary incentive for U.S. multinational companies to
repatriate accumulated income earned outside the U.S. at an
effective tax rate of 5.25%. The U.S. Treasury Department
has not issued final guidelines for applying the repatriation
provisions of the American Jobs Creation Act. We have not
provided U.S. deferred taxes on foreign earnings where such
earnings were intended to be indefinitely reinvested outside the
U.S. We are currently evaluating whether we will repatriate
any foreign earnings under the American Jobs Creation Act, and
are evaluating the other provisions of this legislation, which
may impact our taxes in the future.
As part of our long-term business strategy, we anticipate that
we will sell our Asian power investments. As further discussed
in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 7, on
page F-70, we have not historically recorded United States
deferred taxes on book versus tax basis differences in these
investments because our historical intent was to indefinitely
reinvest earnings from these projects outside the United States.
In 2004, our intent on these assets changed such that we now
intend to use the proceeds from the sale within the U.S. As
a result, we recorded U.S. deferred tax liabilities for
those instances where the book basis in our investment exceeded
the tax basis in 2004. At this time, however, due to
uncertainties as to the manner, timing and approval of the sale
transactions, we have not recorded U.S. deferred tax assets
for those instances where the tax basis in our investment
exceeded the book basis, except in instances where we believe
the realization of the asset is assured. As these uncertainties
become known, we will record additional tax effects to reflect
the ultimate sale transactions, the amounts of which could have
a significant impact on our future recorded tax amounts and our
effective tax rates in those periods.
We have a number of pending IRS Audits and income tax
contingencies that are in various stages of completion as
further discussed in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements,
Note 7, on page F-70. We have provided reserves on
these matters that are based on our best estimate of the
ultimate outcome of each matter. As these audits are finalized
and as these contingencies are resolved, we will adjust our
estimates, the impact of which could have a material effect on
the recorded amount of income taxes and our effective tax rates
in those periods.
Discontinued Operations
Our loss from discontinued operations for 2003 has been restated
to properly reflect the classification of income taxes between
continuing and discontinued operations related to our
discontinued Canadian exploration and production operations, and
further restated in 2003 and 2004 to adjust the amount of losses
on sales of assets and investments and related tax effects in
our discontinued Canadian exploration and production operations
and petroleum markets operations which had CTA balances. For a
further discussion see Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements, Note 1, on page F-46.
For the year ended December 2004, the loss from our discontinued
operations was $114 million compared to a loss of
$1,279 million during 2003. In 2004, $36 million of
losses from discontinued operations related to our Canadian and
certain other international production operations, primarily
from losses on sales and impairment charges, and
$78 million was from our petroleum markets activities,
primarily related to losses on the completed sales of our Eagle
Point and Aruba refineries along with other operational and
severance costs. The losses in 2003 related primarily to
impairment charges on our Aruba and Eagle Point refineries and
on chemical assets, all as a result of our decision to exit and
sell these businesses and ceiling test charges related to our
Canadian production operations. The loss in 2002 was primarily
due to operating losses at our Aruba refinery, impairment
charges on our MTBE chemical plant and coal mining operations,
and ceiling test charges related to our Canadian production
operations.
65
Commitments and Contingencies
For a discussion of our commitments and contingencies, see Notes
to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 17, on
page F-89, incorporated herein by reference.
Critical Accounting Policies
Our critical accounting policies are those accounting policies
that involve the use of complicated processes, assumptions
and/or judgments in the preparation of our financial statements.
We have discussed the development and selection of our critical
accounting policies and related disclosures with the audit
committee of our Board of Directors and have identified the
following critical accounting policies for the current year.
Price Risk Management Activities. We record the
derivative instruments used in our price risk management
activities at their fair values in our balance sheet. We
estimate the fair value of our derivative instruments using
exchange prices, third-party pricing data and valuation
techniques that incorporate specific contractual terms,
statistical and simulation analysis and present value concepts.
One of the primary assumptions used to estimate the fair value
of our derivative instruments is pricing. Our pricing
assumptions are based upon price curves derived from actual
prices observed in the market, pricing information supplied by a
third-party valuation specialist and independent pricing sources
and models that rely on this forward pricing information. The
table below presents the hypothetical sensitivity of our
commodity-based price risk management activities to changes in
fair values arising from immediate selected potential changes in
quoted market prices:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 Percent | |
|
10 Percent | |
|
|
|
|
Increase | |
|
Decrease | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Fair | |
|
Fair | |
|
|
|
Fair | |
|
|
|
|
Value | |
|
Value | |
|
Change | |
|
Value | |
|
Change | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Derivatives designated as hedges
|
|
$ |
(536 |
) |
|
$ |
(672 |
) |
|
$ |
(136 |
) |
|
$ |
(400 |
) |
|
$ |
136 |
|
Other commodity-based derivatives
|
|
|
(61 |
) |
|
|
(84 |
) |
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
(597 |
) |
|
$ |
(756 |
) |
|
$ |
(159 |
) |
|
$ |
(424 |
) |
|
$ |
173 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other significant assumptions that we use in determining the
fair value of our derivative instruments are those related to
time value, anticipated market liquidity and credit risk of our
counterparties. The assumptions and methodologies that we use to
determine the fair values of our derivatives may differ from
those used by our derivative counterparties. These differences
can be significant and could impact our future operating results
as we settle these derivative positions.
Accounting for Natural Gas and Oil Producing Activities.
Natural gas and oil reserves estimates underlie many of the
accounting estimates in our financial statements as further
discussed below. The process of estimating natural gas and oil
reserves, particularly proved undeveloped and proved
non-producing reserves, is very complex, requiring significant
judgment in the evaluation of all available geological,
geophysical, engineering and economic data. Accordingly, our
reserve estimates are developed internally by a reserve
reporting group separate from our operations group and reviewed
by internal committees and internal auditors. In addition, a
third party engineering firm which is appointed by, and reports
to the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors prepares an
independent estimate of a significant portion of our proved
reserves. As of December 31, 2004, of our total proved
reserves, 29 percent were undeveloped and 13 percent
were developed, but non-producing. In addition, the data for a
given field may also change substantially over time as a result
of numerous factors, including additional development activity,
evolving production history and a continual reassessment of the
viability of production under changing economic conditions. As a
result, material revisions to existing reserve estimates occur
from time to time. In addition, the subjective decisions and
variances in available data for various fields increases the
likelihood of significant changes in these estimates.
The estimates of proved natural gas and oil reserves primarily
impact our property, plant and equipment amounts in our balance
sheets and the depreciation, depletion and amortization amounts
in our income
66
statements, among other items. We use the full cost method to
account for our natural gas and oil producing activities. Under
this accounting method, we capitalize substantially all of the
costs incurred in connection with the acquisition, development
and exploration of natural gas and oil reserves in full cost
pools maintained by geographic areas, regardless of whether
reserves are actually discovered. We record depletion expense of
these capitalized amounts over the life of our proved reserves
based on the unit of production method and, if all other factors
are held constant, a 10 percent increase in estimated
proved reserves would decrease our unit of production depletion
rate by 9 percent and a 10 percent decrease in
estimated proved reserves would increase our unit of depletion
rate by 11 percent.
Under the full cost accounting method, we are required to
conduct quarterly impairment tests of our capitalized costs in
each of our full cost pools. This impairment test is referred to
as a ceiling test. Our total capitalized costs, net of related
income tax effects, are limited to a ceiling based on the
present value of future net revenues from proved reserves using
end of period spot prices and, discounted at 10 percent,
plus the lower of cost or fair market value of unproved
properties, net of related income tax effects. If these
discounted revenues are not greater than or equal to the total
capitalized costs, we are required to write-down our capitalized
costs to this level. Our ceiling test calculations include the
effect of derivative instruments we have designated as, and that
qualify as hedges of our anticipated natural gas and oil
production. As a result, higher proved reserves can reduce the
likelihood of ceiling test impairments. We recorded ceiling test
charges in our continuing and discontinued operations of
$35 million, $76 million and $128 million during
2004, 2003 and 2002.
The ceiling test calculation assumes that the price in effect on
the last day of the quarter is held constant over the life of
the reserves, even though actual prices of natural gas and oil
are volatile and change from period to period. A decline in
commodity prices can impact the results of our ceiling test and
may result in writedowns. A decrease in commodity prices of
10 percent from the price levels at December 31, 2004
would not have resulted in a ceiling test charge in 2004.
Asset Impairments. The asset impairment accounting rules
require us to continually monitor our businesses and the
business environment to determine if an event has occurred
indicating that a long-lived asset or investment may be
impaired. If an event occurs, which is a determination that
involves judgment, we then assess the expected future cash flows
against which to compare the carrying value of the asset group
being evaluated, a process which also involves judgment. We
ultimately arrive at the fair value of the asset which is
determined through a combination of estimating the proceeds from
the sale of the asset, less anticipated selling costs (if we
intend to sell the asset), or the discounted estimated cash
flows of the asset based on current and anticipated future
market conditions (if we intend to hold the asset). The
assessment of project level cash flows requires us to make
projections and assumptions for many years into the future for
pricing, demand, competition, operating costs, legal and
regulatory issues and other factors and these variables can, and
often do, differ from our estimates. These changes can have
either a positive or negative impact on our impairment
estimates. We recorded impairments of our long-lived assets of
$1.1 billion, $791 million and $440 million
during the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 and
impairments on our unconsolidated affiliates of
$397 million, $449 million, and $566 million
during the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002. We
recorded impairments of our discontinued operations of
$9 million, $1.5 billion and $290 million during
the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002. Future
changes in the economic and business environment can impact our
assessments of potential impairments.
Accounting for Environmental Reserves. We accrue
environmental reserves when our assessments indicate that it is
probable that a liability has been incurred or an asset will not
be recovered, and an amount can be reasonably estimated.
Estimates of our liabilities are based on currently available
facts, existing technology and presently enacted laws and
regulations taking into consideration the likely effects of
societal and economic factors, and include estimates of
associated onsite, offsite and groundwater technical studies,
and legal costs. Actual results may differ from our estimates,
and our estimates can be, and often are, revised in the future,
either negatively or positively, depending upon actual outcomes
or changes in expectations based on the facts surrounding each
exposure.
67
As of December 31, 2004, we had accrued approximately
$380 million for environmental matters. Our reserve
estimates range from approximately $380 million to
approximately $547 million. Our accrual represents a
combination of two estimation methodologies. First, where the
most likely outcome can be reasonably estimated, that cost has
been accrued ($82 million). Second, where the most likely
outcome cannot be estimated, a range of costs is established
($298 million to $465 million) and the lower end of
the range has been accrued.
Accounting for Pension and Other Postretirement Benefits.
As of December 31, 2004, we had a $956 million pension
asset and a $274 million other postretirement benefit
liability reflected in other assets and liabilities in our
balance sheet related to our pension and other postretirement
benefit plans. These amounts are primarily based on actuarial
calculations. These calculations include assumptions, including
those related to the return that we expect to earn on our plan
assets, discount rates used in calculating benefit obligations,
the rate at which we expect the compensation of our employees to
increase over the plan term, the estimated cost of health care
when benefits are provided under our plans and other factors.
Actual results may differ from the assumptions included in these
calculations, and as a result our estimates associated with our
pension and other postretirement benefits can be, and often are,
revised in the future. The income statement impact of the
changes in the assumptions on our related benefit obligations
are generally deferred and amortized into income over the life
of the plans. The cumulative amount deferred as of
December 31, 2004 is recorded as an $800 million
increase in our pension asset and a $32 million reduction
of our other postretirement liability. The following table shows
the impact of a one percent change in the primary assumptions
used in our actuarial calculations associated with our pension
and other postretirement benefits for the year ended
December 31, 2004 (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
Other Postretirement Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Net Benefit | |
|
Projected | |
|
Net Benefit | |
|
Accumulated | |
|
|
Expense | |
|
Benefit | |
|
Expense | |
|
Postretirement | |
|
|
(Income) | |
|
Obligation | |
|
(Income) | |
|
Benefit Obligation | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
One percent increase in:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rates
|
|
$ |
(13 |
) |
|
$ |
(197 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(37 |
) |
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health care cost trends
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
One percent decrease in:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rates
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
236 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
40 |
|
|
Expected return on plan
assets(1)
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health care cost trends
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(1) |
If the actual return on plan assets was one percent lower than
the expected return on plan assets, our expected cash
contributions to our pension and other postretirement benefit
plans would not significantly change. |
Our discount rate assumptions reflect the rates of return on the
investments we expect to use to settle our pension and other
postretirement obligations in the future. We combined current
and expected rates of return on investment grade corporate bonds
to develop the discount rates used in our benefit expense and
obligation estimates as of September 30, 2004.
Our estimates for our net benefit expense (income) are partially
based on the expected return on pension plan assets. We use a
market-related value of plan assets to determine the expected
return on pension plan assets. In determining the market-related
value of plan assets, differences between expected and actual
asset returns are deferred and recognized over three years. If
we used the fair value of our plan assets instead of the
market-related value of plan assets in determining the expected
return on pension plan assets, our net benefit expense would
have been $14 million higher for the year ended
December 31, 2004.
68
We have not recorded an additional pension liability for our
primary pension plan because the fair value of assets of that
plan exceeded the accumulated benefit obligation of that plan by
approximately $262 million and $366 million as of
September 30, 2004 and December 31, 2004. If the
accumulated benefit obligation exceeded plan assets under this
primary pension plan as of September 30, 2004, we would
have recorded a pre-tax additional pension liability of
approximately $960 million, plus an amount equal to the
excess of the accumulated benefit obligation over plan assets of
that plan. We would have also recorded an amount equal to this
additional pension liability to accumulated other comprehensive
loss, net of taxes, in our balance sheet.
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
We are exposed to several market risks in our normal business
activities. Market risk is the potential loss that may result
from market changes associated with an existing or forecasted
financial or commodity transaction. The types of market risks we
are exposed to and examples of each are:
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas prices change, impacting the forecasted sale of
natural gas in our Production segment; |
|
|
|
Price spreads between natural gas and natural gas liquids
change, making the natural gas liquids we produce in our Field
Services segment less valuable; |
|
|
|
Locational price differences in natural gas change, affecting
our ability to optimize pipeline transportation capacity
contracts held in our Marketing and Trading segment; and |
|
|
|
Electricity and natural gas prices change, affecting the value
of our natural gas contracts, power contracts and tolling
contracts held in our Marketing and Trading and Power segments. |
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in interest rates affect the interest expense we incur
on our variable-rate debt and the fair value of our fixed-rate
debt; and |
|
|
|
Changes in interest rates used in the estimation of the fair
value of our derivative positions can result in increases or
decreases in the unrealized value of those positions. |
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign Currency Exchange Rate Risk |
|
|
|
|
|
Weakening or strengthening of the U.S. dollar relative to
the Euro can result in an increase or decrease in the value of
our Euro-denominated debt obligations and the related interest
costs associated with that debt; and |
|
|
|
Changes in foreign currencies exchange rates where we have
international investments may impact the value of those
investments and the earnings and cash flows from those
investments. |
We manage these risks by frequently entering into contractual
commitments involving physical or financial settlement that
attempts to limit the amount of risk or opportunity related to
future market movements. Our risk management activities
typically involve the use of the following types of contracts:
|
|
|
|
|
Forward contracts, which commit us to purchase or sell energy
commodities in the future, involving the physical delivery of an
energy commodity, and energy related contracts including
transportation, storage, transmission and power tolling
arrangements; |
|
|
|
Futures contracts, which are exchange-traded standardized
commitments to purchase or sell a commodity or financial
instrument, or to make a cash settlement at a specific price and
future date; |
|
|
|
Options, which convey the right to buy or sell a commodity,
financial instrument or index at a predetermined price; |
69
|
|
|
|
|
Swaps, which require payments to or from counterparties based
upon the differential between two prices for a predetermined
contractual (notional) quantity; and |
|
|
|
Structured contracts, which may involve a variety of the above
characteristics. |
Many of the contracts we utilize in our risk management
activities are derivative financial instruments. A discussion of
our accounting policies for derivative instruments are included
in Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Notes 1 and
10, on pages F-46 and F-73.
Commodity Price Risk
We are exposed to a variety of commodity price risks in the
normal course of our business activities. The nature of these
market price risks varies by segment.
Our Marketing and Trading segment attempts to mitigate its
exposure to commodity price risk through the use of various
financial instruments, including forwards, swaps, options and
futures. We measure risks from our Marketing and Trading
segments commodity and energy-related contracts on a daily
basis using a Value-at-Risk simulation. This simulation allows
us to determine the maximum expected one-day unfavorable impact
on the fair values of those contracts due to adverse market
movements over a defined period of time within a specified
confidence level, and monitors our risk in comparison to
established thresholds. We use what is known as the historical
simulation technique for measuring Value-at-Risk. This technique
simulates potential outcomes in the value of our portfolio based
on market-based price changes. Our exposure to changes in
fundamental prices over the long-term can vary from the exposure
using the one-day assumption in our Value-at-Risk simulations.
We supplement our Value-at-Risk simulations with additional
fundamental and market-based price analyses, including scenario
analysis and stress testing to determine our portfolios
sensitivity to its underlying risks.
Our maximum expected one-day unfavorable impact on the fair
values of our commodity and energy-related contracts as measured
by Value-at-Risk based on a confidence level of 95 percent
and a one-day holding period was $16 million and
$34 million as of December 31, 2004 and 2003. Our
highest, lowest and average of the month end values for
Value-at-Risk during 2004 was $82 million, $16 million
and $38 million. Actual losses in fair value may exceed
those measured by Value-at-Risk. Our Value-at-Risk decreased
during the fourth quarter of 2004 with the designation of a
number of our natural gas derivative contracts as hedges of our
Production segments natural gas production. The exposure
of these derivatives to natural gas price fluctuations is now
captured in the Production segment discussion below.
Our Production segment attempts to mitigate commodity price risk
and to stabilize cash flows associated with its forecasted sales
of our natural gas and oil production through the use of
derivative natural gas and oil swap contracts. The table below
presents the hypothetical sensitivity to changes in fair values
arising from immediate selected potential changes in the quoted
market prices of the derivative commodity instruments we use to
mitigate these market risks that were outstanding at
December 31, 2004 and 2003. Any gain or loss on these
derivative commodity instruments would be substantially offset
by a corresponding gain or loss on the hedged commodity
positions, which are not included in the table. These
derivatives do not hedge all of our
70
commodity price risk related to our forecasted sales of our
natural gas and oil production and as a result, we are subject
to commodity price risks on our remaining forecasted natural gas
and oil production.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 Percent Increase | |
|
10 Percent Decrease | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Fair Value | |
|
Fair Value | |
|
(Change) | |
|
Fair Value | |
|
Increase | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Impact of changes in commodity prices on derivative commodity
instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004
|
|
$ |
(557 |
) |
|
$ |
(697 |
) |
|
$ |
(140 |
) |
|
$ |
(417 |
) |
|
$ |
140 |
|
|
December 31, 2003
|
|
$ |
(45 |
) |
|
$ |
(60 |
) |
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
|
$ |
(30 |
) |
|
$ |
15 |
|
During the fourth quarter of 2004, we designated a number of our
Marketing and Trading segments natural gas derivative
contracts as hedges of our Production segments natural gas
production. As a result, the sensitivity of the derivatives in
our Production segment to natural gas price changes increased
and our Marketing and Trading segments Value-at-Risk
decreased as of December 31, 2004 as discussed above.
Additionally, as of December 31, 2004, our Marketing and
Trading segment has entered into derivative contracts designed
to provide El Paso with price protection from declines in
natural gas prices in 2005 and 2006. These contracts provide us
with a floor price of $6.00 per MMBtu on 60 TBtu of
our natural gas production in 2005 and 120 TBtu in 2006. In the
first quarter of 2005, we entered into additional contracts that
provide El Paso with a floor price of $6.00 per MMBtu
on 30 TBtu of our natural gas in 2007, and a ceiling price
of $9.50 per MMBtu on 60 TBtu of our natural gas
production in 2006. The commodity price risk associated with
these contracts are not included in the sensitivity analysis,
but rather are included in our Value-at-Risk calculation
discussed above.
Our Field Services segment does not significantly utilize
financial instruments to mitigate our exposure to the natural
gas liquids it retains in its processing operations since this
exposure is not material to our overall operations.
Interest Rate Risk
Many of our debt-related financial instruments and project
financing arrangements are sensitive to changes in interest
rates. The table below shows the maturity of the carrying
amounts and related weighted-average interest rates on our
interest-bearing securities, by expected maturity dates and the
fair values of those securities. As of December 31, 2004
and 2003, the carrying amounts of short-term borrowings are
representative of fair values because of the short-term maturity
of these instruments. The fair value of the long-term securities
has been estimated based on quoted market prices for the same or
similar issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
December 31, 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Expected Fiscal Year of Maturity of Carrying Amounts | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Fair | |
|
Carrying | |
|
Fair | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
2007 | |
|
2008 | |
|
2009 | |
|
Thereafter | |
|
Total | |
|
Value | |
|
Amounts | |
|
Value | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Dollars in millions) | |
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term debt fixed rate
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
Average interest rate
|
|
|
6.2 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt and other obligations, including current
portion fixed rate
|
|
$ |
740 |
|
|
$ |
1,111 |
|
|
$ |
797 |
|
|
$ |
703 |
|
|
$ |
1,464 |
|
|
$ |
12,932 |
|
|
$ |
17,747 |
|
|
$ |
18,387 |
|
|
$ |
20,152 |
|
|
$ |
19,594 |
|
|
Average interest rate
|
|
|
8.2 |
% |
|
|
6.7 |
% |
|
|
7.3 |
% |
|
|
7.5% |
|
|
|
6.1 |
% |
|
|
7.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt and other obligations, including current
portion variable rate
|
|
$ |
197 |
|
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
27 |
|
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
1,165 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,442 |
|
|
$ |
1,442 |
|
|
$ |
1,572 |
|
|
$ |
1,572 |
|
|
Average interest rate
|
|
|
9.1 |
% |
|
|
4.8 |
% |
|
|
4.7 |
% |
|
|
5.6% |
|
|
|
5.6 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71
|
|
|
Derivatives from Power Contract Restructuring
Activities |
Derivatives associated with our power contract restructuring
business of our Power segment are valued using estimated future
market power prices and a discount rate that considers the
appropriate U.S. Treasury rate plus a credit spread
specific to the contracts counterparty. We make
adjustments to this discount rate when we believe that market
changes in the rates result in changes in value that can be
realized in a current transaction between willing parties. Since
September 30, 2002, in order to provide for market risk, we
have not reflected the increase in value that would result from
decreases in U.S. Treasury rates because we believe the
resulting increase in the value of these non-trading derivatives
could not be realized in a current transaction between willing
parties. To the extent there is commodity price risk associated
with these derivative contracts, it is included in our
Value-at-Risk calculation discussed above, but our exposure to
changes in interest rates and credit spreads has not been
included in our Value-at-Risk calculation. Historically, our
interest rate risk associated with these contracts primarily
related to UCF and Cedar Brakes I and II. As a result of the
sale of UCF in 2004 and our sale of Cedar Brakes I and II in
March 2005, our sensitivity to interest rate changes on our
remaining restructured power contract derivatives will be
minimal.
Foreign Currency Exchange Rate Risk
Our exposure to foreign currency exchange rates relates
primarily to changes in foreign currency rates on our
Euro-denominated debt obligations. As of December 31, 2004,
we have Euro-denominated debt with a principal amount of
1,050 million
of
which 550 million
matures in 2006
and 500 million
matures in 2009. As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, we had
swaps that effectively
converted 725 million
and 625 million
of debt into $766 million and $645 million. The
remaining principal at December 31, 2004 and 2003
of 325 million
and 425 million
was subject to foreign currency exchange risk.
In March 2005, we repurchased
approximately 528 million
of our debt maturing in 2006. After this repurchase, our
unhedged Euro-denominated debt that is subject to foreign
currency exchange risk
totaled 172 million.
As a result, a hypothetical ten percent increase or decrease in
the Euro/ USD exchange rate of 1.3188 as of the date of
repurchase, with all other variables held constant, would
increase or decrease the carrying value of our remaining
unhedged Euro-denominated debt after the repurchase by
approximately $23 million.
Several of our international power plants in Asia, Central
America, South America and Europe have long-term power sales
contracts that are denominated in the local countrys
currencies. As a result, we are subject to foreign currency
exchange risk related to these power sales contracts. We do not
believe that this exposure is material to our operations and
have not chosen to mitigate this exposure.
72
|
|
|
Quarter and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and
2004 |
During the second quarter of 2005, we discontinued our south
Louisiana gathering and processing operations, which were part
of our Field Services segment. Our operating results for the
quarter and six months ended June 30, 2005 reflect these
operations as discontinued. Prior period amounts have not been
adjusted as these operations were not material to prior period
results or historical trends.
Overview
Since the beginning of 2005, we have completed the following
activities in connection with the ongoing execution of our
strategic plan:
|
|
|
|
|
Our pipeline segment made further progress on its plans by
settling a rate case at SNG, recontracting with large customers
on the SNG and EPNG systems, and making progress on several
pipeline expansion projects in our pipeline systems and at our
Elba Island LNG facility; |
|
|
|
Our production segment continued to make progress on its
turnaround and the stabilization of its production rates through
its capital program and four strategic acquisitions of natural
gas and oil properties totalling approximately
$1.1 billion, including our recently announced Medicine Bow
acquisition which we expect to close in the third quarter of
2005 for approximately $814 million; |
|
|
|
We continued the exit of our legacy trading business through the
assignment or termination of derivative contracts associated
with Cedar Brakes I and II; |
|
|
|
We completed the sale of a number of assets and investments
including, among others, our remaining general and limited
partnership interests in Enterprise, interests in Cedar
Brakes I and II, the Lakeside Technology Center, and our
interest in a Korean power facility. Total proceeds from these
sales were approximately $1.2 billion ($918 million
through June 30, 2005); |
|
|
|
We reduced our net debt to $15.9 billion (debt of
$17.48 billion, net of cash of $1.54 billion) as of
June 30, 2005, lowering our net debt by
$1.1 billion; and |
|
|
|
We completed a private placement of $750 million of 4.99%
convertible perpetual preferred stock. The proceeds from this
offering were used to prepay our remaining deferred payment
obligation on the Western Energy Settlement for
$442 million and to redeem the $300 million of EPTP,
8.25%, Series A cumulative preferred stock. |
Capital Resources and Liquidity
Our 2004 Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations beginning on page 22
includes a detailed discussion of our liquidity, financing
activities, contractual obligations and commercial commitments.
The information presented below updates, and you should read it
in conjunction with, that information.
During the six months ended June 30, 2005, we continued to
reduce our overall debt as part of our Long Range Plan
announced in December 2003. Our activity during the six months
ended June 30, 2005 was as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term financing obligations, including current maturities
|
|
$ |
955 |
|
Long-term financing obligations
|
|
|
18,241 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt as of December 31, 2004
|
|
|
19,196 |
|
Principal amounts borrowed
|
|
|
466 |
|
Repayments/retirements of principal
|
|
|
(1,563 |
) |
Sales of
entities(1)
|
|
|
(546 |
) |
Other reductions
|
|
|
(75 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt as of June 30, 2005
|
|
$ |
17,478 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Related to the sale of Cedar Brakes I and II. |
For a further discussion of our long-term debt and other
financing obligations, and other credit facilities, see Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 9, on
page F-17.
73
Our net available liquidity as of June 30, 2005 was
$1.7 billion, which consisted of $0.4 billion of
availability under our $3 billion credit agreement and
$1.3 billion of available cash. The availability of
borrowings under our credit agreement and our ability to incur
additional debt is subject to various conditions as further
described in Notes to condensed consolidated financial
statements, Note 9, on page F-17 and Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements, Note 15, on page F-81, which we
currently meet. These conditions include compliance with
financial covenants and ratios requiring our Debt to
Consolidated EBITDA not to exceed 6.5 to 1 and our ratio of
Consolidated EBITDA to interest expense and dividends to be
equal to or greater than 1.6 to 1, each as defined in our
$3 billion credit agreement. As of June 30, 2005, our
ratio of Debt to Consolidated EBITDA was 4.68 to 1 and our ratio
of Consolidated EBITDA to interest expense and dividends was
2.06 to 1.
We believe we will be able to meet our ongoing liquidity and
cash needs through the combination of available cash, cash flow
from operations and borrowings under our $3 billion credit
agreement. However, a number of factors could influence our
liquidity sources, as well as the timing and ultimate outcome of
our ongoing efforts and plans as further discussed in Risk
Factors beginning on page 7.
Overview of Cash Flow Activities for 2005
Compared to 2004
For the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, our cash
flows are summarized as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In billions) | |
Cash Inflows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss before discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
(0.1 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.1 |
) |
|
|
Non-cash income adjustments
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
Change in assets and liabilities
|
|
|
(0.8 |
) |
|
|
(0.6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net proceeds from the sale of assets and investments
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
Proceeds from settlement of foreign currency derivatives
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reduction of restricted cash
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
Proceeds from the issuance of preferred and common stock
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
Contributions from discontinued operations
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash inflows
|
|
$ |
2.4 |
|
|
$ |
1.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Outflows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to property, plant and equipment
|
|
$ |
0.8 |
|
|
$ |
0.8 |
|
|
|
Net cash paid for acquisitions
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments to retire debt and redeem preferred interests
|
|
|
1.6 |
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
|
Redemption of preferred stock
|
|
|
0.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total cash outflows
|
|
$ |
3.0 |
|
|
$ |
1.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in cash
|
|
$ |
(0.6 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
74
Cash From Continuing
Operating Activities
Overall, cash inflows from our continuing operating activities
for the first six months of 2005 were slightly below cash
inflows from continuing operating activities during the same
period of 2004. The decrease in operating cash flow in 2005 as
compared to 2004 was due primarily to differences in working
capital utilization in the two periods. In the first six months
of 2005, we experienced a $0.8 billion use of working
capital, which included a $0.2 billion payment to assign or
terminate derivative contracts in connection with the sale of
Cedar Brakes I and II, $0.2 billion of hedging
derivative settlements and $0.4 billion for the prepayment
of the Western Energy Settlement. In the first six months of
2004, we experienced a $0.6 billion use of working capital
primarily due to a payment to settle the principal litigation
under the Western Energy Settlement.
Cash From Continuing
Investing Activities
Net cash provided by our continuing investing activities was
$0.1 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2005.
Our investing activities consisted of the following (in
billions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production exploration, development and acquisition expenditures
|
|
$ |
(0.6 |
) |
Pipeline expansion, maintenance and integrity projects
|
|
|
(0.3 |
) |
Decrease in restricted cash
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
Settlement of a foreign currency derivative
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
Proceeds from sales of assets and investments
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total continuing investing activities
|
|
$ |
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Cash received from sales of assets and investments was primarily
from the sale of our remaining interests in Enterprise and the
sale of the Lakeside Technology Center. The settlement of a
foreign currency derivative relates to cash received on a
derivative entered into to hedge currency and interest rate risk
on a portion of our Euro denominated debt. This derivative was
settled upon the retirement of that debt. In July 2005, we
announced that we will acquire Medicine Bow for
$0.8 billion. The acquisition will be funded by existing
cash on hand and a new $500 million, five-year revolving
credit facility, which will be collateralized by a portion of
EPPHs existing natural gas and oil reserves. We intend to
repay this facility within one year from closing through an
issuance of equity. We also expect additional capital
expenditures of $0.3 billion in our Production segment and
$0.7 billion in our Pipelines segment during the remainder
of 2005.
Cash From Continuing
Financing Activities
Net cash used in our continuing financing activities was
$0.7 billion for the six months ended
June 30, 2005. We generated cash of $1.2 billion
from the issuance of $0.7 billion of convertible preferred
stock, and $0.5 billion of long-term debt on CIG and
Cheyenne Plains. However, we made repayments of
$0.9 billion to retire third party long-term debt, paid
$0.7 billion to retire a portion of our Euro-denominated
debt and redeemed $0.3 billion of cumulative preferred
stock of EPTP, our subsidiary.
75
Commodity-based Derivative Contracts
We use derivative financial instruments in our hedging
activities, power contract restructuring activities and in our
historical energy trading activities. The following table
details the fair value of our commodity-based derivative
contracts by year of maturity as of June 30, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maturity | |
|
Maturity | |
|
Maturity | |
|
Maturity | |
|
Maturity | |
|
Total | |
|
|
Less Than | |
|
1 to 3 | |
|
4 to 5 | |
|
6 to 10 | |
|
Beyond | |
|
Fair | |
Source of Fair Value |
|
1 year | |
|
Years | |
|
Years | |
|
Years | |
|
10 Years | |
|
Value | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Derivatives designated as hedges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
25 |
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
(423 |
) |
|
|
(196 |
) |
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(665 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total derivatives designated as hedges
|
|
|
(407 |
) |
|
|
(187 |
) |
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(640 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets from power contract restructuring
derivatives(1)
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other commodity-based derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exchange-traded
positions(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
243 |
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
506 |
|
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
(102 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(112 |
) |
|
Non-exchange-traded positions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
421 |
|
|
|
379 |
|
|
|
197 |
|
|
|
151 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
1,175 |
|
|
|
Liabilities(1)
|
|
|
(394 |
) |
|
|
(591 |
) |
|
|
(312 |
) |
|
|
(186 |
) |
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
|
(1,533 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other commodity-based derivatives
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total commodity-based derivatives
|
|
$ |
(347 |
) |
|
$ |
(125 |
) |
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
|
$ |
(41 |
) |
|
$ |
(23 |
) |
|
$ |
(544 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes $6 million of intercompany derivatives that
eliminate in consolidation and had no impact on our consolidated
assets and liabilities from price risk management activities for
the six months ended June 30, 2005. |
|
(2) |
Exchange-traded positions are those traded on active exchanges
such as the New York Mercantile Exchange, the International
Petroleum Exchange and the London Clearinghouse. |
Below is a reconciliation of our commodity-based derivatives for
the period from January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from Power | |
|
Other | |
|
Total | |
|
|
Derivatives | |
|
Contract | |
|
Commodity- | |
|
Commodity- | |
|
|
Designated | |
|
Restructuring | |
|
Based | |
|
Based | |
|
|
as Hedges(1) | |
|
Activities | |
|
Derivatives | |
|
Derivatives | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Fair value of contracts outstanding at January 1, 2005
|
|
$ |
(536 |
) |
|
$ |
665 |
|
|
$ |
(61 |
) |
|
$ |
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of contract settlements during the period
|
|
|
182 |
|
|
|
(616 |
) |
|
|
282 |
|
|
|
(152 |
) |
|
Change in fair value of contracts
|
|
|
(286 |
) |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(182 |
) |
|
|
(457 |
) |
|
Option premiums received, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in contracts outstanding during the period
|
|
|
(104 |
) |
|
|
(605 |
) |
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
(612 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of contracts outstanding at June 30, 2005
|
|
$ |
(640 |
) |
|
$ |
60 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
(544 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
In December 2004, we designated a number of our other
commodity-based derivative contracts in our Marketing and
Trading segment as hedges of our 2005 and 2006 natural gas
production. As a result, we reclassified this $592 million
liability to derivatives designated as hedges in December 2004. |
The fair value of contract settlements during the period
represents the estimated amounts of derivative contracts settled
through physical delivery of a commodity or by a claim to cash
as accounts receivable or payable. The fair value of contract
settlements also includes physical or financial contract
terminations due to counterparty bankruptcies and the sale or
settlement of derivative contracts through early termination or
through the sale of the entities that own these contracts.
76
In March 2005, we sold our Cedar Brakes I and II
subsidiaries and their related restructured power contracts,
which had a fair value of $596 million as of
December 31, 2004. In connection with the sale, we also
assigned or terminated other commodity-based derivatives that
had a fair value liability of $240 million as of
December 31, 2004.
The change in fair value of contracts during the period
represents the change in value of contracts from the beginning
of the period, or the date of their origination or acquisition,
until their settlement or, if not settled, until the end of the
period.
Segment Results
Below are our results of operations (as measured by EBIT) by
segment. Our regulated business consists of our Pipelines
segment, while our unregulated businesses consist of our
Production, Marketing and Trading, Power and Field Services
segments. Our segments are strategic business units that provide
a variety of energy products and services. They are managed
separately as each segment requires different technology and
marketing strategies. Our corporate activities include our
general and administrative functions, as well as a
telecommunications business and various other contracts and
assets. During the second quarter of 2005, we discontinued our
south Louisiana gathering and processing operations, which were
part of our Field Services segment. Our operating results for
the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2005 reflect
these operations as discontinued. Prior period amounts have not
been adjusted as these operations were not material to prior
period results or historical trends.
We use earnings before interest expense and income taxes (EBIT)
to assess the operating results and effectiveness of our
business segments. We define EBIT as net income (loss) adjusted
for (i) items that do not impact our income (loss) from
continuing operations, such as extraordinary items, discontinued
operations and the impact of accounting changes,
(ii) income taxes, (iii) interest and debt expense and
(iv) distributions on preferred interests of consolidated
subsidiaries. Our business operations consist of both
consolidated businesses as well as investments in unconsolidated
affiliates. We believe EBIT is useful to our investors because
it allows them to more effectively evaluate the performance of
all of our businesses and investments. Also, we exclude interest
and debt expense and distributions on preferred interests of
consolidated subsidiaries so that investors may evaluate our
operating results without regard to our financing methods or
capital structure. EBIT may not be comparable to measures used
by other companies. Additionally, EBIT should be considered in
conjunction with net income and other performance measures such
as operating income or
77
operating cash flow. Below is a reconciliation of our
consolidated EBIT to our consolidated net income (loss) for the
periods ended June 30:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
Six Months Ended | |
|
|
June 30, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Regulated Business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pipelines
|
|
$ |
309 |
|
|
$ |
308 |
|
|
$ |
721 |
|
|
$ |
694 |
|
Non-regulated Businesses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
204 |
|
|
|
359 |
|
|
|
408 |
|
|
Marketing and Trading
|
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(152 |
) |
|
|
(215 |
) |
|
|
(316 |
) |
|
Power
|
|
|
(381 |
) |
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
(431 |
) |
|
|
(67 |
) |
|
Field Services
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
179 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment EBIT
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
489 |
|
|
|
613 |
|
|
|
782 |
|
Corporate
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
(102 |
) |
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated EBIT from continuing operations
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
498 |
|
|
|
511 |
|
|
|
818 |
|
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
(340 |
) |
|
|
(410 |
) |
|
|
(690 |
) |
|
|
(833 |
) |
Distributions on preferred interests of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
(233 |
) |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
(131 |
) |
|
|
(85 |
) |
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(106 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(238 |
) |
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
(132 |
) |
|
$ |
(191 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overview of Segment Results
For the six months ended June 30, 2005, our segment EBIT
was $613 million. During the six month period, our
Pipelines, Production and Field Services segments contributed
$1,259 million of combined EBIT. These positive
contributions were partially offset by the EBIT losses of
$215 million in our Marketing and Trading segment and
$431 million in our Power segment. The following overview
summarizes the results of operations by operating segment
compared to our internal expectations for the period.
|
|
|
Pipelines |
|
Our Pipelines segment generated EBIT of $721 million, which
was slightly above our expectations for the period. |
|
Production |
|
Our Production segment generated EBIT of $359 million,
which was slightly above our expectations for the period. Lower
than expected production volumes and higher depreciation and
production costs were more than offset by higher than expected
commodity prices. |
|
Marketing and Trading |
|
Our Marketing and Trading segment generated an EBIT loss of
$215 million, which was a greater loss than our
expectations. The performance was driven by significant
mark-to-market losses on our production-related derivatives due
to natural gas price increases during the period. In addition,
our power contracts, primarily our Cordova tolling agreement,
experienced significant losses during the period due to changes
in natural gas and power prices. |
|
Power |
|
Our Power segment generated an EBIT loss of $431 million,
which was a greater loss than expected and was impacted by
significant impairments of our Macae project in Brazil and
impairments of our Asian and Central American power assets based
on additional information received about the value we may
receive upon the sale of these assets. |
|
Field Services |
|
Our Field Services segment generated EBIT of $179 million,
which was consistent with our expectations and was primarily due
to the gain on the sale of our remaining interests in Enterprise. |
78
For the remainder of 2005, we expect the trends discussed above
to continue in our Pipeline and Production segments, given the
historic stability in our pipeline business and the current
favorable pricing environment for natural gas and oil. We also
anticipate our Marketing and Trading segments EBIT will
continue to be volatile due to changes in natural gas and power
prices as they relate to our trading portfolio. In our Power
segment, we may generate EBIT losses as we continue to sell or
pursue the sale of our Asian and Central American power plant
portfolio and continue negotiations with Petrobras relating to
our Macae power investment. Finally, we expect our EBIT to
decline in our Field Services segment as a result of the
completion of sales of substantially all of our remaining
gathering and processing assets. Below is a discussion of our
individual segment results.
Regulated Business Pipelines Segment
Operating Results
Below are the operating results and analysis of these results
for our Pipelines segment for the periods ended June 30:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
Six Months Ended | |
|
|
June 30, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Pipelines Segment Results |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions except volume amounts) | |
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
653 |
|
|
$ |
617 |
|
|
$ |
1,421 |
|
|
$ |
1,338 |
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
(391 |
) |
|
|
(357 |
) |
|
|
(797 |
) |
|
|
(730 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
262 |
|
|
|
260 |
|
|
|
624 |
|
|
|
608 |
|
Other income
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
309 |
|
|
$ |
308 |
|
|
$ |
721 |
|
|
$ |
694 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Throughput volumes (BBtu/d)
|
|
|
20,316 |
|
|
|
19,935 |
|
|
|
21,444 |
|
|
|
21,223 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following contributed to our overall EBIT increase of
$1 million and $27 million for the quarter and six
months ended June 30, 2005 as compared to the same periods
in 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended June 30, | |
|
Six Months Ended June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Revenue | |
|
Expense | |
|
Other | |
|
EBIT | |
|
Revenue | |
|
Expense | |
|
Other | |
|
EBIT | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Favorable/(Unfavorable) | |
|
Favorable/(Unfavorable) | |
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
(In millions) | |
Contract modifications/ terminations/ settlements
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
46 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
47 |
|
Gas not used in operations, processing revenues and other
natural gas sales
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
Favorable resolution in 2004 of measurement dispute at a
processing plant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
Pipeline expansions
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
Higher allocated costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(46 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(46 |
) |
Equity earnings from our investment in Citrus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
Other(1)
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total impact on EBIT
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
(34 |
) |
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
83 |
|
|
$ |
(67 |
) |
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Consists of individually insignificant items across several of
our pipeline systems. |
The following provides further discussion on the items listed
above as well as an outlook on events that may affect our
operations in the future.
Contract Modifications/ Terminations/ Settlements.
Included in this item are (i) the impact of ANR completing
the restructuring of its transportation contracts with one of
its shippers on its Southwest and Southeast Legs as well as a
related gathering contract in March 2005, which increased
revenues and EBIT by $29 million in the first quarter of
2005 (ii) the impact of ANRs settlement in the second
quarter of 2005 of two transportation agreements previously
rejected in the bankruptcy of USGen New England, Inc., which
79
increased EBIT by $15 million and (iii) the impact of
the termination, in April 2004, of EPNGs restrictions on
remarketing expiring capacity contracts resulting in increased
revenues and EBIT of $5 million during the first six months
of 2005 as compared to 2004. ANRs settlement with USGen
will not have an ongoing impact on our Pipelines segment results.
SoCal successfully acquired approximately 750 MMcf/d of capacity
on EPNGs system under new contracts with various terms
extending from 2009 to 2011 commencing September 2006. We are in
the process of consummating the transaction entered into in
December 2004 by executing the relevant transportation service
agreements with SoCal. Effective September 2006, approximately
500 MMcf/d of capacity formerly held by SoCal to serve its
non-core customers will be available for recontracting. We are
continuing in our efforts to remarket the remaining expiring
capacity to serve SoCals non-core customers or to serve
new markets. We are also pursuing the option of using some or
all of this capacity to provide new services to existing
markets. At this time, we are uncertain how much of this
remaining capacity formerly held by SoCal will be recontracted,
and if so at what rates.
Gas Not Used in Operations, Processing Revenues and Other
Natural Gas Sales. For some of our regulated pipelines, the
financial impact of operational gas, net of gas used in
operations is based on the amount of natural gas we are allowed
to recover and dispose of according to our tariffs or FERC
orders, relative to the amount of gas we use for operating
purposes, and the price of natural gas. Gas not needed for
operations results in revenues to us, which are driven by
volumes and prices during a given period. These recoveries of
gas on our systems relative to amounts we use are based on
factors such as system throughput, facility enhancements and the
ability to operate the systems in the most efficient and safe
manner. In 2005, the sale of higher volumes of natural gas made
available by storage realignment projects was partially offset
by higher volumes of gas utilized in operations, resulting in an
overall favorable impact on our operating results in 2005 versus
2004. We anticipate that this overall activity will continue to
vary in the future and will be impacted by things such as rate
actions, some of which have already been implemented, the
efficiency of our pipeline operations, natural gas prices and
other factors.
Expansions. In June 2005, SNG filed with the FERC for
permission to construct a 176 mile expansion of its system
which will provide 500,000 Mcf/d of firm transportation to
be phased in over four years beginning in May 2007. Total
cost estimates for the project are approximately
$321 million and construction is expected to begin upon
FERC approval in 2006. This expansion is currently expected to
increase our revenues by an estimated $62 million annually.
As of January 31, 2005, our Cheyenne Plains pipeline was
placed in-service. As a result, revenues increased by
$28 million and overall EBIT increased by $13 million
during the first six months of 2005 compared to the same period
in 2004.
In April 2003, the FERC approved the expansion of the Elba
Island LNG facility to increase the base load sendout rate of
the facility from 446 MMcf/d to 806 MMcf/d. Our current cost
estimates for the expansion are approximately $157 million
and as of June 30, 2005, our expenditures were
approximately $118 million. We commenced construction in
July 2003 and expect to place the expansion in service in
February 2006. As a result of increasing levels of capital
invested in the expansion, higher AFUDC in 2005 resulted in
higher EBIT compared to 2004. This expansion is currently
expected to increase our revenues by an estimated
$29 million annually.
In June 2005, the FERC issued a certificate authorizing CIG to
construct the Raton Basin expansion, which will add
104 MMcf/d of capacity to its system. The project is fully
subscribed for 10 years, of which 14 percent is held
by an affiliate. Construction began in June and the project is
expected to be in service by October 2005. This expansion is
currently expected to increase revenues by an estimated
$9 million in 2006 and an estimated $13 million
annually thereafter.
In order to meet increased demand in EPNGs markets and
comply with FERC orders, EPNG completed Phases I, II
and III of its Line 2000 Power-up project in 2004, which
increased the capacity of that line by 320 MMcf/d. In
addition, in June 2005, EPNG received FERC certificate approval
for the EPNG Cadiz to Ehrenberg project that will increase its
north-to-south capacity by 372 MMcf/d. The project is
80
scheduled to be in service by late 2005. Construction and
conversion will begin as soon as we receive approval from the
California State Land Commission and the U.S. Department of
the Interiors Bureau of Land Management. EPNG expects to
earn revenues associated with these expansions beginning in
January 2006, the effective date of its recent rate filing.
Allocated Costs. We allocate general and administrative
costs to each business segment. The allocation is based on the
estimated level of effort devoted to each segments
operations and the relative size of its EBIT, gross property and
payroll as compared to our consolidated totals. During the
quarter and six months ended June 30, 2005, the Pipelines
segment was allocated higher costs than the same periods in
2004, primarily due to an increase in our benefits accrued under
our retirement plan and higher legal, insurance and professional
fees. In addition, we were allocated a larger percentage of
El Pasos total corporate costs due to the
significance of our asset base and earnings to the overall
El Paso asset base and earnings.
Accounting for Pipeline Integrity Costs. In June 2005,
the FERC issued an accounting release that will impact certain
costs our interstate pipelines incur related to their pipeline
integrity programs. This release will require us to expense
certain pipeline integrity costs incurred after January 1,
2006 instead of capitalizing them as part of our property, plant
and equipment. Although we continue to evaluate the impact that
this accounting release will have on our consolidated financial
statements, we currently estimate that we would be required to
expense an additional amount of pipeline integrity costs under
the release in the range of approximately $23 million to
$39 million annually.
Regulatory and Other Matters
Our pipeline systems periodically file for changes in their
rates which are subject to the approval of the FERC. Changes in
rates and other tariff provisions resulting from these
regulatory proceedings have the potential to negatively impact
our profitability.
EPNG Rate Case. In June 2005, EPNG filed a rate case with
the FERC proposing an increase in revenues of 10.6 percent
or $56 million over current tariff rates, subject to
refund, and also proposing new services and revisions to certain
terms and conditions of existing services, including the
adoption of a fuel tracking mechanism. The rate case would be
effective January 1, 2006. In addition, the reduced tariff
rates provided to EPNGs former full requirements
(FR) customers under the terms of its FERC approved
systemwide capacity allocation proceeding will expire on
January 1, 2006. The combined effect of the proposed
increase in tariff rates and the expiration of the lower rates
to EPNGs FR customers are estimated to increase our
revenues by approximately $138 million. In July 2005, the
FERC accepted certain of the proposed tariff revisions,
including the adoption of a fuel tracking mechanism and set the
rate case for hearing and technical conference. The FERC
directed the scheduling of the technical conference within
150 days of the order and delayed setting a date for the
hearing pending resolution of the various matters identified for
consideration at the technical conference. We anticipate
continued discussions with intervening parties in an attempt to
settle the matter and are uncertain of the settlement of this
rate case. For a further discussion of our current and upcoming
rate proceedings, see pages 100 through 109.
The FERC has initially rejected a request made by EPNG in the
rate case filed on June 25, 2005 for a tracking mechanism
that would have provided an assurance of recovery of the cost of
a right-of-way across Navajo Nation land. However, the FERC did
invite EPNG to seek a waiver of FERC regulations to permit the
cost of the right-of-way to be included in its pending rate case
if the final cost becomes known and measurable within a
reasonable time after the close of the test period on
December 31, 2005. The timing and/or extent of recovery
could impact our future financial results.
SNG Rate Case and Other Matter. In August 2004, SNG filed
a rate case with the FERC seeking an annual rate increase of
$35 million, or 11 percent in jurisdictional rates and
certain revisions to its effective tariff regarding terms and
conditions of service. In April 2005, SNG reached a tentative
settlement in principle that would resolve all issues in our
rate proceeding, and filed the negotiated offer of settlement
with the FERC on April 20, 2005. SNG implemented the
settlement rates on an interim basis as of March 1, 2005 as
negotiated rates with all shippers which elected to be
consenting parties under the rate settlement. In an order issued
in July 2005, the FERC approved the settlement. Under the terms
of the settlement, SNG reduced the
81
proposed increase in its base tariff rates by approximately
$21 million; reduced its fuel retention percentage and
agreed to an incentive sharing mechanism to encourage additional
fuel savings; received approval for capital maintenance tracker
that will allow it to recover costs through its rates; adjusted
the rates for its South Georgia facilities and agreed to file
its next general rate case no earlier than March 1, 2009
and no later than March 31, 2010. The settlement also
provided for changes regarding SNGs terms and conditions
of service. We do not expect the settlement to have a material
impact on its future financial results. In addition, as a result
of the contract extensions required by the settlement, the
contract terms for firm service now average approximately seven
years.
A majority of SNG contracts for firm transportation service with
its largest customer, Atlanta Gas Light Company (AGL), were due
to expire in 2005. In April 2004, SNG and AGL executed
definitive agreements pursuant to which AGL agreed to extend its
firm transportation service contracts with SNG for
926,534 Mcf/d for a weighted average term of 6.5 years
between 2008 and 2015. In connection with this agreement, SNG
sold to AGL approximately 250 miles of certain pipeline
facilities and nine measurement facilities in the metropolitan
Atlanta area for a transfer price of approximately
$32 million. In late 2004 and early 2005 the FERC and the
Georgia Public Service Commission (GPSC) approved these
transactions. In March 2005, the transaction was closed and SNG
recorded a gain of $7 million from the sale of these
facilities.
For a further discussion of our current and upcoming rate
proceedings, see Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements,
Note 17 on page F-89.
Non-regulated Business Production Segment
Our Production segment conducts our natural gas and oil
exploration and production activities. Our operating results in
this segment are driven by a variety of factors including the
ability to acquire or locate and develop economic natural gas
and oil reserves, extract those reserves with minimal production
costs, sell the products at attractive prices, and to minimize
our total administrative costs. We continue to manage our
business with a goal to stabilize production by improving the
production mix across our operating areas through a more
balanced allocation of our capital to development and
exploration projects, and through acquisition activities with
low risk development opportunities that provide operating
synergies with our existing operations.
|
|
|
Significant Operational Factors Since December 31,
2004 |
Since December 31, 2004, we have experienced the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Higher realized prices. During the first six months of
2005, we continued to benefit from a strong commodity pricing
environment. Realized natural gas prices, which include the
impact of our hedges, increased eight percent while oil,
condensate and NGL prices increased 33 percent compared to
2004. |
|
|
|
Average daily production of 775 MMcfe/d (excluding
discontinued operations of 3 MMcfe/d). Our average
daily production in the second quarter of 2005 increased
approximately two percent over the first quarter of 2005 and was
relatively stable compared with the third and fourth quarters of
2004. Specifically, during the last twelve months we have
experienced increased production in our onshore region,
relatively stable production in our offshore Gulf of Mexico
region, and declining production in our Texas Gulf Coast region
due to normal declines and mechanical well failures. In
addition, we acquired the remaining interest in UnoPaso located
in Brazil in July 2004 and began consolidating this operation.
During the first six months of 2005, our operations in
Brazil produced at an average of approximately 54 MMcfe/d,
and our first quarter 2005 acquisitions of domestic producing
properties discussed below benefited our average daily
production by approximately 44 MMcfe/d. In July 2005,
hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico caused us to shut in production
for periods of time impacting production volumes by
approximately 12 MMcfe/d for the month. |
82
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisitions and other capital expenditures. During the
first six months of 2005, our capital expenditures of
$651 million included acquisitions in east and south Texas
and the purchase of the interest held by one of our partners
under a net profits interest agreement for a total of
$271 million. These acquisitions added properties with
approximately 140 Bcfe of proved reserves and
52 MMcfe/d of production at the acquisition dates. More
importantly, the Texas acquisitions offer additional exploration
upside in two of our key operating areas. We have integrated
these acquisitions into our operations with minimal additional
administrative expenses. |
|
|
|
In July 2005, we announced we will acquire Medicine Bow, a
privately held energy company with an estimated 356 Bcfe of
proved reserves, primarily in the Rocky Mountains and east
Texas, for $814 million. Of this proved reserve amount, our
net interest in approximately 226 Bcfe will not be
consolidated in our reserves, as these reserves are owned by an
unconsolidated affiliate of Medicine Bow. The operating results
associated with these unconsolidated reserves will be reported
through an equity interest. Concurrent with this announcement,
our Marketing and Trading segment entered into several
derivative positions associated with the properties to be
acquired as further discussed on page 89. The acquisition
of these properties will complement our existing core
operations, diversify our commodity mix and increase our reserve
life. The transaction is expected to close during the third
quarter of 2005. |
|
|
|
|
|
Drilling Results. In 2005, we have announced deep shelf
discoveries at West Cameron Block 75 and Block 62 in
the Gulf of Mexico. At West Cameron Block 75, we tested the
discovery and anticipate deliverability of approximately
40 MMcfe/d to begin in the fourth quarter of 2005, after
the installation of facilities. We own a 36 percent working
interest and an approximate 30 percent net revenue interest
in the West Cameron Block 75. |
|
|
|
Outlook for the last six months of 2005 |
For 2005, we anticipate the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital expenditures of approximately $1.1 billion
for the last six months of 2005, including amounts to be paid to
acquire Medicine Bow. |
|
|
|
Daily production volumes for the year to average in excess of
810 MMcfe/d, including approximately 10 MMcfe/d
expected from the Medicine Bow acquisition and 24 MMcfe/d
from Medicine Bows interest in an unconsolidated affiliate. |
|
|
|
Cash operating costs to be approximately $1.45/Mcfe as we
continue to focus on cost control, operating efficiencies, and
process improvements. |
|
|
|
Industry-wide increases in drilling and oilfield service costs
that will require constant monitoring of capital spending
programs. |
|
|
|
A domestic unit of production depletion rate of $2.10/ Mcfe in
the third quarter of 2005 as compared to $2.04/ Mcfe in the
second quarter of 2005, due to higher finding and development
costs and the costs of acquired reserves. We also expect a
higher depletion rate in the fourth quarter of 2005 as we
complete the announced Medicine Bow acquisition. |
83
|
|
|
Production Hedge Position |
As part of our overall strategy, we hedge our natural gas and
oil production to stabilize cash flows, reduce the risk of
downward commodity price movements on our sales and to protect
the economic assumptions associated with our capital investment
and acquisition programs. Our Marketing and Trading segment has
also entered into other derivative contracts that are designed
to provide price protection to the overall company, which are
discussed further in that segments operating results. Our
hedging activities are further discussed beginning on
page 89.
Overall, we experienced a significant decrease in the fair value
of our hedging derivatives in the first six months of 2005.
These non-cash fair value decreases are generally deferred in
our accumulated other comprehensive income and will be realized
in our operating results at the time the production volumes to
which they relate are sold. As of June 30, 2005, the fair
value of these positions that is deferred in accumulated other
comprehensive income was a pre-tax loss of $281 million.
The income impact of the settlement of these derivatives will be
substantially offset by the impact of the corresponding change
in the price to be received when the hedged production is sold.
84
Below are the operating results and analysis of these results
for the periods ended June 30:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
Six Months | |
|
|
June 30, | |
|
Ended June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Production Segment Results |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating Revenues:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas
|
|
$ |
354 |
|
|
$ |
363 |
|
|
$ |
707 |
|
|
$ |
731 |
|
|
Oil, condensate and NGL
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues
|
|
|
452 |
|
|
|
430 |
|
|
|
891 |
|
|
|
876 |
|
Transportation and net product
costs(1)
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating margin
|
|
|
440 |
|
|
|
417 |
|
|
|
866 |
|
|
|
849 |
|
Operating Expenses:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
(157 |
) |
|
|
(131 |
) |
|
|
(303 |
) |
|
|
(271 |
) |
|
Production
costs(2)
|
|
|
(59 |
) |
|
|
(44 |
) |
|
|
(114 |
) |
|
|
(86 |
) |
|
Restructuring charges
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
General and administrative expenses
|
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
(84 |
) |
|
|
(73 |
) |
|
Taxes other than production and income
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating
expenses(1)
|
|
|
(265 |
) |
|
|
(215 |
) |
|
|
(511 |
) |
|
|
(444 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
202 |
|
|
|
355 |
|
|
|
405 |
|
Other income
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
176 |
|
|
$ |
204 |
|
|
$ |
359 |
|
|
$ |
408 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended June 30, | |
|
Six Months Ended June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Percent | |
|
|
|
Percent | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
Variance | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
Variance | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Volumes, prices and costs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volumes (MMcf)
|
|
|
57,790 |
|
|
|
61,535 |
|
|
|
(6 |
)% |
|
|
113,948 |
|
|
|
127,234 |
|
|
|
(10 |
)% |
|
|
Average realized prices including hedges ($/Mcf)
(3)(4)
|
|
$ |
6.13 |
|
|
$ |
5.90 |
|
|
|
4 |
% |
|
$ |
6.20 |
|
|
$ |
5.75 |
|
|
|
8 |
% |
|
|
Average realized prices excluding hedges
($/Mcf)(3)
|
|
$ |
6.35 |
|
|
$ |
5.95 |
|
|
|
7 |
% |
|
$ |
6.03 |
|
|
$ |
5.81 |
|
|
|
4 |
% |
|
|
Average transportation costs ($/Mcf)
|
|
$ |
0.17 |
|
|
$ |
0.14 |
|
|
|
21 |
% |
|
$ |
0.17 |
|
|
$ |
0.15 |
|
|
|
13 |
% |
|
Oil, condensate and NGL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volumes (MBbls)
|
|
|
2,260 |
|
|
|
1,937 |
|
|
|
17 |
% |
|
|
4,396 |
|
|
|
4,647 |
|
|
|
(5 |
)% |
|
|
Average realized prices including hedges
($/Bbl)(3)
|
|
$ |
42.39 |
|
|
$ |
34.11 |
|
|
|
24 |
% |
|
$ |
41.16 |
|
|
$ |
30.86 |
|
|
|
33 |
% |
|
|
Average realized prices excluding hedges
($/Bbl)(3)
|
|
$ |
43.07 |
|
|
$ |
34.11 |
|
|
|
26 |
% |
|
$ |
41.68 |
|
|
$ |
30.86 |
|
|
|
35 |
% |
|
|
Average transportation costs ($/Bbl)
|
|
$ |
0.59 |
|
|
$ |
1.54 |
|
|
|
(62 |
)% |
|
$ |
0.67 |
|
|
$ |
1.35 |
|
|
|
(50 |
)% |
|
Total equivalent volumes (MMcfe)
|
|
|
71,351 |
|
|
|
73,157 |
|
|
|
(2 |
)% |
|
|
140,327 |
|
|
|
155,115 |
|
|
|
(10 |
)% |
|
Production costs ($/Mcfe)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average lease operating cost
|
|
$ |
0.76 |
|
|
$ |
0.51 |
|
|
|
49 |
% |
|
$ |
0.69 |
|
|
$ |
0.50 |
|
|
|
38 |
% |
|
|
Average production taxes
|
|
|
0.07 |
|
|
|
0.09 |
|
|
|
(22 |
)% |
|
|
0.13 |
|
|
|
0.06 |
|
|
|
117 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total production
cost(1)
|
|
$ |
0.83 |
|
|
$ |
0.60 |
|
|
|
38 |
% |
|
$ |
0.82 |
|
|
$ |
0.56 |
|
|
|
46 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average general and administrative cost ($/Mcfe)
|
|
$ |
0.61 |
|
|
$ |
0.51 |
|
|
|
20 |
% |
|
$ |
0.60 |
|
|
$ |
0.47 |
|
|
|
28 |
% |
|
Unit of production depletion cost ($/Mcfe)
|
|
$ |
2.05 |
|
|
$ |
1.64 |
|
|
|
25 |
% |
|
$ |
2.02 |
|
|
$ |
1.61 |
|
|
|
25 |
% |
|
|
(1) |
Transportation and net product costs are included in operating
expenses on our consolidated statements of income. |
|
(2) |
Production costs include lease operating costs and production
related taxes (including ad valorem and severance taxes). |
|
(3) |
Prices are stated before transportation costs |
|
(4) |
The average realized prices for natural gas, including hedges
listed above, reflect the amounts recorded by the Production
segment for sales of natural gas volumes. On a consolidated
basis, El Paso receives a lower cash price on a portion of
the volumes sold as further discussed on page 32. |
85
|
|
|
Quarter and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 Compared to
Quarter and Six Months Ended June 30, 2004 |
Our EBIT for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2005
decreased $28 million and $49 million as compared to
the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2004. The table
below lists the significant variances in our operating results
in the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2005 as
compared to the same periods in 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variance | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Operating | |
|
Operating | |
|
|
|
EBIT | |
Quarter Ended June 30, |
|
Revenue | |
|
Expense | |
|
Other(1) |
|
Impact | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Favorable/(Unfavorable) | |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Natural Gas Revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher realized prices in 2005
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
|
Lower volumes in 2005
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
Impact from hedge program in 2005 versus 2004
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
Oil, Condensate, and NGL Revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher realized prices in 2005
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
Higher volumes in 2005
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
Impact from hedge program in 2005 versus 2004
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
Depreciation, Depletion, and Amortization Expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher depletion rate in 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
Lower production volumes in 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
Production Costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher lease operating costs in 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
Lower production taxes in 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher general and administrative costs in 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
Other
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total variances
|
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
$ |
(50 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(28 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variance | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Operating | |
|
Operating | |
|
|
|
EBIT | |
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|
Revenue | |
|
Expense | |
|
Other(1) | |
|
Impact | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Favorable/(Unfavorable) | |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Natural Gas Revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher realized prices in 2005
|
|
$ |
25 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
25 |
|
|
Lower volumes in 2005
|
|
|
(77 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(77 |
) |
|
Impact from hedge program in 2005 versus 2004
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28 |
|
Oil, Condensate, and NGL Revenue
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher realized prices in 2005
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
Lower volumes in 2005
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
Impact from hedge program in 2005 versus 2004
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
Depreciation, Depletion, and Amortization Expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher depletion rate in 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
Lower production volumes in 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
Production Costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher lease operating costs in 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
Higher production taxes in 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Higher general and administrative costs in 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
Other
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total variances
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
(67 |
) |
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
(49 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Consists primarily of changes in transportation costs and other
income |
86
Operating Revenues. During 2005, we continued to benefit
from a strong commodity pricing environment for natural gas and
oil, condensate and NGL. Our hedging program contributed
(losses) gains of ($14) million and $17 million for
the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2005, compared to
($3) million and ($9) million for the same periods in
2004. Substantially offsetting the impact of the strong
commodity pricing environment was a decrease in production
volumes versus the same periods in 2004. Although our natural
gas and oil production benefited from our east and south Texas
acquisitions, our acquisition and consolidation of the remaining
interests in UnoPaso in Brazil in July 2004 and increased
production in our onshore region, both the Texas Gulf Coast and
the offshore regions experienced significant decreases in
production due to normal production declines and a lower capital
spending program over the last several years. In addition, the
Texas Gulf Coast Region was impacted by mechanical well failures.
Depreciation, depletion, and amortization expense. Lower
production volumes in 2005 due to the production declines
discussed above reduced our depreciation, depletion, and
amortization expense. However, more than offsetting this
decrease were higher depletion rates due to higher finding and
development costs and the cost of acquired reserves.
Production costs. In 2005, we experienced additional
costs, including workover costs, as a result of our July 2004
acquisition of UnoPaso located in Brazil, higher domestic
workover costs due to the implementation of programs to improve
production in the offshore Gulf of Mexico and Texas Gulf Coast
regions, higher salt water disposal expenses and higher utility
expenses. In addition, our production taxes increased as the
result of higher commodity prices in 2005 and higher tax credits
taken in 2004 on high cost natural gas wells. The cost per unit
increased primarily due to the lower production volumes
mentioned above and higher production costs mentioned above.
Other. General and administrative costs are allocated to
each business segment. The allocation is based on the estimated
level of effort devoted to each segments operations and
the relative size of its EBIT, gross property and payroll as
compared to the consolidated totals. During the quarter and six
months ended June 30, 2005, the Production segment was
allocated higher costs than the same periods in 2004, primarily
due to an increase in benefits accrued under retirement plans
and higher legal, insurance and professional fees. In addition,
the Production segment was allocated a larger percentage of our
total corporate costs due to the significance of its asset base
and earnings to our overall asset base and earnings. In
addition, capitalized overhead costs were lower in 2005 when
compared to the same periods in 2004. The cost per unit of
general and administrative expenses increased due to a
combination of higher costs and lower production volumes
discussed above. The decrease in other operating expenses for
the six months periods related to employee severance expenses of
$2 million in 2005 compared with $11 million in 2004.
Non-regulated Business Marketing and Trading
Segment
Our Marketing and Trading segments operations focus on the
marketing of our natural gas production and the management of
our remaining trading portfolio. Our Marketing and Trading
segments portfolio includes both contracts with third
parties and contracts with affiliates that require physical
delivery of a commodity or financial settlement. We continue to
consider opportunities to assign, terminate or otherwise
accelerate the liquidation of certain of our legacy trading
positions which may result in future losses. For a further
discussion of the business activities and portfolio composition
of our Marketing and Trading segment, see pages 118 through
119.
|
|
|
Significant factors impacting or occurring in the six months
ended June 30, 2005: |
|
|
|
|
|
Increases in natural gas prices continue to have an overall
negative impact on the fair value of our natural gas and power
derivatives, which generally require us to supply natural gas
and power at fixed prices. In addition, natural gas prices
increased more than power prices, which negatively impacted the
fair value of our Cordova tolling agreement. |
|
|
|
Effective April 1, 2005 we began using new forward pricing
data provided by Platts Research and Consulting, our independent
pricing source, due to their decision to discontinue the
publication of the pricing data we had been utilizing in prior
periods. In addition, due to the nature of the new forward |
87
|
|
|
|
|
pricing data, we extended the use of that data over the entire
contractual term of our derivative contracts. Previously, we
only used Platts pricing data to value our derivative
contracts beyond two years. Based on our analysis, we do not
believe the overall impact of this change in estimate was
material to our results for the period. |
Operating Results
Below are the overall operating results and analysis of these
results for our Marketing and Trading segment for the periods
ended June 30:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months | |
|
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
Ended | |
|
|
June 30, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Overall EBIT:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
margin(1)
|
|
$ |
(21 |
) |
|
$ |
(141 |
) |
|
$ |
(196 |
) |
|
$ |
(300 |
) |
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating loss
|
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
(154 |
) |
|
|
(218 |
) |
|
|
(329 |
) |
|
Other income
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
(30 |
) |
|
$ |
(152 |
) |
|
$ |
(215 |
) |
|
$ |
(316 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross margin by significant contract type:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production-related and other natural gas derivatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in fair value on positions designated as hedges in
December 2004
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(104 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(260 |
) |
|
|
Changes in fair value on production-related contracts
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(118 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in fair value on other natural gas positions
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total production-related and other natural gas derivatives
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
(91 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(252 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transportation-related contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demand charges
|
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
(79 |
) |
|
|
(79 |
) |
|
|
Settlements
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total transportation-related contracts
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross margin natural gas contracts
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
(105 |
) |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(284 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in fair value on Cordova tolling agreement
|
|
|
(78 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(111 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
Changes in fair value on other power derivatives
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(72 |
) |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
Favorable resolution of bankruptcy claim
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross margin power contracts
|
|
|
(83 |
) |
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
(166 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total gross margin
|
|
$ |
(21 |
) |
|
$ |
(141 |
) |
|
$ |
(196 |
) |
|
$ |
(300 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Gross margin for our Marketing and Trading segment consists of
revenues from commodity trading and origination activities less
the costs of commodities sold, including changes in the fair
value of our derivative contracts. |
88
Listed below is a discussion of factors, by significant contract
type, that affected the profitability of this segment during the
quarters and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004:
|
|
|
Production-related and other natural gas derivatives |
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives designated as hedges. The amounts in the
above table represent changes in the fair values of derivative
contracts that were designated as accounting hedges of our
Production segments natural gas production on
December 1, 2004. Losses for the quarter and six months
ended June 30, 2004 were a result of increases in
natural gas prices relative to the fixed prices in these
contracts. Following the designation of these derivatives as
accounting hedges in the fourth quarter of 2004, we began
reflecting the income impacts of these contracts in our
Production segment. |
|
|
|
Other production-related derivatives. We hold several
option contracts that provide price protection on a portion of
our Production segments anticipated natural gas and oil
production. These contracts, which are not accounting hedges and
are marked to market in our results each period, provide
El Paso with the following floor and ceiling prices on our
future natural gas and oil production: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006 | |
|
2007 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Natural Gas Options Held at June 30, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volumes with Floor Price (TBtu)
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
Floor Price (per MMBtu)
|
|
|
$6.00 |
|
|
|
$7.00(1) |
|
|
|
$6.00 |
|
Volumes with Ceiling Price (TBtu)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
Ceiling Price (per MMBtu)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$9.50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 | |
|
2008 | |
|
2009 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Positions Added in July
2005(2) |
Natural Gas Options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volumes (TBtu)
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
Floor Price (per MMBtu)
|
|
|
$7.00 |
|
|
|
$6.00 |
|
|
|
$6.00 |
|
|
Ceiling Price (per MMBtu)
|
|
|
$9.00 |
|
|
|
$10.00 |
|
|
|
$8.75 |
|
Oil Options
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volumes (MBbls)
|
|
|
1,009 |
|
|
|
930 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Floor Price (per Bbl)
|
|
|
$55.00 |
|
|
|
$55.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Ceiling Price (per Bbl)
|
|
|
$60.38 |
|
|
|
$57.03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
In July 2005, we paid a net premium of $30 million to raise
the floor price on these contracts from $6.00 per MMBtu. |
|
(2) |
We entered into these positions related to our announced
acquisition of Medicine Bow Energy Corporation. |
In addition to the options described above, we hold several
derivative contracts that, on a net basis, obligate us to sell
natural gas at fixed prices on 3 TBtu of our Production
segments anticipated 2005 and 2006 natural gas production.
The fair value of these production-related fixed price contracts
and option contracts held at June 30, 2005 in the table
above decreased by $12 million and $118 million during
the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2005, due to
increasing natural gas prices. In July 2005, we entered into
several derivative contracts that obligate us to sell
34 TBtu of natural gas and 1,453 MBbls of oil at fixed
prices related to the anticipated 2005 and 2006 natural gas and
oil production from our announced acquisition of Medicine Bow.
|
|
|
|
|
Other natural gas derivatives. Other natural gas
derivatives consist of physical and financial natural gas
contracts that impact our earnings as the fair value of these
contracts change. These contracts obligate us to either purchase
or sell natural gas at fixed prices. Our exposure to natural gas
price changes will vary from period to period based on whether
we purchase more or less natural gas than we sell under these
contracts. Under certain of these contracts, we supply gas to
power plants that we partially own. Due to their affiliated
nature, we do not currently recognize mark-to-market gains or |
89
|
|
|
|
|
losses on these contracts to the extent of our ownership
interests in the plants. However, should we sell our interests
in these plants, we would be required to record the cumulative
unrecognized mark-to-market losses on these contracts, which
totaled approximately $106 million as of June 30,
2005, net of related hedges. |
|
|
|
Transportation-related contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
Demand charges paid on our Alliance pipeline capacity contract
were $16 million and $32 million in the quarter and
six months ended June 30, 2005, versus $15 million and
$30 million in the same periods of 2004. Our ability to use
our Alliance pipeline capacity contract was relatively
consistent during these periods, allowing us to recover
approximately 66 percent of our demand charges in the first
six months of 2005 and 65 percent in the first six months
of 2004. This resulted from the price differentials between the
receipt and delivery points remaining relatively consistent
during these periods. |
|
|
|
Demand charges paid on our Texas Intrastate and remaining
transportation contracts were $24 million and
$47 million in the quarter and six months ended
June 30, 2005, versus $25 million and
$49 million in the same periods of 2004. Our ability to use
the capacity under our Texas intrastate contracts improved in
2005 due to increased price differentials between the receipt
and delivery points for the contracts. This allowed us to
recover approximately 61 percent of the demand charges in
the first six months of 2005 compared to only 18 percent
during the same period in 2004. However, we only recovered
62 percent of the demand charges on our other
transportation contracts in 2005 as compared to 70 percent
in 2004, as price differentials between receipt and delivery
points for these contracts decreased during the first six months
of 2005. |
|
|
|
Cordova tolling agreement |
|
|
|
Our Cordova agreement is sensitive to changes in forecasted
natural gas and power prices. During 2005 and 2004, forecasted
natural gas prices increased relative to power prices, resulting
in a decrease in the fair value of the contract. |
|
|
|
|
|
During the first quarter of 2005, we assigned our contracts to
supply power to our Power segments Cedar Brakes I and
II entities to Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc.
These contracts decreased in fair value by $15 million and
$38 million in the quarter and six months ended
June 30, 2004. In conjunction with the transfer, we also
entered into derivative contracts with Constellation that swap
the locational differences in power prices at the Camden,
Bayonne and Newark Bay power plants and the Pennsylvania-New
Jersey-Maryland power pools West Hub through 2013. The
fair value of these swaps decreased by $6 million and
$13 million during the quarter and six months ended
June 30, 2005, due to unfavorable changes in the power
prices at each location. |
|
|
|
We have a contract to supply power to Morgan Stanley at a fixed
price through 2016. This contract increased in fair value by
less than $1 million and $10 million during the
quarters ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, and decreased in
fair value by $90 million and $45 million during the
six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004. The overall
decrease in the fair value of these derivatives during the six
months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 resulted from
increasing power prices related to these obligations during
these periods. However prices during the second quarters of 2005
and 2004 decreased. |
|
|
|
During the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, we were
required to purchase power under remaining power contracts,
which include those used to manage the risk associated with our
other power supply obligations. Due to changes in power prices,
the fair value of these contracts decreased by $16 million
and increased by $31 million during the quarter and six
months ended June 30, 2005, and decreased by
$13 million and increased by $70 million during the
same periods of 2004. |
90
|
|
|
|
|
On March 24, 2005, a bankruptcy court entered an order
allowing Mohawk River Funding IIIs (MRF III)
bankruptcy claims with USGen New England. We received payment on
this claim and recognized a gain of $17 million for amounts
received in excess of receivables previously recorded. |
Operating expenses were relatively consistent for the quarters
and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004. We recorded a
$1 million loss in 2005 related to additional payments
delayed by the Berkshire power plant under their fuel supply
agreement. Berkshire is no longer able to delay any future
payments under this agreement. We continue to supply fuel to the
plant under the fuel supply agreement and we may incur losses if
amounts owed on future deliveries are not paid for under this
agreement because of Berkshires inability to generate
adequate cash flows and the uncertainty surrounding negotiations
with their lenders. See Notes to Condensed Consolidated
Financial Statements, Note 14 on page F-32 for additional
information on this fuel supply agreement.
Non-regulated Business Power Segment
As of June 30, 2005, our Power segment primarily consisted
of an international power business. Historically, this segment
also included domestic power plant operations and a domestic
power contract restructuring business. We have sold
substantially all of these domestic businesses. Our ongoing
focus within the Power segment will be to maximize the value of
our assets in Brazil. Our other international power operations
are considered non-core activities, and we expect to exit these
activities within the next twelve months.
|
|
|
Significant developments in our operations that occurred
since December 31, 2004 include: |
|
|
|
|
|
Brazil. Our Macae project in Brazil has a contract that
requires Petrobras to make minimum revenue payments until August
2007. Petrobras has not paid amounts due under the contract for
December 2004 through the second quarter of 2005 and has
initiated arbitration proceedings related to that obligation.
For a further discussion of this matter, see Item 1,
Financial Statements, Note 10. As a result of continued
negotiations and discussions with Petrobras regarding this
dispute, we recorded an impairment of this investment in the
second quarter of 2005. This impairment was based on information
regarding the potential value we would receive from the
resolution of this matter. The future financial performance of
the Macae plant will be affected by the ultimate outcome of this
dispute, the timing of that outcome, and by regional changes in
the Brazilian power markets. |
|
|
|
Asia. During the second and third quarters of 2005, we
announced the sale of substantially all of our Asian power
assets. We recorded impairments on certain of these assets based
on information received regarding the potential value we may
receive when we sell them. In July 2005, we completed the
sale of our 50 percent interest in the KIECO power facility
in Korea. The sale resulted in a gain of $109 million,
which will be recorded in the third quarter of 2005. We expect
to receive total proceeds of approximately $180 million
from the sale of our remaining Asian assets, which we expect
will be substantially completed by the end of 2005. We will
continue to assess the fair value of those assets throughout the
sales process, which may result in additional impairments or
gains in future periods. |
|
|
|
Other International Power. During the second quarter of
2005, we engaged an investment banker to facilitate the sale of
our Central American power assets. We recorded an impairment in
the second quarter of 2005 based on information received about
the value we may receive upon the sale of these assets. We will
continue to assess the value of these assets throughout the
sales process, which may result in additional impairments that
may be significant. See Notes to Condensed Consolidated
Financial Statements, Note 3 on page F-11 for further
information on our divestitures. |
91
Below are the overall operating results and analysis of
activities within our Power segment for the periods ended
June 30:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months | |
|
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
Ended | |
|
|
June 30, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Overall EBIT:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
margin(1)
|
|
$ |
101 |
|
|
$ |
194 |
|
|
$ |
160 |
|
|
$ |
354 |
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
(361 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(388 |
) |
|
|
(256 |
) |
|
|
Other operating expenses
|
|
|
(97 |
) |
|
|
(122 |
) |
|
|
(167 |
) |
|
|
(246 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating loss
|
|
|
(357 |
) |
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
(395 |
) |
|
|
(148 |
) |
|
Earnings from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairments, net of gains on sale
|
|
|
(87 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(148 |
) |
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
Equity in earnings
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
Other income
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
(381 |
) |
|
$ |
102 |
|
|
$ |
(431 |
) |
|
$ |
(67 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Gross margin for our Power segment consists of revenues from our
power plants and the revenues, cost of electricity purchases and
changes in fair value of restructured power contracts. The cost
of fuel used in the power generation process is included in
operating expenses. |
92
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months | |
|
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
Ended | |
|
|
June 30, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
EBIT by Area:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairments
|
|
$ |
(294 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(294 |
) |
|
$ |
(151 |
) |
|
Earnings from consolidated and unconsolidated plant operations
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
Asia and Other International Power
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairments,
net(1)
|
|
|
(161 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(258 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
Dividend on investment fund
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on sale of PPN power plant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings from consolidated and unconsolidated plant operations
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
Domestic Power
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power Contract Restructurings:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Favorable resolution of bankruptcy claim
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairments,
net(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(96 |
) |
|
|
Change in fair value of contracts
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
Other Domestic Operations
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
6 |
|
Other(2)
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
(381 |
) |
|
$ |
102 |
|
|
$ |
(431 |
) |
|
$ |
(67 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes impairment charges and gains (losses) on sales of
assets and investments, net of any related minority interest. |
|
(2) |
Other consists of the indirect expenses and general and
administrative costs associated with our domestic and
international operations, including legal, finance and
engineering costs. Direct general and administrative expenses of
our domestic and international operations are included in EBIT
of those operations. Other also includes gains and losses
associated with our power turbine inventory. During the first
quarter of 2005, we recorded a $15 million impairment of
those turbines based on the receipt of further information about
their fair value. |
Brazil. In addition to the Macae impairment of
$294 million, during the quarter and six months ended
June 30, 2005 we did not recognize approximately
$54 million and $99 million of our proportionate share
of Macaes revenues based on non-payment of these amounts
by Petrobras, which significantly affected our earnings at the
plant. Partially offsetting the decline in Macaes earnings
were lower insurance and general and administrative costs
associated with our Brazilian operations. During the first
quarter of 2004, we recorded an impairment of our Manaus and Rio
Negro power plants based on the status of our negotiations to
extend the power contracts, which was negatively impacted by
changes in the Brazilian political environment.
Asia and Other International Power. During the second
quarter of 2005, we recorded a $111 million impairment, net
of related minority interest, on our Central American power
assets and a $34 million impairment on our Asian assets. We
also recorded $16 million of impairments, net of gains on
sales, primarily related to our investments in power plants in
Peru, England and Hungary based on the sale or anticipated sale
of these projects. In the first quarter of 2005, we also
recorded $97 million of impairments, which was primarily
associated with our Asian assets based on ongoing sales
negotiations.
In addition to these impairments, we did not recognize
approximately $8 million and $19 million of our
proportionate share of earnings for the quarter and six months
ended June 30, 2005 on our Asian power investments
since we did not believe these amounts could be realized. In a
separate transaction, we also sold our interest in a power plant
in India, which had previously been fully impaired. This sale
resulted in a gain of $22 million in the first quarter of
2005.
Domestic Power Contract Restructurings. On
March 24, 2005, a bankruptcy court entered an order
allowing MRF IIIs bankruptcy claims with USGen New
England. In June 2005, we received payment on this claim and
recognized a gain of $53 million for amounts received in
excess of receivables previously recorded.
93
With the completion of the sale of Cedar Brakes I and II in
March 2005, we have sold substantially all of our domestic power
contract restructuring business. As a result, in 2005, there was
a substantial reduction in activity in these operations compared
to changes in the fair value of these contracts that occurred
during 2004. Our remaining operations include derivative
contracts and related debt in Mohawk River Funding II
(MRF II). We are currently evaluating opportunities to sell
our interest in MRF II and our related power supply
contracts, which may result in future losses. During the first
quarter of 2004, we recorded a loss of $98 million related
to the announced sale of Utility Contract Funding and its
restructured power contract and related debt.
Other Domestic Operations. Our other domestic operations
include:
|
|
|
|
|
MCV. In 2004, we impaired our investment in MCV based on
a decline in the value of the investment due to increased fuel
costs. During the quarter ended June 30, 2005, we recorded
a further impairment of $4 million based on a decrease in
the fair value of the investment due to delays in the timing of
expected cash flow receipts from this investment. After
eliminating affiliated transactions, our proportionate share of
MCVs reported losses during the second quarter of 2005 was
$14 million and our proportionate share of their earnings
during the six months ended June 30, 2005 was
$58 million. A significant portion of these earnings
(losses) related to mark-to-market changes recorded by MCV on
their unaffiliated fuel supply contracts. We determined that
these fair value changes did not increase or decrease the fair
value of our equity investment and could not be realized in the
future. Accordingly, we decreased our proportionate share of
MCVs losses by $14 million during the second quarter
of 2005 and decreased our proportionate share of their earnings
by $57 million during the six months ended June 30,
2005. We will continue to assess our ability to recover our
investment in MCV and its related operations in the future. |
|
|
|
Other Domestic Assets. During the quarter and six months
ended June 30, 2004, we recorded earnings from
consolidated and unconsolidated affiliates of approximately
$41 million and $48 million and impairments of
approximately $34 million and $45 million on our
domestic power plants to adjust their book value to their
estimated sales proceeds. |
Non-regulated Business Field Services Segment
Our Field Services segment has historically conducted our
midstream activities. In 2004, these activities included our
gathering and processing operations in south Texas and south
Louisiana and our general and limited partner interests in
GulfTerra and Enterprise. In January 2005, we sold our
remaining common units and interest in the general partner of
Enterprise and our interests in the Indian Springs natural gas
gathering and processing assets to Enterprise. During the second
quarter of 2005, our Board of Directors approved the sale of our
south Louisiana gathering and processing assets, which we have
reclassified as discontinued operations for the quarter and six
months ended June 30, 2005. Prior period amounts have
not been adjusted as these operations were not material to prior
period results or historical trends.
94
For the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2005, EBIT in
our Field Services segment was a loss of $3 million and
earnings of $179 million as compared to earnings of
$27 million and $63 million during the same periods of
2004 due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Favorable | |
|
Favorable | |
|
|
(unfavorable) EBIT | |
|
(unfavorable) EBIT | |
|
|
impact for the | |
|
impact for the | |
|
|
quarter ended | |
|
six months ended | |
|
|
June 30, 2005 | |
|
June 30, 2005 | |
|
|
compared to 2004 | |
|
compared to 2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Gathering and processing margins
|
|
$ |
(37 |
) |
|
$ |
(79 |
) |
Operating expenses
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
Gain on sale of GP interest and common units to Enterprise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
183 |
|
Other equity earnings
|
|
|
(30 |
) |
|
|
(68 |
) |
Minority interest
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
Other
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total increase (decrease) in EBIT
|
|
$ |
(30 |
) |
|
$ |
116 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2005, we
experienced a significant decrease in our gathering &
processing operations as compared to the same period in 2004,
primarily as a result of asset sales.
For a discussion of our historical ownership interests in
Enterprise and activities with the partnership, see Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 14 on
page F-32. For a discussion of our discontinued operations
associated with our gathering and processing assets, see Notes
to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements Note 3, on
page F-11. For a further discussion of the historical
business activities of our Field Services segment, see
page 122.
Corporate, Net
Our corporate operations include our general and administrative
functions as well as a telecommunications business and various
other contracts and assets, all of which are immaterial to our
results in 2005.
For the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2005, EBIT in
our corporate operations was lower than the same periods in 2004
due to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Favorable | |
|
Favorable | |
|
|
(unfavorable) EBIT | |
|
(unfavorable) EBIT | |
|
|
impact for | |
|
impact for | |
|
|
quarter ended | |
|
six months ended | |
|
|
June 30, 2005 | |
|
June 30, 2005 | |
|
|
compared to 2004 | |
|
compared to 2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Western Energy Settlement charge in
2005(1)
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(59 |
) |
Losses on early extinguishment of debt in 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(29 |
) |
Lease termination costs due to office consolidation
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
(27 |
) |
Change in litigation, insurance and other reserves
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
Other
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total decrease in EBIT
|
|
$ |
(21 |
) |
|
$ |
(138 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
In the first quarter of 2005, we incurred this $59 million
charge associated with the payment of the Western Energy
Settlement obligation earlier than originally expected. This
charge has been recorded in operations and maintenance expense. |
We have a number of pending litigation matters, including
shareholder and other lawsuits filed against us. In all of our
legal and insurance matters, we evaluate each suit and claim as
to its merits and our defenses. Adverse rulings against us
and/or unfavorable settlements related to these and other legal
matters would impact our future results.
95
As discussed in Notes to Condensed Consolidated, Financial
Statements, Note 4, on page F-14 we had an accrual as
of December 31, 2004 related to our remaining lease
obligations associated with the consolidation of our
Houston-based operations. Our estimated costs were based on a
discounted liability, which included estimates of future
sublease rentals. During the quarter and six months ended
June 30, 2005, we recorded additional charges of
$17 million related to vacating this remaining leased space
to our downtown Houston location. In June 2005, we signed a
termination agreement related to this lease obligation, which
resulted in an additional charge of $10 million.
Interest and Debt Expense
Interest and debt expense for the quarter and six months ended
June 30, 2005, was $70 million and $143 million
lower than the same periods in 2004. Below is an analysis of our
interest expense for the periods ended June 30:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months | |
|
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
Ended | |
|
|
June 30, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Long-term debt, including current maturities
|
|
$ |
331 |
|
|
$ |
391 |
|
|
$ |
675 |
|
|
$ |
795 |
|
Other
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest and debt expense
|
|
$ |
340 |
|
|
$ |
410 |
|
|
$ |
690 |
|
|
$ |
833 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2005, our
total interest and debt expense decreased primarily due to the
retirements of long-term debt and other financing obligations
(net of issuances) during 2005 and 2004. See Notes to Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 9, on
page F-17 for a further discussion of our activities
related to debt repayments and issuances.
Income Taxes
Income taxes included in our income (loss) from continuing
operations and our effective tax rates for the period ended
June 30 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
Six Months Ended | |
|
|
June 30, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except for rates) | |
Income taxes
|
|
$ |
(51 |
) |
|
$ |
48 |
|
|
$ |
(57 |
) |
|
$ |
58 |
|
Effective tax rate
|
|
|
18 |
% |
|
|
59 |
% |
|
|
30 |
% |
|
|
(215 |
)% |
For a discussion of our effective tax rates, see Notes to
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 6 on
page F-15.
In October 2004, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 was
signed into law. This legislation creates, among other things, a
temporary incentive for U.S. multinational companies to
repatriate accumulated income earned outside the U.S. at an
effective tax rate of 5.25%. The U.S. Treasury Department
has indicated that additional guidance for applying the
repatriation provisions of the American Jobs Creation Act of
2004 will be issued. We are currently evaluating whether we will
repatriate any foreign earnings under the American Jobs Creation
Act of 2004, and are evaluating the other provisions of this
legislation, which may impact our taxes in the future.
Discontinued Operations
We have petroleum markets operations, international natural gas
and oil production operations outside of Brazil, and gathering
and processing operations in south Louisiana that are classified
as discontinued operations in our financial statements. Our
south Louisiana gathering and processing assets were approved
for sale by our Board of Directors during the second quarter of
2005. Accordingly, these assets and the results of their
operations for the quarter and six months ended June 30,
2005, have been reclassified as discontinued
96
operations. Prior period amounts have not been adjusted as these
operations did not materially impact prior period results or
historical trends.
The loss from our discontinued operations for the second quarter
of 2005 was $5 million compared to a loss of
$29 million for the same period in 2004. The loss in 2005
consisted of losses of $11 million in our petroleum markets
and international production operations and income of
$6 million in our south Louisiana gathering and processing
operations. The loss in 2004 consisted of losses of
$14 million in our petroleum markets operations and
$15 million in our international production operations.
The loss from our discontinued operations for the six months
ended June 30, 2005 was $1 million compared to a loss
of $106 million for the same period in 2004. The loss in
2005 consisted of losses of $13 million in our petroleum
markets and international production operations and income of
$12 million in our south Louisiana gathering and processing
operations. The loss in 2004 consisted of losses of
$77 million in our petroleum markets operations, primarily
related to losses on the completed sales of our Eagle Point and
Aruba refineries along with other operational and severance
costs and $29 million of losses in our international
production operations, primarily from impairments and losses on
sales.
Commitments and Contingencies
See Notes to Condensed Consolidated, Financial Statements,
Note 10, on page F-19.
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
This information updates, and you should read it in conjunction
with, information disclosed on pages 69 to 72.
There are no material changes in our quantitative and
qualitative disclosures about market risks from those reported
on pages 69 to 72, except as presented below:
Market Risk
We are exposed to a variety of market risks in the normal course
of our business activities, including commodity price, foreign
exchange and interest rate risks. We measure risks on the
derivative and non-derivative contracts in our trading portfolio
on a daily basis using a Value-at-Risk model. We measure our
Value-at-Risk using a historical simulation technique, and we
prepare it based on a confidence level of 95 percent and a
one-day holding period. This Value-at-Risk was $25 million
as of June 30, 2005 and $16 million as of
December 31, 2004, and represents our potential one-day
unfavorable impact on the fair values of our trading contracts.
Interest Rate Risk
As of June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, we had
$60 million and $665 million of third party long-term
restructured power derivative contracts. In March 2005, we sold
Cedar Brakes I and II, which held two power derivative
contracts with a combined fair value of $596 million as of
December 31, 2004. This sale substantially reduced our
exposure to interest rate risks.
97
BUSINESS
We are an energy company originally founded in 1928 in
El Paso, Texas. For many years, we served as a regional
natural gas pipeline company conducting business mainly in the
western United States. From 1996 through 2001, we expanded to
become an international energy company through a number of
mergers, acquisitions and internal growth initiatives. By 2001,
our operations expanded to include natural gas production, power
generation, petroleum businesses, trading operations and other
new ventures and businesses, in addition to our traditional
natural gas pipeline businesses. During this period, our total
assets grew from approximately $2.5 billion at
December 31, 1995 to over $44 billion following the
completion of The Coastal Corporation merger in January 2001.
During this same time period, we incurred substantial amounts of
debt and other obligations.
In late 2001 and in 2002, our industry and business were
adversely impacted by a number of significant events, including
(i) the bankruptcy of a number of energy sector
participants, (ii) the general decline in the energy
trading industry, (iii) performance in some areas of our
business that did not meet our expectations, (iv) credit
rating downgrades of us and other industry participants and
(v) regulatory and political pressures arising out of the
western energy crisis of 2000 and 2001.
These events adversely affected our operating results, our
financial condition and our liquidity during 2002 and 2003.
During this two year period, we refocused on our natural gas
assets and divested or otherwise sold our interests in a
significant number of assets, generating proceeds in excess of
$6 billion. As a result of those sales activities and the
performance of our businesses during this time period, we also
experienced significant losses.
In late 2003 and early 2004, we appointed a new chief executive
officer and several new members of the executive management
team. Following a period of assessment, we announced that our
long-term business strategy would principally focus on our core
pipeline and production businesses. Our businesses are owned
through a complex legal structure of companies that reflect the
acquisitions and growth in our business from 1996 to 2001. As
part of our long range strategy, we are actively working to
reduce the complexity of our corporate structure, which is shown
below in a condensed format, as of December 31, 2004.
98
Business Segments
For the year ended December 31, 2004, we had both regulated
and non-regulated operations conducted through five business
segments Pipelines, Production, Marketing and
Trading, Power and Field Services. Through these segments, we
provided the following energy related services:
|
|
|
Regulated Operations
Pipelines |
|
Our interstate natural gas pipeline system is the largest in the
U.S., and owns or has interests in approximately
56,000 miles of pipeline and approximately 420 Bcf of
storage capacity. We provide customers with interstate natural
gas transmission and storage services from a diverse group of
supply regions to major markets around the country, serving many
of the largest market areas. |
|
Non-regulated Operations
Production |
|
Our production business holds interests in approximately
3.6 million net developed and undeveloped acres and had
approximately 2.2 Tcfe of proved natural gas and oil
reserves worldwide at the end of 2004. During 2004, our
production averaged approximately 814 MMcfe/d. |
|
Marketing and Trading |
|
Our marketing and trading business markets our natural gas and
oil production and manages our historical energy trading
portfolio. During 2004, we continued to actively liquidate this
historical trading portfolio. |
|
Power |
|
Our power business changed significantly during 2003 and 2004
with the sale of a substantial portion of our domestic power
assets. As of December 31, 2004, we continued to own or
manage approximately 10,400 MW of gross generating capacity
in 16 countries. Our plants serve customers under long-term
and market-based contracts or sell to the open market in spot
market transactions. We have completed the sale of substantially
all of our domestic contracted power assets and are either
pursuing or evaluating the sale of many of our international
assets. |
|
Field Services |
|
Our midstream or field services business provides processing and
gathering services, primarily in south Louisiana. Through
December 2004, we also owned a 9.9 percent interest in the
general partner of Enterprise Products Partners L.P.
(Enterprise), a large publicly traded master limited
partnership, as well as a 3.7 percent limited partner
interest in Enterprise. In January 2005, we sold all of our
ownership interests in Enterprise and its general partner. We
currently expect to sell many of our remaining Field Services
assets. |
During 2004, we also had discontinued operations related to a
historical petroleum markets business and international natural
gas and oil production operations, primarily in Canada.
99
Under our long-term business strategy, we will continue to
concentrate on our core pipeline and production businesses and
activities that support those businesses while divesting or
otherwise disposing of our ownership in non-core assets and
operations. Our long-term strategy will focus on:
|
|
|
Business |
|
Objective and Strategy |
|
|
|
Pipelines
|
|
Protecting and enhancing asset value through successful
recontracting, continuous efficiency improvements through cost
management, and prudent capital spending in the U.S. and Mexico. |
Production
|
|
Growing our production business in a way that creates
shareholder value through disciplined capital allocation, cost
leadership and superior portfolio management. |
Marketing and Trading
|
|
Marketing and physical trading of our natural gas and oil
production. |
Power
|
|
Managing our remaining power generation assets to maximize value. |
Field Services
|
|
Optimizing our remaining gathering and processing assets. |
Below is a discussion of each of our business segments. Our
business segments provide a variety of energy products and
services. We managed each segment separately and each segment
requires different technology and marketing strategies. For
additional discussion of our business segments, see
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations. For our segment
operating results and identifiable assets, see Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 21, on
page F-105.
Regulated Business Pipelines Segment
Our Pipelines segment provides natural gas transmission,
storage, LNG terminalling and related services. We own or have
interests in approximately 56,000 miles of interstate
natural gas pipelines in the United States that connect the
nations principal natural gas supply regions to the six
largest consuming regions in the United States: the Gulf Coast,
California, the Northeast, the Midwest, the Southwest and the
Southeast. These pipelines represent the nations largest
integrated coast-to-coast mainline natural gas transmission
system. Our pipeline operations also include access to systems
in Canada and assets in Mexico. We also own or have interests in
approximately 420 Bcf of storage capacity used to provide a
variety of flexible services to our customers and an LNG
terminal at Elba Island, Georgia.
100
Our Pipelines segment conducts its business activities primarily
through (i) eight wholly owned and four partially owned
interstate transmission systems, (ii) five underground
natural gas storage entities and (iii) an entity that owns
the Elba Island LNG terminalling facility.
|
|
|
Wholly Owned Interstate Transmission Systems |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Average Throughput(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Design | |
|
Storage | |
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
|
Miles of | |
|
Capacity | |
|
Capacity | |
|
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
System |
|
Supply and Market Region |
|
Pipeline | |
|
(MMcf/d) | |
|
(Bcf) | |
|
2004 |
|
(BBtu/d) | |
|
2002 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Tennessee Gas Pipeline (TGP)
|
|
Extends from Louisiana, the Gulf of Mexico and south Texas to
the northeast section of the U.S., including the metropolitan
areas of New York City and Boston. |
|
|
14,200 |
|
|
|
6,876 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
4,469 |
|
|
4,710 |
|
|
4,596 |
ANR Pipeline (ANR)
|
|
Extends from Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas and the Gulf of Mexico
to the midwestern and northeastern regions of the U.S.,
including the metropolitan areas of Detroit, Chicago and
Milwaukee. |
|
|
10,500 |
|
|
|
6,620 |
|
|
|
192 |
|
|
4,067 |
|
|
4,232 |
|
|
4,130 |
El Paso Natural Gas (EPNG)
|
|
Extends from the San Juan, Permian and Anadarko basins to
California, its single largest market, as well as markets in
Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and northern Mexico. |
|
|
11,000 |
|
|
|
5,650 |
(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
4,074 |
|
|
3,874 |
|
|
3,799 |
101
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Average Throughput(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Design | |
|
Storage | |
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
|
Miles of | |
|
Capacity | |
|
Capacity | |
|
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
System |
|
Supply and Market Region |
|
Pipeline | |
|
(MMcf/d) | |
|
(Bcf) | |
|
2004 |
|
(BBtu/d) | |
|
2002 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Southern Natural Gas (SNG)
|
|
Extends from Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and the Gulf
of Mexico to Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
South Carolina and Tennessee, including the metropolitan areas
of Atlanta and Birmingham. |
|
|
8,000 |
|
|
|
3,437 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
2,163 |
|
|
2,101 |
|
|
2,151 |
Colorado Interstate Gas (CIG)
|
|
Extends from most production areas in the Rocky Mountain region
and the Anadarko Basin to the front range of the Rocky Mountains
and multiple interconnects with pipeline systems transporting
gas to the Midwest, the Southwest, California and the Pacific
Northwest. |
|
|
4,000 |
|
|
|
3,000 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
1,744 |
|
|
1,685 |
|
|
1,687 |
Wyoming Interstate (WIC)
|
|
Extends from western Wyoming and the Powder River Basin to
various pipeline interconnections near Cheyenne, Wyoming. |
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
1,997 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,201 |
|
|
1,213 |
|
|
1,194 |
Mojave Pipeline (MPC)
|
|
Connects with the EPNG and Transwestern transmission systems at
Topock, Arizona, and the Kern River Gas Transmission Company
transmission system in California, and extends to customers in
the vicinity of Bakersfield, California. |
|
|
400 |
|
|
|
400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
192 |
|
|
266 |
Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline (CPG)
|
|
Extends from the Cheyenne hub in Colorado to various pipeline
interconnects near Greensburg, Kansas. |
|
|
400 |
|
|
|
396 |
(3) |
|
|
|
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes throughput transported on behalf of affiliates. |
|
(2) |
This capacity reflects winter-sustainable west-flow capacity and
800 MMcf/d of east-end delivery capacity. |
|
(3) |
This capacity was placed in service on December 1, 2004.
Compression was added and placed in service on January 31,
2005, which increased the design capacity to 576 MMcf/d. |
102
We also have several pipeline expansion projects underway as of
December 31, 2004 that have been approved by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the more significant of
which are presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anticipated | |
System | |
|
Project |
|
Capacity | |
|
Description |
|
Completion Date | |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(MMcf/d) | |
|
|
|
|
|
ANR |
|
|
East Leg Wisconsin expansion |
|
|
142 |
|
|
To replace 4.7 miles of an existing 14-inch natural gas
pipeline with a 30-inch line in Washington County, add
3.5 miles of 8-inch
looping(1)
on the Denmark Lateral in Brown County, and modify
ANRs existing Mountain Compressor Station in Oconto
County, Wisconsin. |
|
|
November 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
North Leg Wisconsin expansion |
|
|
110 |
|
|
To add 6,000 horsepower of electric- powered compression at
ANRs Weyauwega Compressor station in Waupaca County,
Wisconsin. |
|
|
November 2005 |
|
|
CPG |
|
|
Cheyenne Plains expansion |
|
|
179 |
|
|
To add approximately 10,300 horsepower of compression and an
additional treatment facility to the Cheyenne Plains project. |
|
|
December 2005 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Looping is the installation of a pipeline, parallel to an
existing pipeline, with tie-ins at several points along the
existing pipeline. Looping increases a transmission
systems capacity. |
|
|
|
Partially Owned Interstate Transmission Systems |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Average Throughput(2) | |
Transmission |
|
|
|
Ownership | |
|
Miles of | |
|
Design | |
|
| |
System(1) |
|
Supply and Market Region |
|
Interest | |
|
Pipeline(2) | |
|
Capacity(2) | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(Percent) | |
|
|
|
(MMcf/d) | |
|
(BBtu/d) | |
Florida Gas
Transmission(3)
|
|
Extends from south Texas to south Florida. |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
4,870 |
|
|
|
2,082 |
|
|
|
2,014 |
|
|
|
1,963 |
|
|
|
2,004 |
|
Great Lakes Gas Transmission
|
|
Extends from the Manitoba-Minnesota border to the
Michigan-Ontario border at St. Clair, Michigan. |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
2,115 |
|
|
|
2,895 |
|
|
|
2,200 |
|
|
|
2,366 |
|
|
|
2,378 |
|
Samalayuca Pipeline and Gloria a Dios Compression Station
|
|
Extends from U.S./Mexico border to the State of Chihuahua,
Mexico. |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
460 |
|
|
|
433 |
|
|
|
409 |
|
|
|
434 |
|
San Fernando Pipeline
|
|
Pipeline running from Pemex Compression Station 19 to Pemex
metering station in San Fernando, Mexico in the State of
Tamaulipas. |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
951 |
|
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
These systems are accounted for as equity investments. |
(2) |
Miles, volumes and average throughput represent the
systems totals and are not adjusted for our ownership
interest. |
(3) |
We have a 50 percent equity interest in Citrus Corporation,
which owns this system. |
We also have a 50 percent interest in Wyco Development,
L.L.C. Wyco owns the Front Range Pipeline, a state-regulated gas
pipeline extending from the Cheyenne Hub to Public Service
Company of Colorados (PSCo) Fort St. Vrain electric
generation plant, and compression facilities on WICs
Medicine Bow Lateral. These facilities are leased to PSCo and
WIC, respectively, under long-term leases.
103
|
|
|
Underground Natural Gas Storage Entities |
In addition to the storage capacity on our transmission systems,
we own or have interests in the following natural gas storage
entities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Ownership | |
|
Storage | |
|
|
Storage Entity |
|
Interest | |
|
Capacity(1) | |
|
Location | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Percent) | |
|
(Bcf) | |
|
|
Bear Creek Storage
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
Louisiana |
|
ANR Storage
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
Michigan |
|
Blue Lake Gas Storage
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
Michigan |
|
Eaton Rapids Gas
Storage(2)
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
Michigan |
|
Young Gas
Storage(2)
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
Colorado |
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes a total of 133 Bcf contracted to affiliates.
Storage capacity is under long-term contracts and is not
adjusted for our ownership interest. |
|
(2) |
These systems were accounted for as equity investments as of
December 31, 2004. |
In addition to our pipeline systems and storage facilities, we
own an LNG receiving terminal located on Elba Island, near
Savannah, Georgia. The facility is capable of achieving a peak
sendout of 675 MMcf/d and a base load sendout of
446 MMcf/d. The terminal was placed in service and began
receiving deliveries in December 2001. The current capacity at
the terminal is contracted with a subsidiary of British Gas, BG
LNG Services, LLC. In 2003, the FERC approved our plan to expand
the peak sendout capacity of the Elba Island facility by
540 MMcf/d and the base load sendout by 360 MMcf/d
(for a total peak sendout capacity once completed of
1,215 MMcf/d and a base load sendout of 806 MMcf/d).
The expansion is estimated to cost approximately
$157 million and has a planned in-service date of February
2006.
Our interstate natural gas transmission systems and storage
operations are regulated by the FERC under the Natural Gas Act
of 1938 and the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978. Each of our
pipeline systems and storage facilities operates under
FERC-approved tariffs that establish rates, terms and conditions
for services to our customers. Generally, the FERCs
authority extends to:
|
|
|
|
|
rates and charges for natural gas transportation, storage,
terminalling and related services; |
|
|
|
certification and construction of new facilities; |
|
|
|
extension or abandonment of facilities; |
|
|
|
maintenance of accounts and records; |
|
|
|
relationships between pipeline and energy affiliates; |
|
|
|
terms and conditions of service; |
|
|
|
depreciation and amortization policies; |
|
|
|
acquisition and disposition of facilities; and |
|
|
|
initiation and discontinuation of services. |
The fees or rates established under our tariffs are a function
of our costs of providing services to our customers, including a
reasonable return on our invested capital. Our revenues from
transportation, storage, LNG terminalling and related services
(transportation services revenues) consist of reservation
revenues and usage revenues. Reservation revenues are from
customers (referred to as firm customers) whose contracts (which
are for varying terms) reserve capacity on our pipeline system,
storage facilities or LNG terminalling
104
facilities. These firm customers are obligated to pay a monthly
reservation or demand charge, regardless of the amount of
natural gas they transport or store, for the term of their
contracts. Usage revenues are from both firm customers and
interruptible customers (those without reserved capacity) who
pay usage charges based on the volume of gas actually
transported, stored, injected or withdrawn. In 2004,
approximately 84 percent of our transportation services
revenues were attributable to reservation charges paid by firm
customers. The remaining 16 percent of our transportation
services revenues are variable. Due to our regulated nature and
the high percentage of our revenues attributable to reservation
charges, our revenues have historically been relatively stable.
However, our financial results can be subject to volatility due
to factors such as weather, changes in natural gas prices and
market conditions, regulatory actions, competition and the
creditworthiness of our customers. We also experience volatility
in our financial results when the amount of gas utilized in our
operations differs from the amounts we receive for that purpose.
Our interstate pipeline systems are also subject to federal,
state and local pipeline and LNG plant safety and environmental
statutes and regulations. Our systems have ongoing programs
designed to keep our facilities in compliance with these safety
and environmental requirements, and we believe that our systems
are in material compliance with the applicable requirements.
We provide natural gas services to a variety of customers
including natural gas producers, marketers, end-users and other
natural gas transmission, distribution and electric generation
companies. In performing these services, we compete with other
pipeline service providers as well as alternative energy sources
such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric power for power
generation and fuel oil for heating.
Imported LNG is one of the fastest growing supply sectors of the
natural gas market. Terminals and other regasification
facilities can serve as important sources of supply for
pipelines, enhancing the delivery capabilities and operational
flexibility and complementing traditional supply transported
into market areas. These LNG delivery systems also may compete
with our pipelines for transportation of gas into market areas
we serve.
Electric power generation is the fastest growing demand sector
of the natural gas market. The growth and development of the
electric power industry potentially benefits the natural gas
industry by creating more demand for natural gas turbine
generated electric power, but this effect is offset, in varying
degrees, by increased generation efficiency, the more effective
use of surplus electric capacity and increased natural gas
prices. The increase in natural gas prices, driven in part by
increased demand from the power sector, has diminished the
demand for gas in the industrial sector. In addition, in several
regions of the country, new additions in electric generating
capacity have exceeded load growth and transmission capabilities
out of those regions. These developments may inhibit owners of
new power generation facilities from signing firm contracts with
pipelines and may impair their creditworthiness.
Our existing contracts mature at various times and in varying
amounts of throughput capacity. As our pipeline contracts
expire, our ability to extend our existing contracts or
re-market expiring contracted capacity is dependent on the
competitive alternatives, the regulatory environment at the
federal, state and local levels and market supply and demand
factors at the relevant dates these contracts are extended or
expire. The duration of new or re-negotiated contracts will be
affected by current prices, competitive conditions and judgments
concerning future market trends and volatility. Subject to
regulatory constraints, we attempt to re-contract or re-market
our capacity at the maximum rates allowed under our tariffs,
although we, at times and in certain regions, discount these
rates to remain competitive. The level of discount varies for
each of our pipeline systems. The table below shows the
contracted capacity that expires by year over the next six years
and thereafter.
105
Contract Expirations
The following table details the markets we serve and the
competition faced by each of our wholly owned pipeline systems
as of December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
System | |
|
Customer Information |
|
Contract Information |
|
Competition |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TGP |
|
|
Approximately 432 firm and interruptible customers. |
|
Approximately 464 firm contracts Weighted average remaining
contract term of approximately five years. |
|
TGP faces strong competition in the Northeast, Appalachian,
Midwest and Southeast market areas. It competes with other
interstate and intrastate pipelines for deliveries to
multiple-connection customers who can take deliveries at
alternative points. Natural gas delivered on the TGP system
competes with alternative energy sources such as electricity,
hydroelectric power, coal and fuel oil. In addition, TGP
competes with pipelines and gathering systems for connection to
new supply sources in Texas, the Gulf of Mexico and from the
Canadian border. |
|
|
|
|
Major Customers:
None of which individually represents more than 10 percent
of revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the offshore areas of the Gulf of Mexico, factors such as the
distance of the supply field from the pipeline, relative basis
pricing of the pipeline receipt options, costs of intermediate
gathering or required processing of the gas all influence
determinations of whether gas is ultimately attached to our
system. |
106
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
System | |
|
Customer Information |
|
Contract Information |
|
Competition |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANR |
|
|
Approximately 259 firm and interruptible customers |
|
Approximately 570 firm contracts
Weighted average remaining contract term of approximately three
years. |
|
In the Midwest, ANR competes with other interstate and
intrastate pipeline companies and local distribution companies
in the transportation and storage of natural gas. In the
Northeast, ANR competes with other interstate pipelines serving
electric generation and local distribution companies. ANR also
competes directly with other interstate pipelines, including
Guardian Pipeline, for markets in Wisconsin. We Energies owns an
interest in Guardian, which is currently serving a portion of
its firm transportation requirements. ANR also competes directly
with numerous pipelines and gathering systems for access to new
supply sources. ANRs principal supply sources are the
Rockies and mid-continent production accessed in Kansas and
Oklahoma, western Canadian production delivered to the Chicago
area and Gulf of Mexico sources, including deepwater production
and LNG imports. |
|
|
|
|
Major Customer:
We Energies (909 Bbtu/d) |
|
Contract terms expire in 2005-2010. |
|
|
|
EPNG |
|
|
Approximately 155 firm and interruptible customers |
|
Approximately 213 firm contracts Weighted average remaining
contract term of approximately five years
(1)(2). |
|
EPNG faces competition in the West and Southwest from other
existing pipelines, storage facilities, as well as alternative
energy sources that generate electricity such as hydroelectric
power, nuclear, coal and fuel oil. |
|
|
|
|
Major Customer:
Southern California Gas
Company(2)
(475 BBtu/d)
(82 BBtu/d)
(768 BBtu/d) |
|
Contract terms expire in 2006.
Contract terms expire in 2005 and 2007.
Contract terms expire in 2009-2011. |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Approximately 1,564 MMcf/d currently under contract is
subject to early termination in August 2006 provided customers
give timely notice of an intent to terminate. If all of these
rights were exercised, the weighted average remaining contract
term would decrease to approximately three years. |
|
(2) |
Reflects the impact of an agreement we entered into, subject to
FERC approval, to extend 750 MMCf/d of SoCals current
capacity, effective September 1, 2006, for terms of three
to five years. |
107
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
System | |
|
Customer Information |
|
Contract Information |
|
Competition |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SNG |
|
|
Approximately 230 firm and interruptible customers |
|
Approximately 203 firm contracts Weighted average remaining
contract term of approximately five years. |
|
Competition is strong in a number of SNGs key markets.
SNGs four largest customers are able to obtain a
significant portion of their natural gas requirements through
transportation from other pipelines. Also, SNG competes with
several pipelines for the transportation business of many of its
other customers. |
|
|
|
|
Major Customers:
Atlanta Gas Light Company
(972 BBtu/d)
Southern Company Services
(418 BBtu/d)
Alabama Gas Corporation
(415 BBtu/d)
Scana Corporation
(346 BBtu/d) |
|
Contract terms expire in 2005-2007.
Contract terms expire in 2010-2018.
Contract terms expire in 2006-2013.
Contract terms expire in 2005-2019. |
|
|
|
CIG |
|
|
Approximately 112 firm and interruptible customers
Major Customers:
Public Service Company of Colorado
(970 BBtu/d)
(261 BBtu/d)
(187 BBtu/d) |
|
Approximately 191 firm contracts
Weighted average remaining contract term of approximately five
years.
Contract term expires in 2007.
Contract term expires in 2009-2014.
Contract term expires in 2006. |
|
CIG serves two major markets. Its on- system market
consists of utilities and other customers located along the
front range of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado and Wyoming. Its
off-system market consists of the transportation of
Rocky Mountain production from multiple supply basins to
interconnections with other pipelines bound for the Midwest, the
Southwest, California and the Pacific Northwest. Competition for
its on-system market consists of local production from the
Denver-Julesburg basin, an intrastate pipeline, and long-haul
shippers who elect to sell into this market rather than the
off-system market. Competition for its off-system market
consists of other interstate pipelines that are directly
connected to its supply sources. |
|
WIC |
|
|
Approximately 49 firm and interruptible customers
Major Customers:
Williams Power Company
(303 BBtu/d)
Colorado Interstate Gas Company
(247 BBtu/d)
Western Gas Resources
(235 BBtu/d)
Cantera Gas Company
(226 BBtu/d) |
|
Approximately 47 firm contracts
Weighted average remaining contract term of approximately six
years.
Contract terms expire in 2008-2013.
Contract terms expire in 2005-2016.
Contract terms expire in 2007-2013.
Contract terms expire in 2012-2013. |
|
WIC competes with eight interstate pipelines and one intrastate
pipeline for its mainline supply from several producing basins.
WICs one Bcf/d Medicine Bow lateral is the primary source
of transportation for increasing volumes of Powder River Basin
supply and can readily be expanded as supply increases.
Currently, there are two other interstate pipelines that
transport limited volumes out of this basin. |
108
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
System | |
|
Customer Information |
|
Contract Information |
|
Competition |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MPC |
|
|
Approximately 14 firm and interruptible customers
Major Customers:
Texaco Natural Gas Inc.
(185 BBtu/d)
Burlington Resources Trading Inc.
(76 BBtu/d)
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
(50 BBtu/d) |
|
Approximately nine firm contracts
Weighted average remaining contract term of approximately two
years.
Contract term expires in 2007.
Contract term expires in 2007.
Contract term expires in 2007. |
|
MPC faces competition from existing pipelines, a newly proposed
pipeline, LNG projects and alternative energy sources that
generate electricity such as hydroelectric power, nuclear, coal
and fuel oil. |
|
CPG |
|
|
Approximately 15 firm and interruptible customers. |
|
Approximately 14 firm contracts Weighted average remaining
contract term of approximately 10 years. |
|
Cheyenne Plains competes directly with other interstate
pipelines serving the Mid-continent region. Indirectly, Cheyenne
Plains competes with other interstate pipelines that transport
Rocky Mountain gas to other markets. |
|
|
|
|
Major Customers: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oneok Energy Services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company L.P. |
|
Contract term expires in 2015. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(195 BBtu/d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anadarko Energy Service |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company |
|
Contract term expires in 2015. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(100 BBtu/d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kerr McGee |
|
Contract term expires in 2015. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(83 BBtu/d) |
|
|
|
|
Non-regulated Business Production Segment
Our Production segment is engaged in the exploration for, and
the acquisition, development and production of natural gas, oil
and natural gas liquids, primarily in the United States and
Brazil. In the United States, as of December 31, 2004, we
controlled over 3 million net acres of leasehold acreage
through our operations in 20 states, including Louisiana,
New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama and Utah, and through our
offshore operations in federal and state waters in the Gulf of
Mexico. During 2004, daily equivalent natural gas production
averaged approximately 814 MMcfe/d, and our proved natural
gas and oil reserves at December 31, 2004, were
approximately 2.2 Tcfe.
As part of our long-term business strategy we will focus on
developing production opportunities around our asset base in the
United States and Brazil. Our operations are divided into the
following areas:
|
|
|
|
Area |
|
Operating Regions |
|
|
|
United States
|
|
|
|
Onshore
|
|
Black Warrior Basin in Alabama
Arkoma Basin in Oklahoma
Raton Basin in New Mexico
Central (primarily in north Louisiana)
Rocky Mountains (primarily in Utah) |
|
Texas Gulf Coast
|
|
South Texas |
|
Offshore and south Louisiana
|
|
Gulf of Mexico (Texas and Louisiana)
South Louisiana |
Brazil
|
|
Camamu, Santos, Espirito Santos and Potiguar Basins |
In Brazil, we have been successful with our drilling programs in
the Santos and Camamu Basins and are pursuing gas contracts and
development options in these two basins. In July 2004, we
acquired the remaining 50 percent interest we did not own
in UnoPaso, a Brazilian oil and gas company. While we intend to
work with
109
Petrobras, a Brazilian national energy company, in growing our
presence in the Potiguar Basin with increased production and
planned exploratory activity, disputes with them in other areas
of our business may impact our plans.
|
|
|
Natural Gas, Oil and Condensate and Natural Gas Liquids
Reserves |
The tables below detail our proved reserves at December 31,
2004. Information in these tables is based on our internal
reserve report. Ryder Scott Company, an independent petroleum
engineering firm, prepared an estimate of our natural gas and
oil reserves for 88 percent of our properties. The total
estimate of proved reserves prepared by Ryder Scott was within
four percent of our internally prepared estimates presented in
these tables. This information is consistent with estimates of
reserves filed with other federal agencies except for
differences of less than five percent resulting from actual
production, acquisitions, property sales, necessary reserve
revisions and additions to reflect actual experience. Ryder
Scott was retained by and reports to the Audit Committee of our
Board of Directors. The properties reviewed by Ryder Scott
represented 88 percent of our proved properties based on
value. The tables below exclude our Power segments equity
interests in Sengkang in Indonesia and Aguaytia in Peru.
Combined proved reserves balances for these interests were
132,336 MMcf of natural gas and 2,195 MBbls of oil,
condensate and natural gas liquids (NGL) for total natural gas
equivalents of 145,507 MMcfe, all net to our ownership
interests. Our estimated proved reserves as of December 31,
2004, and our 2004 production are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Proved Reserves(1) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural | |
|
Oil/ | |
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
|
Gas | |
|
Condensate | |
|
NGL | |
|
Total | |
|
Production | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(MMcf) | |
|
(MBbls) | |
|
(MBbls) | |
|
(MMcfe) | |
|
(Percent) | |
|
(MMcfe) | |
United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Onshore
|
|
|
1,100,681 |
|
|
|
14,675 |
|
|
|
1,233 |
|
|
|
1,196,133 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
84,568 |
|
|
Texas Gulf Coast
|
|
|
431,508 |
|
|
|
3,118 |
|
|
|
9,874 |
|
|
|
509,454 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
103,286 |
|
|
Offshore and south Louisiana
|
|
|
191,652 |
|
|
|
9,538 |
|
|
|
2,094 |
|
|
|
261,444 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
101,140 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total United States
|
|
|
1,723,841 |
|
|
|
27,331 |
|
|
|
13,201 |
|
|
|
1,967,031 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
288,994 |
|
Brazil
|
|
|
68,743 |
|
|
|
24,171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
213,769 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
8,772 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,792,584 |
|
|
|
51,502 |
|
|
|
13,201 |
|
|
|
2,180,800 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
297,766 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Net proved reserves exclude royalties and interests owned by
others and reflect contractual arrangements and royalty
obligations in effect at the time of the estimate. |
110
The table below summarizes our estimated proved producing
reserves, proved non-producing reserves, and proved undeveloped
reserves as of December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Proved Reserves(1) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil/ | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas | |
|
Condensate | |
|
NGL | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(MMcf) | |
|
(MBbls) | |
|
(MBbls) | |
|
(MMcfe) | |
|
(Percent) | |
United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Producing
|
|
|
1,085,581 |
|
|
|
12,507 |
|
|
|
10,588 |
|
|
|
1,224,152 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
Non-Producing
|
|
|
201,696 |
|
|
|
7,134 |
|
|
|
1,355 |
|
|
|
252,626 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
Undeveloped
|
|
|
436,564 |
|
|
|
7,690 |
|
|
|
1,258 |
|
|
|
490,253 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total proved
|
|
|
1,723,841 |
|
|
|
27,331 |
|
|
|
13,201 |
|
|
|
1,967,031 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Producing
|
|
|
29,239 |
|
|
|
1,375 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37,488 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
Non-Producing
|
|
|
24,988 |
|
|
|
1,238 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32,415 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
Undeveloped
|
|
|
14,516 |
|
|
|
21,558 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
143,866 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total proved
|
|
|
68,743 |
|
|
|
24,171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
213,769 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worldwide
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Producing
|
|
|
1,114,820 |
|
|
|
13,882 |
|
|
|
10,588 |
|
|
|
1,261,640 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
Non-Producing
|
|
|
226,684 |
|
|
|
8,372 |
|
|
|
1,355 |
|
|
|
285,041 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
Undeveloped
|
|
|
451,080 |
|
|
|
29,248 |
|
|
|
1,258 |
|
|
|
634,119 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total proved
|
|
|
1,792,584 |
|
|
|
51,502 |
|
|
|
13,201 |
|
|
|
2,180,800 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Net proved reserves exclude royalties and interests owned by
others and reflect contractual arrangements and royalty
obligations in effect at the time of the estimate. |
Recovery of proved undeveloped reserves requires significant
capital expenditures and successful drilling operations. The
reserve data assumes that we can and will make these
expenditures and conduct these operations successfully, but
future events, including commodity price changes, may cause
these assumptions to change. In addition, estimates of proved
undeveloped reserves and proved non-producing reserves are
subject to greater uncertainties than estimates of proved
producing reserves.
There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating
quantities of proved reserves, projecting future rates of
production and projecting the timing of development
expenditures, including many factors beyond our control. The
reserve data represents only estimates. Reservoir engineering is
a subjective process of estimating underground accumulations of
natural gas and oil 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
interpretations and judgment. All estimates of proved reserves
are determined according to the rules prescribed by the SEC.
These rules indicate that the standard of reasonable
certainty be applied to proved reserve estimates. This
concept of reasonable certainty implies that as more technical
data becomes available, a positive, or upward, revision is more
likely than a negative, or downward, revision. Estimates are
subject to revision based upon a number of factors, including
reservoir performance, prices, economic conditions and
government restrictions. In addition, results of drilling,
testing and production subsequent to the date of an estimate may
justify revision of that estimate. Reserve estimates are often
different from the quantities of natural gas and oil that are
ultimately recovered. The meaningfulness of reserve estimates is
highly dependent on the accuracy of the assumptions on which
they were based. In general, the volume of production from
natural gas and oil properties we own declines as reserves are
depleted. Except to the extent we conduct successful exploration
and development activities or acquire additional properties
containing proved reserves, or both, our proved reserves will
decline as reserves are produced. For further discussion of our
reserves, see Supplemental Financial Information, under the
heading Supplemental Natural Gas and Oil Operations (Unaudited),
on page F-126.
111
The following table details our gross and net interest in
developed and undeveloped acreage at December 31, 2004. Any
acreage in which our interest is limited to owned royalty,
overriding royalty and other similar interests is excluded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Developed | |
|
Undeveloped | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Gross(1) | |
|
Net(2) | |
|
Gross(1) | |
|
Net(2) | |
|
Gross(1) | |
|
Net(2) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Onshore
|
|
|
1,032,115 |
|
|
|
419,789 |
|
|
|
1,653,540 |
|
|
|
1,308,491 |
|
|
|
2,685,655 |
|
|
|
1,728,280 |
|
|
Texas Gulf Coast
|
|
|
199,035 |
|
|
|
82,850 |
|
|
|
257,225 |
|
|
|
172,340 |
|
|
|
456,260 |
|
|
|
255,190 |
|
|
Offshore and south Louisiana
|
|
|
643,861 |
|
|
|
448,599 |
|
|
|
744,957 |
|
|
|
697,515 |
|
|
|
1,388,818 |
|
|
|
1,146,114 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,875,011 |
|
|
|
951,238 |
|
|
|
2,655,722 |
|
|
|
2,178,346 |
|
|
|
4,530,733 |
|
|
|
3,129,584 |
|
Brazil
|
|
|
39,476 |
|
|
|
13,817 |
|
|
|
1,346,919 |
|
|
|
452,552 |
|
|
|
1,386,395 |
|
|
|
466,369 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worldwide Total
|
|
|
1,914,487 |
|
|
|
965,055 |
|
|
|
4,002,641 |
|
|
|
2,630,898 |
|
|
|
5,917,128 |
|
|
|
3,595,953 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Gross interest reflects the total acreage we participated in,
regardless of our ownership interests in the acreage. |
|
(2) |
Net interest is the aggregate of the fractional working interest
that we have in our gross acreage. |
Our United States net developed acreage is concentrated
primarily in the Gulf of Mexico (47 percent), Utah
(14 percent), Texas (9 percent), Oklahoma
(8 percent), New Mexico (7 percent) and Louisiana
(7 percent). Our United States net undeveloped acreage is
concentrated primarily in New Mexico (23 percent), the Gulf
of Mexico (22 percent), Louisiana (12 percent),
Indiana (8 percent) and Texas (8 percent).
Approximately 22 percent, 9 percent and
11 percent of our total United States net undeveloped
acreage is held under leases that have minimum remaining primary
terms expiring in 2005, 2006 and 2007.
The following table details our working interests in natural gas
and oil wells at December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Productive Natural | |
|
Productive | |
|
Total | |
|
Number of Wells | |
|
|
Gas Wells | |
|
Oil Wells | |
|
Productive Wells | |
|
Being Drilled | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Gross(1) | |
|
Net(2) | |
|
Gross(1) | |
|
Net(2) | |
|
Gross(1) | |
|
Net(2) | |
|
Gross(1) | |
|
Net(2) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Onshore
|
|
|
2,864 |
|
|
|
2,088 |
|
|
|
292 |
|
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
3,156 |
|
|
|
2,308 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
Texas Gulf Coast
|
|
|
808 |
|
|
|
669 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
810 |
|
|
|
670 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
Offshore and south Louisiana
|
|
|
287 |
|
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
362 |
|
|
|
235 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total United States
|
|
|
3,959 |
|
|
|
2,951 |
|
|
|
369 |
|
|
|
262 |
|
|
|
4,328 |
|
|
|
3,213 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
53 |
|
Brazil
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worldwide Total
|
|
|
3,963 |
|
|
|
2,954 |
|
|
|
380 |
|
|
|
271 |
|
|
|
4,343 |
|
|
|
3,225 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Gross interest reflects the total number of wells we
participated in, regardless of our ownership interests in the
wells. |
|
(2) |
Net interest is the aggregate of the fractional working interest
that we have in our gross wells. |
At December 31, 2004, we operated 2,952 of the
3,225 net productive wells.
112
The following table details our exploratory and development
wells drilled during the years 2002 through 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Exploratory | |
|
Net Development | |
|
|
Wells Drilled(1) | |
|
Wells Drilled(1) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Productive
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
298 |
|
|
|
272 |
|
|
|
511 |
|
|
Dry
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
301 |
|
|
|
273 |
|
|
|
516 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Productive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dry
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worldwide
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Productive
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
298 |
|
|
|
272 |
|
|
|
511 |
|
|
Dry
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
301 |
|
|
|
273 |
|
|
|
516 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Net interest is the aggregate of the fractional working interest
that we have in our gross wells drilled. |
113
The information above should not be considered indicative of
future drilling performance, nor should it be assumed that there
is any correlation between the number of productive wells
drilled and the amount of natural gas and oil that may
ultimately be recovered.
|
|
|
Net Production, Sales Prices, Transportation and
Production Costs |
The following table details our net production volumes, average
sales prices received, average transportation costs, average
production costs and production taxes associated with the sale
of natural gas and oil for each of the three years ended
December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Net Production Volumes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas (MMcf)
|
|
|
238,009 |
|
|
|
338,762 |
|
|
|
470,082 |
|
|
|
Oil, Condensate and NGL (MBbls)
|
|
|
8,498 |
|
|
|
11,778 |
|
|
|
16,462 |
|
|
|
|
Total (MMcfe)
|
|
|
288,994 |
|
|
|
409,432 |
|
|
|
568,852 |
|
|
Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas (MMcf)
|
|
|
6,848 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil, Condensate and NGL (MBbls)
|
|
|
320 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total (MMcfe)
|
|
|
8,772 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worldwide
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas (MMcf)
|
|
|
244,857 |
|
|
|
338,762 |
|
|
|
470,082 |
|
|
|
Oil, Condensate and NGL (MBbls)
|
|
|
8,818 |
|
|
|
11,778 |
|
|
|
16,462 |
|
|
|
|
Total (MMcfe)
|
|
|
297,766 |
|
|
|
409,432 |
|
|
|
568,852 |
|
Natural Gas Average Realized Sales
Price ($/Mcf)(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Price, excluding hedges
|
|
$ |
6.02 |
|
|
$ |
5.51 |
|
|
$ |
3.17 |
|
|
|
Price, including hedges
|
|
$ |
5.94 |
|
|
$ |
5.40 |
|
|
$ |
3.35 |
|
|
Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Price, excluding hedges
|
|
$ |
2.01 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
Price, including hedges
|
|
$ |
2.01 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Worldwide
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Price, excluding hedges
|
|
$ |
5.90 |
|
|
$ |
5.51 |
|
|
$ |
3.17 |
|
|
|
Price, including hedges
|
|
$ |
5.83 |
|
|
$ |
5.40 |
|
|
$ |
3.35 |
|
114
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Oil, Condensate, and NGL Average Realized Sales
Price ($/Bbl)(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Price, excluding hedges
|
|
$ |
34.44 |
|
|
$ |
26.64 |
|
|
$ |
21.38 |
|
|
|
Price, including hedges
|
|
$ |
34.44 |
|
|
$ |
25.96 |
|
|
$ |
21.28 |
|
|
Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Price, excluding hedges
|
|
$ |
43.01 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
Price, including hedges
|
|
$ |
39.19 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
Worldwide
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Price, excluding hedges
|
|
$ |
34.75 |
|
|
$ |
26.64 |
|
|
$ |
21.38 |
|
|
|
Price, including hedges
|
|
$ |
34.61 |
|
|
$ |
25.96 |
|
|
$ |
21.28 |
|
Average Transportation Cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas ($/Mcf)
|
|
$ |
0.17 |
|
|
$ |
0.18 |
|
|
$ |
0.18 |
|
|
|
Oil, condensate and NGL ($/Bbl)
|
|
$ |
1.16 |
|
|
$ |
1.05 |
|
|
$ |
0.97 |
|
|
Worldwide
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas ($/Mcf)
|
|
$ |
0.17 |
|
|
$ |
0.18 |
|
|
$ |
0.18 |
|
|
|
Oil, condensate and NGL ($/Bbl)
|
|
$ |
1.12 |
|
|
$ |
1.05 |
|
|
$ |
0.97 |
|
Average Production
Cost($/Mcfe)(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average lease operating cost
|
|
$ |
0.62 |
|
|
$ |
0.42 |
|
|
$ |
0.42 |
|
|
|
Average production taxes
|
|
|
0.11 |
|
|
|
0.14 |
|
|
|
0.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total production cost
|
|
$ |
0.73 |
|
|
$ |
0.56 |
|
|
$ |
0.50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worldwide
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average lease operating cost
|
|
$ |
0.60 |
|
|
$ |
0.42 |
|
|
$ |
0.42 |
|
|
|
Average production taxes
|
|
|
0.11 |
|
|
|
0.14 |
|
|
|
0.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total production cost
|
|
$ |
0.71 |
|
|
$ |
0.56 |
|
|
$ |
0.50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Prices are stated before transportation costs. |
(2) |
Production costs include lease operating costs and production
related taxes (including ad valorem and severance taxes). |
115
|
|
|
Acquisition, Development and Exploration
Expenditures |
The following table details information regarding the costs
incurred in our acquisition, development and exploration
activities for each of the three years ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition Costs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proved
|
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
362 |
|
|
|
Unproved
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
Development Costs
|
|
|
395 |
|
|
|
668 |
|
|
|
1,242 |
|
|
Exploration Costs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delay Rentals
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
Seismic Acquisition and Reprocessing
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
Drilling
|
|
|
149 |
|
|
|
405 |
|
|
|
482 |
|
|
Asset Retirement
Obligations(1)
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total full cost pool expenditures
|
|
|
675 |
|
|
|
1,304 |
|
|
|
2,157 |
|
|
|
Non-full cost pool expenditures
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital expenditures
|
|
$ |
686 |
|
|
$ |
1,321 |
|
|
$ |
2,204 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition Costs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proved
|
|
$ |
69 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
Unproved
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
Development Costs
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exploration Costs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seismic Acquisition and Reprocessing
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
Drilling
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
Asset Retirement Obligations
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total full cost pool expenditures
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
Non-full cost pool expenditures
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital expenditures
|
|
$ |
104 |
|
|
$ |
100 |
|
|
$ |
56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Worldwide
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition Costs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proved
|
|
$ |
102 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
362 |
|
|
|
Unproved
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
Development Costs
|
|
|
396 |
|
|
|
668 |
|
|
|
1,242 |
|
|
Exploration Costs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delay Rentals
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
Seismic Acquisition and Reprocessing
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
Drilling
|
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
489 |
|
|
|
495 |
|
|
Asset Retirement Obligations
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total full cost pool expenditures
|
|
|
776 |
|
|
|
1,403 |
|
|
|
2,211 |
|
|
|
Non-full cost pool expenditures
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital expenditures
|
|
$ |
790 |
|
|
$ |
1,421 |
|
|
$ |
2,260 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes an increase to our property, plant and equipment of
approximately $114 million in 2003 associated with our
adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
No. 143. |
We spent approximately $156 million in 2004,
$220 million in 2003 and $275 million in 2002 to
develop proved undeveloped reserves that were included in our
reserve report as of January 1 of each year.
|
|
|
Regulatory and Operating Environment |
Our natural gas and oil activities are regulated at the federal,
state and local levels, as well as internationally by the
countries around the world in which we do business. These
regulations include, but are not limited to, the drilling and
spacing of wells, conservation, forced pooling and protection of
correlative rights among interest owners. We are also subject to
governmental safety regulations in the jurisdictions in which we
operate.
Our domestic operations under federal natural gas and oil leases
are regulated by the statutes and regulations of the
U.S. Department of the Interior that currently impose
liability upon lessees for the cost of environmental impacts
resulting from their operations. Royalty obligations on all
federal leases are regulated by the Minerals Management Service,
which has promulgated valuation guidelines for the payment of
royalties by producers. Our international operations are subject
to environmental regulations administered by foreign
governments, which include political subdivisions and
international organizations. These domestic and international
laws and regulations relating to the protection of the
environment affect our natural gas and oil operations through
their effect on the construction and operation of facilities,
water disposal rights, drilling operations, production or the
delay or prevention of future offshore lease sales. We believe
that our operations are in material compliance with the
applicable requirements. In addition, we maintain insurance to
limit exposure to sudden and accidental spills and oil pollution
liability.
Our production business has operating risks normally associated
with the exploration for and production of natural gas and oil,
including blowouts, cratering, pollution and fires, each of
which could result in damage to property or injuries to people.
Offshore operations may encounter usual marine perils, including
hurricanes and other adverse weather conditions, damage from
collisions with vessels, governmental regulations and
interruption or termination by governmental authorities based on
environmental and other considerations. Customary with industry
practices, we maintain insurance coverage to limit exposure to
potential losses resulting from these operating hazards.
117
We primarily sell our domestic natural gas and oil to third
parties through our Marketing and Trading segment at spot market
prices, subject to customary adjustments. As part of our
long-term business strategy, we will continue to sell our
natural gas and oil production to this segment. We sell our
Brazilian natural gas and oil to Petrobras, a Brazilian energy
company. We sell our natural gas liquids at market prices under
monthly or long-term contracts, subject to customary
adjustments. We also engage in hedging activities on a portion
of our natural gas and oil production to stabilize our cash
flows and reduce the risk of downward commodity price movements
on sales of our production.
The natural gas and oil business is highly competitive in the
search for and acquisition of additional reserves and in the
sale of natural gas, oil and natural gas liquids. Our
competitors include major and intermediate sized natural gas and
oil companies, independent natural gas and oil operations and
individual producers or operators with varying scopes of
operations and financial resources. Competitive factors include
price and contract terms and our ability to access drilling and
other equipment on a timely and cost effective basis.
Ultimately, our future success in the production business will
be dependent on our ability to find or acquire additional
reserves at costs that allow us to remain competitive.
Non-regulated Business Marketing and Trading
Segment
Our Marketing and Trading segments operations primarily
involve the marketing of our natural gas and oil production and
the management of our remaining trading portfolio. Our
operations in this segment over the past several years have been
impacted by a number of significant events both in this business
and in the industry. As a result of the deterioration of the
energy trading environment in late 2001 and 2002 and the reduced
availability of credit to us, we announced in November 2002 that
we would reduce our involvement in the energy trading business
and pursue an orderly liquidation of our historical trading
portfolio. In December 2003, we announced that our historical
energy trading operations would become a marketing and trading
business focused on the marketing and physical trading of the
natural gas and oil from our Production segment. Our Marketing
and Trading segments portfolio is grouped into several
categories. Each of these categories includes contracts with
third parties and contracts with affiliates that require
physical delivery of a commodity or financial settlement. The
types of contracts used in this segment are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas derivative contracts. Our natural gas
contracts include long-term obligations to deliver natural gas
at fixed prices as well as derivatives related to our production
activities. As of December 31, 2004, we have seven
significant physical natural gas contracts with power plants.
These contracts have various expiration dates ranging from 2011
to 2028, with expected obligations under individual contracts
with third parties ranging from 32,000 MMBtu/d to
142,000 MMBtu/d. |
Additionally, as of December 31, 2004, we had executed
contracts with third parties, primarily fixed for floating
swaps, that effectively hedged approximately 244 TBtu of our
Production segments anticipated natural gas production
through 2012. In addition to these hedge contracts, as of
December 31, 2004, we are a party to other derivative
contracts designed to provide price protection to El Paso
from declines in natural gas prices in 2005 and 2006.
Specifically, these contracts provide El Paso with a floor
price of $6.00 per MMBtu on 60 TBtu of our natural gas
production in 2005 and 120 TBtu in 2006. In March 2005, we
entered into additional contracts that provide El Paso a
floor price of $6.00 per MMBtu on 30 TBtu of natural gas
production in 2007 and a ceiling price of $9.50 per MMBtu
on 60 TBtu of natural gas production in 2006.
|
|
|
|
|
Transportation-related contracts. Our transportation
contracts give us the right to transport natural gas using
pipeline capacity for a fixed reservation charge plus variable
transportation costs. We typically refer to the fixed
reservation cost as a demand charge. As of December 31,
2004, we have contracted for 1.5 Bcf/d of capacity with
contract expiration dates through 2028. Our ability to utilize
our transportation capacity is dependent on several factors
including the difference in natural gas prices at receipt and
delivery locations along the pipeline system, the amount of
capital needed to use this capacity and the capacity required to
meet our other long-term obligations. |
118
|
|
|
|
|
Tolling contracts. Our tolling contracts provide us with
the right to require counterparties to convert natural gas into
electricity. Under these arrangements, we supply the natural gas
used in the underlying power plants and sell the electricity
produced by the power plant. In exchange for this right, we pay
a monthly fixed fee and a variable fee based on the quantity of
electricity produced. As of December 31, 2004, we have two
unaffiliated physical tolling contracts, the largest of which is
a contract on the Cordova power project in the Midwest. This
contract expires in 2019. |
|
|
|
Power and other. Our power and other contracts include
long-term obligations to provide power to our Power segment for
its restructured domestic power contracts. As of
December 31, 2004, we have four power supply contracts
remaining, the largest being a contract with Morgan Stanley for
approximately 1,700 MMWh per year extending through 2016.
In the first quarter of 2005, we sold two of these contracts
related to subsidiaries in our Power segment, Cedar
Brakes I and II. We also have other contracts that require
the physical delivery of power or that are used to manage the
risk associated with our obligations to supply power. In
addition, we have natural gas storage contracts that provide
capacity of approximately 4.7 Bcf of storage for
operational and balancing purposes. |
Our Marketing and Trading segment operates in a highly
competitive environment, competing on the basis of price,
operating efficiency, technological advances, experience in the
marketplace and counterparty credit. Each market served is
influenced directly or indirectly by energy market economics.
Our primary competitors include:
|
|
|
|
|
Affiliates of major oil and natural gas producers; |
|
|
|
Large domestic and foreign utility companies; |
|
|
|
Affiliates of large local distribution companies; |
|
|
|
Affiliates of other interstate and intrastate pipelines; and |
|
|
|
Independent energy marketers and power producers with varying
scopes of operations and financial resources. |
Non-regulated Business Power Segment
Our Power segment includes the ownership and operation of
international and domestic power generation facilities as well
as the management of restructured power contracts. As of
December 31, 2004, we owned or had interests in 37 power
facilities in 16 countries with a total generating capacity of
approximately 10,400 gross MW. Our commercial focus has
historically been either to develop projects in which new
long-term power purchase agreements allow for an acceptable
return on capital, or to acquire projects with existing
above-market power purchase agreements. However, during 2004, we
completed the sale of substantially all of our domestic power
generation facilities and a significant portion of our domestic
power restructuring business. We will continue to evaluate
potential opportunities to sell or otherwise divest the
remaining domestic assets and a number of international assets,
such that our long-term focus will be on maximizing the value of
our power assets in Brazil.
119
International Power. As of December 31, 2004, we
owned or had a direct investment in the following international
power plants (only significant assets and investments are
listed):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
El Paso |
|
|
|
|
|
Expiration |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership |
|
Gross |
|
|
|
Year of Power |
|
|
Project |
|
Country |
|
Interest |
|
Capacity |
|
Power Purchaser |
|
Sales Contracts |
|
Fuel Type |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Percent) |
|
(MW) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Araucaria(1)
|
|
Brazil |
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
484 |
|
|
|
Copel |
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
Natural Gas |
|
Macae
|
|
Brazil |
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
928 |
|
|
|
Petrobras(3) |
|
|
|
2007 |
(2) |
|
Natural Gas |
|
Manaus
|
|
Brazil |
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
Manaus Energia(4) |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
Oil |
|
Porto
Velho(1)
|
|
Brazil |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
404 |
|
|
|
Eletronorte |
|
|
|
2010,2023 |
|
|
Oil |
|
Rio Negro
|
|
Brazil |
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
158 |
|
|
|
Manaus Energia(4) |
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
Oil |
Asia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fauji(1)
|
|
Pakistan |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
Pakistan Water and Power |
|
|
|
2029 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
Habibullah(1)
|
|
Pakistan |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
Pakistan Water and Power |
|
|
|
2029 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
KIECO(1)
|
|
South Korea |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
1,720 |
|
|
|
KEPCO |
|
|
|
2020 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
Meizhou
Wan(1)
|
|
China |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
734 |
|
|
|
Fujian Power |
|
|
|
2025 |
|
|
Coal |
|
Haripur(1)
|
|
Bangladesh |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
|
Bangladesh Power |
|
|
|
2014 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
PPN(1)(5)
|
|
India |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
325 |
|
|
|
Tamil Nadu |
|
|
|
2031 |
|
|
Naphtha/Natural Gas |
|
Saba(1)
|
|
Pakistan |
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
128 |
|
|
|
Pakistan Water and Power |
|
|
|
2029 |
|
|
Oil |
|
Sengkang(1)
|
|
Indonesia |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
PLN |
|
|
|
2022 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
Central and other South America
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aguaytia(1)
|
|
Peru |
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
155 |
|
|
|
Various |
|
|
|
2005,2006 |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
Fortuna(1)
|
|
Panama |
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
Union Fenosa |
|
|
|
2005,2008 |
|
|
Hydroelectric |
|
Itabo(1)
|
|
Dominican
Republic |
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
416 |
|
|
|
CDEEE and AES |
|
|
|
2016 |
|
|
Oil/Coal |
|
Nejapa
|
|
El Salvador |
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
144 |
|
|
|
AES and PPL |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Oil |
Europe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enfield(1)
|
|
United Kingdom |
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
378 |
|
|
|
Spot Market |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
EMA(1)
|
|
Hungary |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
Dunaferr Energy Services |
|
|
|
2016 |
|
|
Natural Gas/Oil |
|
|
(1) |
These power facilities are reflected as investments in
unconsolidated affiliates in our financial statements. |
|
(2) |
These facilities power sales contracts are currently in
arbitration. |
|
(3) |
Although a majority of the power generated by this power
facility is sold to the wholesale power markets, Petrobras
provides a minimum level of revenue under its contract until
2007. Petrobras did not make their December 2004 and January
2005 payments under this contract and have filed a lawsuit and
for arbitration. See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements,
Note 17, on page F-89, for a further discussion of this
matter. |
|
(4) |
These power facilities have new power purchase agreements that
were signed in January 2005 extending the terms of the contract
through 2008 at which time we will transfer ownership of the
plants to Manaus Energia. |
|
(5) |
We sold our investment in this plant in the first quarter of
2005. |
In addition to the international power plants above, our Power
segment also has investments in the following international
pipelines:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
El Paso |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership |
|
Miles of |
|
Design |
|
Average 2004 |
Pipeline |
|
Interest |
|
Pipeline |
|
Capacity(1) |
|
Throughput(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Percent) |
|
|
|
(MMcf/d) |
|
(BBtu/d) |
Bolivia to Brazil
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
1,957 |
|
|
|
1,059 |
|
|
|
722 |
|
Argentina to Chile
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
336 |
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Volumes represent the pipelines total design capacity and
average throughput and are not adjusted for our ownership
interest. |
120
Domestic Power Plants. During 2004, we sold substantially
all of our domestic power assets. As of December 31, 2004,
we owned or had a direct investment in the following domestic
power facilities (only significant assets and investments are
listed):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
El Paso | |
|
|
|
|
|
Expiration | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership | |
|
Gross | |
|
|
|
Year of Power | |
|
|
Project |
|
State | |
|
Interest | |
|
Capacity | |
|
Power Purchaser | |
|
Sales Contracts | |
|
Fuel Type | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(Percent) | |
|
(MW) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Berkshire(1)
|
|
|
MA |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
261 |
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
Midland
Cogeneration(1)
|
|
|
MI |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
1,575 |
|
|
|
Consumers Power, Dow |
|
|
|
2025 |
|
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
CDECCA(3)
|
|
|
CT |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
Pawtucket(3)
|
|
|
RI |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
San Joaquin(3)
|
|
|
CA |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
Eagle
Point(4)
|
|
|
NJ |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
233 |
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
Rensselaer(4)
|
|
|
NY |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
|
(2) |
|
|
Natural Gas |
|
|
|
(1) |
These power facilities are reflected as investments in
unconsolidated affiliates in our financial statements. |
(2) |
These power facilities (referred to as merchant plants) do not
have long-term power purchase agreements with third parties. Our
Marketing and Trading segment sells the power that a majority of
these facilities generate to the wholesale power market. |
(3) |
These plants have Board approval for sale and are targeted to be
sold in the first half of 2005. We have executed sales
agreements on the Pawtucket and San Joaquin facilities. |
(4) |
These plants were sold in the first quarter of 2005. |
Domestic Power Contract Restructuring. In addition to our
domestic power plants, we were historically involved in a power
restructuring business. This business involved restructuring
above-market, long-term power purchase agreements with utilities
that were originally tied to older power plants built under the
Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). These
PURPA facilities were typically less efficient and more costly
to operate than newer power generation facilities.
While we are no longer actively restructuring additional power
purchase contracts, we continue to manage the purchase and sale
of electricity required under the contracts related to Cedar
Brakes I and II and continue to perform under the Mohawk
River Funding II contracts. We also retained an interest in
Mohawk River Funding III, which is an entity that currently
has a claim against an entity in bankruptcy related to a
previously restructured power contract. During 2004, we
completed the sale of Utility Contract Funding (UCF) and
signed binding agreements to sell Cedar Brakes I and II. We
completed the sale of Cedar Brakes I and II in the first
quarter of 2005.
|
|
|
Regulatory Environment & Markets and
Competition |
International. Our international power generation
activities are regulated by numerous governmental agencies in
the countries in which these projects are located. Many of these
countries have recently developed or are developing new
regulatory and legal structures to accommodate private and
foreign-owned businesses. These regulatory and legal structures
are subject to change (including differing interpretations) over
time.
Many of our international power generation facilities sell power
under long-term power purchase agreements primarily with power
transmission and distribution companies owned by the local
governments where the facilities are located. When these
long-term contracts expire, these facilities will be subject to
regional market, competitive and political risks.
Domestic. Our domestic power generation activities are
regulated by the FERC under the Federal Power Act with respect
to the rates, terms and conditions of service of these regulated
plants. Our cogeneration power production activities are
regulated by the FERC under PURPA with respect to rates,
procurement and provision of services and operating standards.
Our power generation activities are also subject to federal,
state and local environmental regulations.
121
Non-regulated Business Field Services Segment
Our Field Services segment conducts our midstream activities,
which include gathering and processing of natural gas for
natural gas producers, primarily in the south Louisiana
production area, and held our ownership interests in Enterprise
Products Partners, a publicly traded master limited partnership.
Gathering and Processing Assets. As of December 31,
2004, our gathering systems consisted of 240 miles of
pipeline with 665 MMcfe/d of throughput capacity. These
systems had average throughput of 203 BBtue/d during 2004. Our
processing facilities had operational capacity and volumes as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inlet Capacity | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Average Inlet Volume | |
|
Average Sales | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
| |
|
| |
Processing Plants |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(MMcfe/d) | |
|
(BBtue/d) | |
|
(Mgal/d) | |
South Louisiana
|
|
|
2,550 |
|
|
|
1,600 |
|
|
|
1,627 |
|
|
|
1,407 |
|
|
|
1,631 |
|
|
|
1,726 |
|
|
|
1,604 |
|
Other
areas(1)
|
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
1,180 |
|
|
|
1,579 |
|
|
|
2,513 |
|
|
|
2,460 |
|
|
|
2,611 |
|
|
|
5,134 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2,736 |
|
|
|
2,780 |
|
|
|
3,206 |
|
|
|
3,920 |
|
|
|
4,091 |
|
|
|
4,337 |
|
|
|
6,738 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
During 2002, 2003 and 2004, we sold a substantial amount of our
midstream assets to GulfTerra and Enterprise. Included in the
volume and sales columns is activity through the sale date for
the assets which were sold. |
In January 2005, we sold to Enterprise the membership interests
in two subsidiaries that own and operate natural gas gathering
systems and the Indian Springs gathering and processing
facilities.
General and Limited Partner Interests in Enterprise Products
Partners, L.P. During 2003, and through September 2004, we
held significant interests in GulfTerra Energy Partners, L.P. In
September 2004, GulfTerra merged with Enterprise Products
Partners, and we sold our ownership interests in GulfTerra along
with our interests in processing assets in South Texas in
exchange for cash, a 9.9 percent general partner interest
in Enterprise, and 13.5 million units in Enterprise. In
January 2005, we sold all of our interests in Enterprise and its
general partner for cash.
Regulatory Environment. Some of our operations, owned
directly or through equity investments, are subject to
regulation by the Railroad Commission of Texas under the Texas
Utilities Code and the Common Purchaser Act of the Texas Natural
Resources Code. Field Services files the appropriate rate
tariffs and operates under the applicable rules and regulations
of the Railroad Commission.
In addition, some of our operations, owned directly or through
equity investments, are subject to the Natural Gas Pipeline
Safety Act of 1968, the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of
1979 and various environmental statutes and regulations. Each of
our pipelines has continuing programs designed to keep the
facilities in compliance with pipeline safety and environmental
requirements, and we believe that these systems are in material
compliance with the applicable requirements.
Markets and Competition. We compete with major interstate
and intrastate pipeline companies in transporting natural gas
and NGL. We also compete with major integrated energy companies,
independent natural gas gathering and processing companies,
natural gas marketers and oil and natural gas producers in
gathering and processing natural gas and NGL. Competition for
throughput and natural gas supplies is based on a number of
factors, including price, efficiency of facilities, gathering
system line pressures, availability of facilities near drilling
and production activity, customer service and access to
favorable downstream markets.
Other Operations and Assets
We currently have a number of other assets and businesses that
are either included as part of our corporate activities or as
discontinued operations.
Our corporate operations include our general and administrative
functions as well as a telecommunications business, a
telecommunications facility in Chicago and various other
contracts and assets,
122
including those related to our financial services, petroleum
ship charter and LNG operations, all of which are insignificant
to our results in 2004.
Our discontinued operations consist of our petroleum markets
business and international natural gas and oil production
operations, primarily in Canada.
Environmental
A description of our environmental activities is included in
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 17, on
page F-89 and is incorporated herein by reference.
Employees
As of May 23, 2005, we had approximately
6,400 full-time employees, of which 427 employees in Brazil
are subject to collective bargaining arrangements.
Properties
A description of our properties is included under
Business beginning on page 98.
We believe that we have satisfactory title to the properties
owned and used in our businesses, subject to liens for taxes not
yet payable, liens incident to minor encumbrances, liens for
credit arrangements and easements and restrictions that do not
materially detract from the value of these properties, our
interests in these properties, or the use of these properties in
our businesses. We believe that our properties are adequate and
suitable for the conduct of our business in the future.
Legal Proceedings
Details of the cases listed below, as well as a description of
our other legal proceedings are included in Notes to Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 10, on
page F-19, and Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements,
Note 17 on page F-89.
The purported shareholder class actions filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, are: Marvin Goldfarb, et al v.
El Paso Corporation, William Wise, H. Brent Austin, and
Rodney D. Erskine, filed July 18, 2002; Residuary
Estate Mollie Nussbacher, Adele Brody Life Tenant, et al v.
El Paso Corporation, William Wise, and H. Brent Austin,
filed July 25, 2002; George S. Johnson, et al v.
El Paso Corporation, William Wise, and H. Brent Austin,
filed July 29, 2002; Renneck Wilson, et al v.
El Paso Corporation, William Wise, H. Brent Austin, and
Rodney D. Erskine, filed August 1, 2002; and Sandra
Joan Malin Revocable Trust, et al v. El Paso
Corporation, William Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D.
Erskine, filed August 1, 2002; Lee S. Shalov,
et al v. El Paso Corporation, William Wise, H. Brent
Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed August 15, 2002;
Paul C. Scott, et al v. El Paso Corporation,
William Wise, H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed
August 22, 2002; Brenda Greenblatt, et al v.
El Paso Corporation, William Wise, H. Brent Austin, and
Rodney D. Erskine, filed August 23, 2002; Stefanie
Beck, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William Wise, and
H. Brent Austin, filed August 23, 2002; J. Wayne
Knowles, et al v. El Paso Corporation, William Wise,
H. Brent Austin, and Rodney D. Erskine, filed
September 13, 2002; The Ezra Charitable Trust,
et al v. El Paso Corporation, William Wise, Rodney D.
Erskine and H. Brent Austin, filed October 4, 2002. The
purported shareholder class actions relating to our reserve
restatement filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, which have now
been consolidated with the above referenced purported
shareholder class actions, are: James Felton v.
El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn, Jr., Douglas Foshee
and D. Dwight Scott; Sinclair Haberman v. El Paso
Corporation, Ronald Kuehn, Jr., and William Wise; Patrick
Hinner v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn, Jr.,
Douglas Foshee, D. Dwight Scott and William Wise; Stanley
Peltz v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald
123
Kuehn, Jr., Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott; Yolanda
Cifarelli v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald
Kuehn, Jr., Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott; Andrew W.
Albstein v. El Paso Corporation, William Wise; George
S. Johnson v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald
Kuehn, Jr., Douglas Foshee, and D. Dwight Scott; Robert
Corwin v. El Paso Corporation, Mark Leland, Brent
Austin; Ronald Kuehn, Jr., D. Dwight Scott and William
Wise; Michael Copland v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald
Kuehn, Jr., Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott; Leslie
Turbowitz v. El Paso Corporation, Mark Leland, Brent
Austin, Ronald Kuehn, Jr., D. Dwight Scott and William
Wise; David Sadek v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald
Kuehn, Jr., Douglas Foshee, D. Dwight Scott; Stanley
Sved v. El Paso Corporation, Ronald Kuehn, Jr.,
and William Wise; Nancy Gougler v. El Paso
Corporation, Ronald Kuehn, Jr., Douglas Foshee and D.
Dwight Scott; William Sinnreich v. El Paso
Corporation, Ronald Kuehn, Jr., Douglas Foshee, D. Dwight
Scott and William Wise; Joseph Fisher v. El Paso
Corporation, Ronald Kuehn, Jr., Douglas Foshee, D. Dwight
Scott and William Wise; and Glickenhaus & Co. v.
El Paso Corporation, Rod Erskine, Ronald Kuehn, Jr.,
Brent Austin, William Wise, Douglas Foshee and D. Dwight Scott;
Haberman v. El Paso Corporation et al and
Thompson v. El Paso Corporation et al. The
purported shareholder action filed in the Southern District of
New York is IRA F.B.O. Michael Conner et al v.
El Paso Corporation, William Wise, H. Brent Austin, Jeffrey
Beason, Ralph Eads, D. Dwight Scott, Credit Suisse First Boston,
J.P. Morgan Securities, filed October 25, 2002.
The stayed shareholder derivative actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division are Grunet Realty Corp. v. William A.
Wise, Byron Allumbaugh, John Bissell, Juan Carlos Braniff, James
Gibbons, Anthony Hall Jr., Ronald Kuehn Jr., J. Carleton MacNeil
Jr., Thomas McDade, Malcolm Wallop, Joe Wyatt and Dwight Scott,
filed August 22, 2002, and Russo v. William
Wise, Brent Austin, Dwight Scott, Ralph Eads, Ronald
Kuehn, Jr., Douglas Foshee, Rodney Erskine,
PricewaterhouseCoopers and El Paso Corporation filed in
September 2004. The consolidated shareholder derivative action
filed in Houston is John Gebhart and Marilyn Clark v.
El Paso Natural Gas, El Paso Merchant Energy, Byron
Allumbaugh, John Bissell, Juan Carlos Braniff, James Gibbons,
Anthony Hall Jr., Ronald Kuehn, Jr., J. Carleton
MacNeil, Jr., Thomas McDade, Malcolm Wallop, William Wise,
Joe Wyatt, Ralph Eads, Brent Austin and John Somerhalder
filed in November 2002. The stayed shareholder derivative
lawsuit filed in Delaware is Stephen Brudno et al v.
William A. Wise et al filed in October 2002.
Environmental Proceedings
Kentucky PCB Project. In November 1988, the Kentucky
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet filed a
complaint in a Kentucky state court alleging that TGP discharged
pollutants into the waters of the state and disposed of PCBs
without a permit. The agency sought an injunction against future
discharges, an order to remediate or remove PCBs and a civil
penalty. TGP entered into interim agreed orders with the agency
to resolve many of the issues raised in the complaint. The
relevant Kentucky compressor stations are being remediated under
a 1994 consent order with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Despite TGPs remediation efforts, the agency may
raise additional technical issues or seek additional remediation
work and/or penalties in the future.
Shoup Natural Gas Processing Plant. On December 16,
2003, El Paso Field Services, L.P. received a Notice of
Enforcement (NOE) from the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) concerning alleged Clean Air
Act violations at its Shoup, Texas plant. The alleged violations
pertained to exceeding the emission limit, testing, reporting,
and recordkeeping issues in 2001. On December 29, 2004,
TCEQ issued an Executive Directors Preliminary Report and
Petition revising the allegations from the past NOE and seeking
a penalty of $419,650. Following discussions with TCEQ, we have
executed an agreed order to resolve the allegations for
$202,400, which includes a $106,459 penalty payment to TCEQ and
a $95,961 payment for a supplemental environmental project. We
will make these payments once TCEQ has executed the agreed order.
Corpus Christi Refinery Air Violations. On March 18,
2004, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality issued an
Executive Directors Preliminary Report and
Petition seeking $645,477 in penalties relating to air
violations alleged to have occurred at our former Corpus
Christi, Texas refinery from 1996 to 2000. We filed a hearing
request to protect our procedural rights. Pursuant to
discussions on March 16, 2005,
124
the parties have reached an agreement in principle to resolve
the allegations for $272,097. The parties are drafting the final
settlement document formalizing the agreement.
Coastal Eagle Point Air Issues. Pursuant to the
EPAs Petroleum Refinery Initiative, our former Eagle Point
refinery resolved certain claims of the U.S. and the State of
New Jersey in a Consent Decree entered in December 2003. The
Eagle Point refinery will invest an estimated $3 million to
$7 million to upgrade the plants environmental
controls by 2008. The Eagle Point Refinery was sold in January
2004. We will share certain future costs associated with
implementation of the Consent Decree pursuant to the Purchase
and Sale Agreement. On April 1, 2004, the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection issued an Administrative
Order and Notice of Civil Administrative Penalty Assessment
seeking $183,000 in penalties for excess emission events that
occurred during the fourth quarter of 2003, prior to the sale.
We have filed an administrative appeal contesting the penalty.
Natural Buttes. On May 19, 2003, we met with the EPA
to discuss potential prevention of significant
deterioration violations due to a de-bottlenecking
modification at Colorado Interstate Gas Companys facility.
The EPA issued an Administrative Compliance Order. We are in
negotiations with the EPA as to the appropriate penalty and have
reserved our anticipated settlement amount.
Air Permit Violation. In March 2003, the Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) issued a
Consolidated Compliance Order and Notice of Potential Penalty to
our subsidiary, El Paso Production Company, alleging that
it failed to timely obtain air permits for specified oil and gas
facilities. El Paso Production Company requested an
adjudicatory hearing on the matter. Pursuant to discussions with
LDEQ, we have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the
allegations for $77,287. The parties are drafting the final
settlement document formalizing the agreement.
125
MARKET PRICE OF AND DIVIDENDS ON THE
COMMON STOCK AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under
the symbol EP. As of August 19, 2005, we had
47,522 stockholders of record, which does not include
beneficial owners whose shares are held by a clearing agency,
such as a broker or bank.
The following table reflects the quarterly high and low sales
prices for our common stock based on the daily composite listing
of stock transactions for the New York Stock Exchange and the
cash dividends we declared in each quarter:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High | |
|
Low | |
|
Dividends | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Per share) | |
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third Quarter (through August 22, 2005)
|
|
$ |
12.57 |
|
|
$ |
11.13 |
|
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
11.87 |
|
|
|
9.30 |
|
|
|
0.04 |
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
|
13.15 |
|
|
|
10.01 |
|
|
|
0.04 |
|
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
$ |
11.85 |
|
|
$ |
8.42 |
|
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
9.20 |
|
|
|
7.37 |
|
|
|
0.04 |
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
7.95 |
|
|
|
6.58 |
|
|
|
0.04 |
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
|
9.88 |
|
|
|
6.57 |
|
|
|
0.04 |
|
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth Quarter
|
|
$ |
8.29 |
|
|
$ |
5.97 |
|
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
Third Quarter
|
|
|
8.95 |
|
|
|
6.51 |
|
|
|
0.04 |
|
|
Second Quarter
|
|
|
9.89 |
|
|
|
5.85 |
|
|
|
0.04 |
|
|
First Quarter
|
|
|
10.30 |
|
|
|
3.33 |
|
|
|
0.04 |
|
Future dividends will be payable only when, as and if declared
by our Board of Directors and will be dependent on business
conditions, earnings, our cash requirements and other relevant
factors. For a description of existing restrictions on our
ability to pay dividends on our preferred stock, see Risk
Factors Risks Relating to the Preferred
Stock We may not be able to pay cash dividends on
the preferred stock.
Odd-lot Sales Program
We have an odd-lot stock sales program available to stockholders
who own fewer than 100 shares of our common stock. This
voluntary program offers these stockholders a convenient method
to sell all of their odd-lot shares at one time without
incurring any brokerage costs. We also have a dividend
reinvestment and common stock purchase plan available to all of
our common stockholders of record. This voluntary plan provides
our stockholders a convenient and economical means of increasing
their holdings in our common stock. Neither the odd-lot program
nor the dividend reinvestment and common stock purchase plan
have a termination date; however, we may suspend either at any
time. You should direct your inquiries to EquiServe, care of
Computershare Investor Services, our exchange agent at
1-877-453-1503.
Equity Compensation Plan Information
The following table provides information concerning equity
compensation plans as of December 31, 2004, that have been
approved by stockholders and equity compensation plans that have
not been approved by stockholders. The table includes
(a) the number of securities to be issued upon exercise of
options, warrants and rights outstanding under the equity
compensation plans, (b) the weighted-average exercise price
of all
126
outstanding options, warrants and rights and (c) additional
shares available for future grants under all of
El Pasos equity compensation plans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) | |
|
(b) | |
|
(c) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining Available for | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future Issuance under | |
|
|
Number of Securities to be | |
|
Weighted-Average | |
|
Equity Compensation | |
|
|
Issued upon Exercise of | |
|
Exercise Price of | |
|
Plans (Excluding | |
|
|
Outstanding Options, | |
|
Outstanding Options, | |
|
Securities Reflected in | |
Plan Category |
|
Warrants and Rights (1) | |
|
Warrants and Rights | |
|
Column (a)) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Equity compensation plans approved by stockholders
|
|
|
6,624,686 |
|
|
$ |
28.07 |
|
|
|
4,537,843 |
(2) |
Equity compensation plans not approved by stockholders
|
|
|
24,954,615 |
|
|
$ |
47.00 |
|
|
|
25,804,722 |
(3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
31,579,301 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,342,565 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Column (a) does not include 2,344,277 shares with a
weighted-average exercise price of $38.62 per share which
were assumed by El Paso under the Executive Award Plan of
Sonat Inc. as a result of the merger with Sonat in October 1999.
The Executive Award Plan of Sonat Inc. has been terminated and
no future awards can be made under it. |
|
(2) |
In column (c), equity compensation plans approved by
stockholders include 2,831,050 shares available for future
issuance under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan. |
|
(3) |
In column (c), equity compensation plans not approved by
stockholders include 77,568 shares available for future
awards granted under the Restricted Stock Award Plan for
Management Employees. |
The Boards proposal to adopt the El Paso Corporation
2005 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan (the 2005
Plan) was approved by our stockholders effective
May 26, 2005. The 2005 Plan replaces all existing
stockholder approved and non-stockholder approved plans, which
are reflected above in the equity compensation plan table and
further described below. The Boards proposal to adopt the
2005 Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors was also
approved by our stockholders effective May 26, 2005. This
plan replaces the 1995 Compensation Plan for Non-Employee
Directors. We have canceled all remaining shares available for
grant under the prior plans and will not make any further grants
from these plans.
Stockholder Approved Plans
El Paso 2005 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan. This
plan provides for the grant to all salaried employees (other
than an employee who is a member of a unit covered by a
collective bargaining agreement) of El Paso and the members
of our Board of Directors who are salaried officers of stock
options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted
stock units, performance shares, performance units, incentive
awards, cash awards and other stock-based awards. In addition,
the plan administrator may grant awards to any person who, in
the sole discretion of the plan administrator, holds a position
of responsibility and is able to contribute substantially to the
success of El Paso. The plan administrator also designates
which employees are eligible to participate. Subject to any
adjustments for a change in capitalization (as
defined in the plan), a maximum of 35,000,000 shares in the
aggregate may be subject to awards under the plan, provided
however, that a maximum of 17,500,000 shares in the
aggregate may be issued under the plan with respect to
restricted stock, restricted stock units, performance shares,
performance units and other stock-based awards. Except as
otherwise provided in an award agreement, in the event of a
participants termination of employment without cause or by
the participant for good reason (as defined in the
plan), if applicable, within two years following a change
in control (defined in substantially the same manner as
under the 2004 Key Executive Severance Protection Plan)
(1) all stock options and stock appreciation rights will
become fully vested and exercisable, (2) the restriction
periods applicable to all shares of restricted stock and
restricted stock units will immediately lapse, (3) the
performance periods applicable to any performance shares,
performance units and incentive awards that have not ended will
end and such awards will become vested and payable in cash in an
amount equal to the target level thereof (assuming target levels
of performance by both participants and El Paso have been
achieved) within ten days following such termination and
(4) any restrictions applicable to
127
cash awards and other stock-based awards will immediately lapse
and, if applicable, become payable within ten days following
such termination. The plan generally may be amended at any time,
provided that stockholder approval is required to the extent
required by law, regulation or stock exchange, and no change in
any award previously granted under the plan may be made without
the consent of the participant if such change would impair the
right of the participant to acquire or retain common stock or
cash that the participant may have acquired as a result of the
plan.
2005 Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors. This
plan provides for the compensation of our non-employee
directors. Each non-employee director is eligible to participate
in the plan immediately upon his or her election to the Board of
Directors. Subject to the terms of the plan, the plan is
administered by the Management Committee. Subject to adjustment
as provided in the plan (for example, in the event of a
recapitalization, stock split, stock dividend, merger,
reorganization or similar event), the maximum number of shares
of common stock which may be awarded under the plan is
2,500,000. Our Board of Directors establishes, from time to
time, the amount of each participants compensation. For
purposes of the plan, the term compensation means
the participants annual retainer and meeting fees, if any,
for each regular or special meeting of the Board and any
committee meetings attended. Each participant may elect to
receive his or her compensation in any combination of cash,
deferred cash or deferred shares of common stock. To the extent
a participant receives deferred shares of common stock rather
than cash, he or she is credited with deferred shares with a
value representing a 25 percent premium to the cash
retainer he or she would have otherwise received. Each
participant is entitled to receive a long-term equity credit
under the plan in the form of shares of deferred common stock
(excluding any premium) equal to the amount of the annual
retainer. Participants do not receive their deferred amounts
until they cease to be a director of El Paso. If the
Management Committee determines that the maximum number of
shares of common stock which may be awarded under the plan has
been issued, then phantom stock units which will have an
accounting value equal to the fair market value of one share of
common stock shall be awarded. If a participant ceases to
continue to serve as a director after a change in
control (defined in substantially the same manner as under
the 2004 Key Executive Severance Protection Plan) of
El Paso, all deferred cash and shares of deferred common
stock will be paid and/ or distributed, as the case may be, to a
participant (or to his or her beneficiary in the case of the
participants death) within 30 days after the date of
the change in control. Subject to the Board of Directors, the
Management Committee may from time to time amend the plan,
provided that stockholder approval is required to the extent
required by applicable law, regulation or stock exchange.
2001 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan, 1999 Omnibus
Incentive Compensation Plan and 1995 Omnibus Compensation
Plan Terminated Plans. These plans provided for
the grant to eligible officers and key employees of El Paso
and its subsidiaries of stock options, stock appreciation
rights, limited stock appreciation rights, performance units and
restricted stock. These plans have been replaced by the 2005
Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan. Although these plans have
been terminated with respect to new grants, certain stock
options and shares of restricted stock remain outstanding under
them. If a change in control of El Paso occurs,
all outstanding stock options become fully exercisable and
restrictions placed on restricted stock lapse. For purposes of
the plans, the term change in control has
substantially the same meaning given such term in the Key
Executive Severance Protection Plan.
Non-Stockholder Approved Plans
Strategic Stock Plan, Restricted Stock Award Plan for
Management Employees and Omnibus Plan for Management
Employees Terminated Plans. These equity
compensation plans had not been approved by the stockholders.
The Strategic Stock Plan provided for the grant of stock
options, stock appreciation rights, limited stock appreciation
rights and shares of restricted stock to non-employee members of
the Board of Directors, officers and key employees of
El Paso and its subsidiaries primarily in connection with
El Pasos strategic acquisitions. The Restricted Stock
Award Plan for Management Employees provided for the grant of
restricted stock to management employees (other than executive
officers and directors) of El Paso and its subsidiaries for
specific accomplishments beyond that which were normally
expected and which had a significant and measurable impact on
the long-term profitability of El Paso. The Omnibus Plan
for Management Employees provided for the grant of stock
options, stock appreciation rights, limited stock
128
appreciation rights and shares of restricted stock to salaried
employees (other than employees covered by a collective
bargaining agreement) of El Paso and its subsidiaries.
These plans have been replaced by the 2005 Omnibus Incentive
Compensation Plan. Although these plans have been terminated
with respect to new grants, certain stock options and shares of
restricted stock remain outstanding under them. If a
change in control of El Paso occurs,
outstanding stock options granted under the Strategic Stock Plan
and Omnibus Plan for Management Employees become fully
exercisable and restrictions placed on restricted stock lapse.
For purposes of the Strategic Stock Plan and Omnibus Plan for
Management Employees, the term change of control has
substantially the same meaning given such term in the Key
Executive Severance Protection Plan.
DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Our directors and executive officers as of August 22, 2005,
are listed below. Prior to August 1, 1998, all references
to El Paso refer to positions held with El Paso
Natural Gas Company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Officer/ | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director | |
|
|
Name |
|
Office |
|
Since | |
|
Age | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Douglas L. Foshee
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer of El Paso, Director |
|
|
2003 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
D. Mark Leland
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
El Paso |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
43 |
|
Robert W. Baker
|
|
Executive Vice President and General Counsel of El Paso |
|
|
2002 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
Lisa A. Stewart
|
|
Executive Vice President of El Paso and President of
El Paso Production and Non-Regulated Operations |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
Ronald L. Kuehn, Jr.
|
|
Chairman of the Board |
|
|
1999 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
Juan Carlos Braniff
|
|
Director |
|
|
1997 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
James L. Dunlap
|
|
Director |
|
|
2003 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
Robert W. Goldman
|
|
Director |
|
|
2003 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
Anthony W. Hall, Jr.
|
|
Director |
|
|
2001 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
Thomas R. Hix
|
|
Director |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
William H. Joyce
|
|
Director |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
J. Michael Talbert
|
|
Director |
|
|
2003 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
Robert F. Vagt
|
|
Director |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
John L. Whitmire
|
|
Director |
|
|
2003 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
Joe B. Wyatt
|
|
Director |
|
|
1999 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
Douglas L. Foshee has been President, Chief Executive
Officer, and a Director of El Paso since September 2003.
Mr. Foshee became Executive Vice President and Chief
Operating Officer of Halliburton Company in 2003, having joined
that company in 2001 as Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer. In December 2003, several subsidiaries of
Halliburton, including DII Industries and Kellogg
Brown & Root, filed for bankruptcy protection, whereby
the subsidiaries jointly resolved their asbestos claims. Prior
to assuming his position at Halliburton, Mr. Foshee was
President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board at
Nuevo Energy Company. From 1993 to 1997, Mr. Foshee served
Torch Energy Advisors Inc. in various capacities, including
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Executive Officer.
D. Mark Leland has been Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of El Paso since August 2005.
Mr. Leland served as Executive Vice President of El Paso
Production Company from January 2004 to August 2005, and also as
Chief Financial Officer and a director from April 2004 to August
2005. He served in various capacities for GulfTerra Energy
Partners, L.P. and its general partner, including as Senior Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer from January 2003 to
December 2003, as Senior Vice President and Controller from July
2000 to January 2003, and as Vice President from August 1998 to
July 2000. Mr. Leland has also served in various capacities
for El Paso Field Services from 1997 to August 2005.
129
Robert W. Baker has been Executive Vice President and
General Counsel of El Paso since January 2004. From
February 2003 to December 2003, he served as Executive Vice
President of El Paso and President of El Paso Merchant
Energy. He was Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel
of El Paso from January 2002 to February 2003. Prior to
that time he held various positions in the legal department of
Tenneco Energy and El Paso since 1983.
Lisa A. Stewart has been an Executive Vice President of
El Paso since November 2004, and President of El Paso
Production and Non-Regulated Operations since February 2004.
Ms. Stewart was Executive Vice President of Business
Development and Exploration and Production Services for Apache
Corporation from 1995 to February 2004. From 1984 to 1995,
Ms. Stewart worked in various positions for Apache
Corporation.
Juan Carlos Braniff has served as a director since 1997.
He is currently the Chairman of our Audit Committee and a member
of our Finance Committee. Mr. Braniff has been a business
consultant since January 2004. He served as Vice Chairman of
Grupo Financíero BBVA Bancomer from October 1999 to January
2004, as Deputy Chief Executive Officer of Retail Banking from
September 1994 to October 1999 and as Executive Vice President
of Capital Investments and Mortgage Banking from December 1991
to September 1994.
James L. Dunlap has served as a director since 2003. He
is currently a member of our Compensation Committee and of our
Governance & Nominating Committee.
Mr. Dunlaps primary occupation has been as a business
consultant since 1999. He served as Vice Chairman, President and
Chief Operating Officer of Ocean Energy/ United Meridian
Corporation from 1996 to 1999. He was responsible for
exploration and production and the development of the
international exploration business. For 33 years prior to
that date, Mr. Dunlap served Texaco, Inc. in various
positions, including Senior Vice President, President of Texaco
USA, President and Chief Executive Officer of Texaco Canada Inc.
and Vice Chairman of Texaco Ltd., London. Mr. Dunlap is
currently a member of the board of directors of Massachusetts
Mutual Life Insurance Company, a trustee of the Nantucket
Conservation Foundation, a trustee of the Culver Educational
Foundation and a member of the Corporation of the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution.
Robert W. Goldman has served as a director since 2003. He
is currently the Chairman of our Finance Committee and a member
of our Audit Committee. Mr. Goldmans primary
occupation has been as a business consultant since October 2002.
He served as Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer of Conoco Inc. from 1998 to 2002 and Vice President,
Finance from 1991 to 1998. For more than five years prior to
that date, he held various executive positions with Conoco Inc.
and E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc.
Mr. Goldman was also formerly Vice President and Controller
of Conoco Inc. and Chairman of the Accounting Committee of the
American Petroleum Institute. He is currently Vice President,
Finance of the World Petroleum Council, and a member of the
board of directors of Tesoro Corporation and the Executive
Committee of the board of The Alley Theatre.
Anthony W. Hall, Jr. has served as a director since
2001. He is currently the Chairman of our Governance &
Nominating Committee and a member of our Health,
Safety & Environmental Committee. Mr. Hall has
been Chief Administrative Officer of the City of Houston since
January 2004. He served as the City Attorney for the City of
Houston from March 1998 to January 2004. He served as a director
of The Coastal Corporation from August 1999 to January 2001.
Prior to March 1998, Mr. Hall was a partner in the Houston
law firm of Jackson Walker, LLP. He is a director of Houston
Endowment Inc. and Chairman of the Boulé Foundation.
Thomas R. Hix has served as a director since 2004. He is
currently a member of our Audit Committee and of our Finance
Committee. Mr. Hix has been a business consultant since
January 2003. He served as Senior Vice President of Finance and
Chief Financial Officer of Cooper Cameron Corporation from
January 1995 to January 2003. From September 1993 to April 1995,
Mr. Hix served as Senior Vice President of Finance,
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of The Western Company of
North America. Mr. Hix is a member of the board of
directors of The Offshore Drilling Company and Health Care
Service Corporation.
William H. Joyce has served as a director since 2004. He
is currently a member of our Governance & Nominating
Committee and of our Health, Safety & Environmental
Committee. Dr. Joyce has been
130
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Nalco
Company since November 2003. From May 2001 to October 2003, he
served as Chief Executive Officer of Hercules Inc. In 2001,
Dr. Joyce served as Vice Chairman of the Board of Dow
Chemical Corporation following its merger with Union Carbide
Corporation. Dr. Joyce was named Chief Executive Officer of
Union Carbide Corporation in 1995 and Chairman of the Board in
1996. Prior to 1995, Dr. Joyce served in various positions
with Union Carbide. Dr. Joyce is a director of
CVS Corporation and Celanese Corporation.
Ronald L. Kuehn, Jr. is currently the Chairman of
our Board of Directors. Mr. Kuehn was Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer from March 2003 to September 2003.
From September 2002 to March 2003, Mr. Kuehn was the Lead
Director of El Paso. From January 2001 to March 2003, he
was a business consultant. Mr. Kuehn served as
non-executive Chairman of the Board of El Paso from
October 25, 1999 to December 31, 2000. Mr. Kuehn
served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Sonat Inc.
from June 1984 until his retirement on October 25, 1999. He
was Chairman of the Board of Sonat Inc. from April 1986 until
his retirement. He is a director of AmSouth Bancorporation,
Praxair, Inc. and The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation.
J. Michael Talbert has served as a director since
2003. He is currently a member of our Compensation Committee and
of our Health, Safety & Environmental Committee.
Mr. Talbert has been Chairman of the Board of Transocean
Inc. since October 2002. He served as Chief Executive Officer of
Transocean Inc. and its predecessor companies from 1994 until
October 2002, and has been a member of its board of directors
since 1994. He served as President and Chief Executive Officer
of Lone Star Gas Company from 1990 to 1994. He served as
President of Texas Oil & Gas Company from 1987 to 1990,
and served in various positions at Shell Oil Company from 1970
to 1982. Mr. Talbert is a director of The Offshore Drilling
Company. Mr. Talbert is a past Chairman of the National
Ocean Industries Association and a member of the University of
Akrons College of Engineering Advancement Council.
Robert F. Vagt has served as a director since May 2005.
Mr. Vagt has been President of Davidson College since 1997.
He served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Seagull
Energy Corporation from 1996 to 1997. From 1992 to 1996,
Mr. Vagt served as President, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of Global Natural Resources. He served as President and
Chief Operating Officer of Adobe Resources Corporation from 1989
to 1992. Prior to 1989, Mr. Vagt served in various
positions with Adobe Resources Corporation and its predecessor
entities. He is a member of the board of directors of Cornell
Companies, Inc.
John L. Whitmire has served as a director since 2003. He
currently serves as Chairman of our Health, Safety &
Environmental Committee and as a member of our Audit Committee.
Mr. Whitmire has been Chairman of CONSOL Energy, Inc. since
1999. He served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Union
Texas Petroleum Holdings, Inc. from 1996 to 1998, and spent over
30 years serving Phillips Petroleum Company in various
positions including Executive Vice President of Worldwide
Exploration and Production from 1992 to 1996 and Vice President
of North American Exploration and Production from 1988 to 1992.
He also served as a member of the Phillips Petroleum Company
Board of Directors from 1994 to 1996. He is a member of the
board of directors of GlobalSantaFe Inc.
Joe B. Wyatt has served as a director since 1999. He is
currently the Chairman of our Compensation Committee and a
member of our Governance & Nominating Committee.
Mr. Wyatt has been Chancellor Emeritus of Vanderbilt
University since August 2000. For eighteen years prior to that
date, he served as Chancellor, Chief Executive Officer and
Trustee of Vanderbilt University. Prior to joining Vanderbilt
University, Mr. Wyatt was a member of the faculty and Vice
President of Harvard University. From 1984 until October 1999,
Mr. Wyatt was a director of Sonat Inc. He is a director of
Ingram Micro, Inc. and Hercules, Inc. He is a principal of the
Washington Advisory Group and Chairman of the Universities
Research Association.
131
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
This table and narrative text discusses the compensation paid in
2004, 2003 and 2002 to our Chief Executive Officer and our four
other most highly compensated executive officers. The
compensation reflected for each individual was for their
services provided in all capacities to El Paso and its
subsidiaries. This table also identifies the principal capacity
in which each of the executives named in this prospectus served
El Paso at the end of 2004.
Summary Compensation Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term Compensation | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Compensation | |
|
Awards | |
|
Payouts | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted | |
|
Securities | |
|
Long-Term | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Annual | |
|
Stock | |
|
Underlying | |
|
Incentive Plan | |
|
All Other | |
|
|
|
|
Salary | |
|
Bonus | |
|
Compensation | |
|
Awards | |
|
Options | |
|
Payouts | |
|
Compensation | |
Name and Principal Position |
|
Year | |
|
($)(1) | |
|
($) | |
|
($)(2) | |
|
($)(3) | |
|
(#) | |
|
($)(4) | |
|
($)(5) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Douglas L.
Foshee(6)
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
$ |
630,000 |
|
|
$ |
1,250,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,320,000 |
|
|
|
375,000 |
|
|
$ |
180,500 |
|
|
$ |
51,750 |
|
|
President and Chief |
|
|
2003 |
|
|
$ |
297,115 |
|
|
$ |
600,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
1,000,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,758,913 |
|
|
Executive Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John W.
Somerhalder II(7)
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
$ |
642,000 |
|
|
$ |
684,735 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
492,800 |
|
|
|
140,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
46,500 |
|
|
Executive Vice President |
|
|
2003 |
|
|
$ |
617,500 |
|
|
$ |
750,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
215,850 |
|
|
$ |
14,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
2002 |
|
|
$ |
600,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
81,926 |
|
Lisa A.
Stewart(8)
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
$ |
458,337 |
|
|
$ |
441,604 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,077,600 |
|
|
|
295,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
316,250 |
|
|
Executive Vice President |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Dwight
Scott(9)
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
$ |
453,929 |
|
|
$ |
498,644 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
739,200 |
|
|
|
210,000 |
|
|
$ |
261,300 |
|
|
$ |
42,825 |
|
|
Executive Vice President |
|
|
2003 |
|
|
$ |
517,504 |
|
|
$ |
750,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
511,775 |
|
|
and Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
2002 |
|
|
$ |
387,504 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
71,108 |
|
Robert W. Baker
|
|
|
2004 |
|
|
$ |
404,004 |
|
|
$ |
295,203 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
492,800 |
|
|
|
140,000 |
|
|
$ |
97,350 |
|
|
$ |
25,658 |
|
|
Executive Vice President |
|
|
2003 |
|
|
$ |
360,837 |
|
|
$ |
350,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
10,500 |
|
|
and General Counsel |
|
|
2002 |
|
|
$ |
250,008 |
|
|
$ |
50,000 |
|
|
$ |
36,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
21,857 |
|
|
|
(1) |
The amount in this column for 2004 for Messrs. Foshee and
Scott reflects a voluntary reduction in annual base salary. For
a one-year period beginning on January 1, 2004,
Mr. Foshee voluntarily reduced his annual base salary by
30 percent to $630,000. Beginning on June 16, 2004,
and for the remainder of 2004, Mr. Scott voluntarily
reduced his annual base salary by 30 percent to $379,404.
In addition, the amount reflected in this column for 2004, 2003
and 2002 for Messrs. Somerhalder and Baker includes an
amount for El Paso mandated reductions to fund certain
charitable organizations. |
|
(2) |
There were no amounts paid for other annual compensation in
2004. The amount reflected for Mr. Baker in 2002 is a
$36,000 perquisite and benefit allowance. During 2003,
El Paso eliminated perquisite and benefit allowances for
its officers and, except as noted, the total value of the
perquisites and other personal benefits received by the other
executives named in this prospectus in 2003 and 2002 are not
included in this column since they were below the SECs
reporting threshold. |
|
(3) |
In 2004, Ms. Stewart received a grant of 80,000 shares
of restricted stock on the start date of her employment and the
total value reflected in this column for Ms. Stewart
includes the value of those shares on the date of grant. The
remainder of the shares of restricted stock granted to the
executives named in this prospectus during 2004 are annual
grants pursuant to El Pasos long-term incentive
compensation plan. The total number of shares and value of
restricted stock granted (including the amount reflected in this
column) held on December 31, 2004, is as follows: |
Restricted Stock as of December 31, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Number | |
|
|
|
|
of Restricted | |
|
Value of | |
|
|
Stock | |
|
Restricted Stock | |
Name |
|
(#) | |
|
($) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Douglas L. Foshee
|
|
|
267,500 |
|
|
$ |
2,782,000 |
|
John W. Somerhalder II
|
|
|
158,004 |
|
|
$ |
1,643,242 |
|
Lisa A. Stewart
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
|
$ |
1,560,000 |
|
D. Dwight Scott
|
|
|
113,444 |
|
|
$ |
1,179,818 |
|
Robert W. Baker
|
|
|
102,511 |
|
|
$ |
1,066,114 |
|
|
|
|
These shares are subject to a time-vesting schedule of three to
five years from the date of grant. In addition, most of these
shares were granted as a result of the achievement of certain
performance measures. Any dividends awarded on the restricted
stock are paid directly to the holder of the El Paso common
stock. These total values can be realized only if the executives
named in this prospectus remain employees of El Paso for
the required vesting period. |
|
|
(4) |
For 2004 and 2003, the amounts reflected in this column are the
value of shares of performance-based restricted stock on the
date they vested. These shares of performance-based restricted
stock were originally reported, if required, in a long-term
incentive table in |
132
|
|
|
El Pasos proxy statement
for the year in which the shares of restricted stock were
granted, along with the necessary performance measures for their
vesting. No long-term incentive payouts were made in 2002. On
the start date of his employment, Mr. Foshee was granted
200,000 shares of performance-based restricted stock. Based
on El Pasos performance relative to its peer
companies during the first year of Mr. Foshees
employment, 100,000 of the 200,000 shares vested and the
remaining 100,000 shares were forfeited. The
100,000 shares that vested based on performance also time
vest pro-rata over a five-year period. The first
20,000 shares of restricted stock vested based on time on
October 11, 2004, and the value of the shares on the date
they vested is reflected in this column for Mr. Foshee for
2004. On February 1, 2001, Mr. Scott was granted
50,000 shares of performance-based restricted stock. These
shares time vested over a four-year period. Based on
performance, 30,000 of the 50,000 shares vested on
October 18, 2004, and the value of the 30,000 shares
on the date they vested is reflected in this column for
Mr. Scott for 2004. The remaining 20,000 shares were
forfeited.
|
|
(5) |
The compensation reflected in this
column for 2004 includes El Pasos contributions to
the El Paso Retirement Savings Plan and supplemental
company match for the Retirement Savings Plan under the
Supplemental Benefits Plan and any other special payments, as
follows:
|
El Pasos contributions to the Retirement Savings
Plan
and Supplemental Company Match under the
Supplemental Benefits Plan and Other Special Payments
for Fiscal Year 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retirement | |
|
Supplemental | |
|
Other Special | |
|
|
Savings Plan | |
|
Benefits Plan | |
|
Payments | |
Name |
|
($) | |
|
($) | |
|
($)(a) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Douglas L. Foshee
|
|
$ |
6,150 |
|
|
$ |
45,600 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
John W. Somerhalder II
|
|
$ |
6,150 |
|
|
$ |
40,350 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
Lisa A. Stewart
|
|
$ |
4,900 |
|
|
$ |
11,350 |
|
|
$ |
300,000 |
(b) |
D. Dwight Scott
|
|
$ |
6,150 |
|
|
$ |
36,675 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
Robert W. Baker
|
|
$ |
6,150 |
|
|
$ |
19,508 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
El Paso does not have a deferred compensation plan for
executives and, therefore, does not pay any interest on deferred
amounts. |
|
|
(b) |
The amount in this column reflects the value of
Ms. Stewarts sign-on bonus which was paid to her when
she joined El Paso on February 2, 2004. |
|
|
(6) |
Mr. Foshee began his employment with El Paso on
September 1, 2003. |
|
(7) |
Mr. Somerhalder ceased to be an employee of El Paso on
April 30, 2005. |
|
(8) |
Ms. Stewart began her employment with El Paso on
February 2, 2004. |
|
(9) |
Mr. Scott ceased to be an employee of El Paso on
August 10, 2005. D. Mark Leland was appointed to replace
Mr. Scott effective August 10, 2005. |
2005 Compensation Adjustments
On March 28, 2005, our Compensation Committee approved a new
annual base salary for three of our named executive officers.
The Compensation Committee authorized these base salary
adjustments based on competitive market data and commensurate
with each executives job responsibilities and the
individual executives performance. The new annual base
salaries are effective as of April 1, 2005, and are set
forth in the table below for each of the named executive
officers. The Compensation Committee also authorized the payment
of annual cash incentive bonuses for 2004 performance to each of
our executive officers based upon both El Pasos
performance and that of each of the named executive officers.
The Compensation Committee further authorized an annual grant of
long-term incentive awards in the form of restricted stock and
stock options for each of our named executive officers, which
was granted on April 1, 2005. The reasons for the grants as
well as the determination of the size of each grant are based
upon the Compensation Committees general executive
compensation philosophy.
The following table sets forth information with respect to
(i) 2004 annual base salaries and the new annual base
salaries that became effective as of April 1, 2005,
(ii) the annual cash incentive bonuses that were paid in
April for 2004 performance, and (iii) the 2005 annual
long-term incentive awards that were granted on April 1,
2005, for each of the following named executive officers.
133
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Long-Term | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incentive Award | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Cash | |
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
Incentive Bonus | |
|
Stock | |
|
Restricted | |
|
|
Base Salary | |
|
Base Salary | |
|
for 2004 | |
|
Options | |
|
Stock | |
Name |
|
($) | |
|
($) | |
|
Performance ($) | |
|
(#) | |
|
(#) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Douglas L. Foshee
|
|
$ |
900,000 |
|
|
$ |
950,004 |
|
|
$ |
1,250,000 |
|
|
|
403,950 |
|
|
|
194,301 |
|
John W. Somerhalder II
|
|
$ |
642,000 |
|
|
$ |
642,000 |
|
|
$ |
684,735 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lisa A. Stewart
|
|
$ |
500,004 |
|
|
$ |
520,008 |
|
|
$ |
441,604 |
|
|
|
121,185 |
|
|
|
58,290 |
|
D. Dwight Scott
|
|
$ |
542,004 |
|
|
$ |
542,004 |
|
|
$ |
498,644 |
|
|
|
121,185 |
|
|
|
58,290 |
|
Robert W. Baker
|
|
$ |
410,004 |
|
|
$ |
426,408 |
|
|
$ |
295,203 |
|
|
|
121,185 |
|
|
|
58,290 |
|
Effective August 10, 2005, the Compensation Committee of
our Board of Directors approved a new annual base salary for Mr.
Leland payable at a rate of $450,000 and a new target annual
cash incentive bonus opportunity for 2005 at a rate of 60% of
base salary. Mr. Lelands annual cash incentive bonus may
range from a minimum of 0% to a maximum of 135% of base salary
depending on the level of both individual and company
performance. The Compensation Committee also authorized a grant
of long-term incentive awards in the form of stock options to
purchase 50,000 shares of our common stock at a price equal
to the fair market value of the stock on the date of grant and
25,000 shares of restricted common stock. The stock options
will vest in four equal annual installments beginning one year
from the date of grant. The restrictions on the shares of
restricted stock will lapse in three equal annual installments
beginning one year from the date of grant. In addition, Mr.
Leland will be eligible to participate in all other plans and
programs available to our executive officers, as further
described in our 2005 proxy statement.
Stock Option Grants
This table sets forth the number of stock options granted at
fair market value to the executives named in this prospectus
during the fiscal year 2004. In satisfaction of applicable SEC
regulations, the table further sets forth the potential
realizable value of such stock options in the year 2014 (the
expiration date of the stock options) at an assumed annualized
rate of stock price appreciation of five percent and ten percent
over the full ten-year term of the stock options. As the table
indicates for the grant made on March 8, 2004, annualized
stock price appreciation of five percent and ten percent would
result in stock prices in the year 2014 of approximately $11.99
and $19.09, respectively. Further as the table indicates for the
grant made on April 1, 2004, annualized stock price
appreciation of five percent and ten percent would result in
stock prices in the year 2014 of approximately $11.55 and
$18.39, respectively. The amounts shown in the table as
potential realizable values for all stockholders stock
(approximately $3.0 billion and $7.6 billion for the
March grant and approximately $2.9 billion and
$7.3 billion for the April grant) represent the
corresponding increases in the market value of
644,932,420 shares of the common stock outstanding as of
December 31, 2004. No gain to the executive named in this
prospectus is possible without an increase in stock price, which
would benefit all stockholders. Actual gains, if any, on stock
option exercises and common stock holdings are dependent on the
future performance of the common stock and overall stock market
conditions. There can be no assurances that the potential
realizable values shown in this table will be achieved.
134
Option Grants in 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Individual Grants(1) |
|
Potential Realizable Value at |
|
|
|
|
Assumed Annual Rates of Stock |
|
|
|
|
Price Appreciation for Option Term |
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Total |
|
|
|
If Stock Price at |
|
If Stock Price at |
|
|
Number of |
|
Options |
|
|
|
$11.98866 and |
|
$19.08994 and |
|
|
Securities |
|
Granted |
|
|
|
$11.54886 in |
|
$18.38963 in |
|
|
Underlying |
|
to all |
|
Exercise |
|
|
|
2014 |
|
2014 |
|
|
Options |
|
Employees |
|
Price |
|
Expiration |
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
Granted (#) |
|
in 2004 |
|
($/Share) |
|
Date |
|
5% ($) |
|
10% ($) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potential Increase in Value of All Common Stock Outstanding
on December 31, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 8, 2004 Grant
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
$ |
2,985,175,767 |
|
|
$ |
7,565,021,497 |
|
|
April 1, 2004 Grant
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
$ |
2,875,665,243 |
|
|
$ |
7,287,500,328 |
|
Douglas L. Foshee
|
|
|
375,000 |
|
|
|
7.76 |
% |
|
$ |
7.09000 |
|
|
|
4/1/2014 |
|
|
$ |
1,672,076 |
|
|
$ |
4,237,363 |
|
John W. Somerhalder II
|
|
|
140,000 |
|
|
|
2.90 |
% |
|
$ |
7.09000 |
|
|
|
4/1/2014 |
|
|
$ |
624,241 |
|
|
$ |
1,581,949 |
|
Lisa A. Stewart
|
|
|
155,000 |
|
|
|
3.21 |
% |
|
$ |
7.36000 |
|
|
|
3/8/2014 |
|
|
$ |
717,443 |
|
|
$ |
1,818,141 |
|
|
|
|
140,000 |
|
|
|
2.90 |
% |
|
$ |
7.09000 |
|
|
|
4/1/2014 |
|
|
$ |
624,241 |
|
|
$ |
1,581,949 |
|
D. Dwight Scott
|
|
|
210,000 |
|
|
|
4.35 |
% |
|
$ |
7.09000 |
|
|
|
4/1/2014 |
|
|
$ |
936,361 |
|
|
$ |
2,372,923 |
|
Robert W. Baker
|
|
|
140,000 |
|
|
|
2.90 |
% |
|
$ |
7.09000 |
|
|
|
4/1/2014 |
|
|
$ |
624,241 |
|
|
$ |
1,581,949 |
|
|
|
(1) |
There were no stock appreciation rights granted in 2004. Any
unvested stock options become fully exercisable in the event of
a change in control of El Paso. See
page 128 of this prospectus for a description of
El Pasos 2001 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan and
the definition of the term change in control. Under
the terms of El Pasos 2001 Omnibus Incentive
Compensation Plan, the Compensation Committee may, in its sole
discretion and at any time, change the vesting of the stock
options. Certain non-qualified stock options may be transferred
to immediate family members, directly or indirectly or by means
of a trust, corporate entity or partnership. Further, stock
options are subject to forfeiture and/or time limitations on
exercise in the event of termination of employment. |
Option Exercises and Year-End Value Table
This table sets forth information concerning stock option
exercises and the fiscal year-end values of the unexercised
stock options, provided on an aggregate basis, for each of the
executives named in this prospectus.
Aggregated Option Exercises in 2004
and Fiscal Year-End Option Values
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities |
|
Value of Unexercised |
|
|
Shares |
|
|
|
Underlying Unexercised Options |
|
In-the-Money Options at |
|
|
Acquired |
|
Value |
|
at Fiscal Year-End (#) |
|
Fiscal Year-End ($)(2) |
|
|
on Exercise |
|
Realized |
|
|
|
|
Name |
|
(#)(1) |
|
($)(1) |
|
Exercisable |
|
Unexercisable |
|
Exercisable |
|
Unexercisable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas L. Foshee
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
|
|
1,175,000 |
|
|
$ |
607,000 |
|
|
$ |
3,661,750 |
|
John W. Somerhalder II
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
439,250 |
|
|
|
140,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
460,600 |
|
Lisa A. Stewart
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
295,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
928,700 |
|
D. Dwight Scott
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
143,494 |
|
|
|
210,000 |
|
|
$ |
8,280 |
|
|
$ |
690,900 |
|
Robert W. Baker
|
|
|
11,333 |
|
|
$ |
80,238 |
|
|
|
183,709 |
|
|
|
140,000 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
460,600 |
|
|
|
(1) |
The amounts in these columns represent the number of shares and
the value realized upon conversion of stock options into shares
of stock that occurred during 2004 based upon the achievement of
certain performance targets established when they were
originally granted in 1999. |
|
(2) |
The figures presented in these columns have been calculated
based upon the difference between $10.38, the fair market value
of the common stock on December 31, 2004, for each
in-the-money stock option, and its exercise price. No cash is
realized until the shares received upon exercise of an option
are sold. No executives named in this prospectus had stock
appreciation rights that were outstanding on December 31,
2004. |
135
Pension Plans
Effective January 1, 1997, El Paso amended its Pension
Plan to provide pension benefits under a cash balance plan
formula that defines participant benefits in terms of a
hypothetical account balance. Prior to adopting a cash balance
plan, El Paso provided pension benefits under a plan (the
Prior Plan) that defined monthly benefits based on
final average earnings and years of service. Under the cash
balance plan, an initial account balance was established for
each El Paso employee who was a participant in the Prior
Plan on December 31, 1996. The initial account balance was
equal to the present value of Prior Plan benefits as of
December 31, 1996.
At the end of each calendar quarter, participant account
balances are increased by an interest credit based on 5-Year
Treasury bond yields, subject to a minimum interest credit of
four percent per year, plus a pay credit equal to a percentage
of salary and bonus. The pay credit percentage is based on the
sum of age plus service at the end of the prior calendar year
according to the following schedule:
|
|
|
|
|
Age Plus Service |
|
Pay Credit Percentage |
|
|
|
Less than 35
|
|
|
4 |
% |
35 to 49
|
|
|
5 |
% |
50 to 64
|
|
|
6 |
% |
65 and over
|
|
|
7 |
% |
Under El Pasos Pension Plan and applicable Internal
Revenue Code provisions, compensation in excess of $205,000
cannot be taken into account and the maximum payable benefit in
2004 was $165,000. Any excess benefits otherwise accruing under
El Pasos Pension Plan are payable under
El Pasos Supplemental Benefits Plan. Participants
will receive benefits from the Supplemental Benefits Plan in the
form of a lump sum payment unless a valid irrevocable election
was made to receive payment in a form other than lump sum prior
to June 1, 2004.
Participants with an initial account balance on January 1,
1997 are provided minimum benefits equal to the Prior Plan
benefit accrued as of the end of 2001. Upon retirement, certain
participants are provided pension benefits that equal the
greater of the cash balance formula benefit or the Prior Plan
benefit. For Mr. Somerhalder, the Prior Plan benefit
reflects accruals through the end of 2001 and is computed as
follows: for each year of credited service up to a total of
30 years, 1.1 percent of the first $26,800, plus
1.6 percent of the excess over $26,800, of the
participants average annual earnings during his five years
of highest earnings.
Credited service as of December 31, 2001, for
Mr. Somerhalder is reflected in the table below. Amounts
reported under Salary and Bonus for each executive named in this
prospectus approximate earnings as defined under the Pension
Plan.
Estimated annual benefits payable from the Pension Plan and
Supplemental Benefits Plan upon retirement at the normal
retirement age (age 65) for each executive named in this
prospectus is reflected below (based on assumptions that each
executive receives base salary shown in the Summary Compensation
Table with no pay increases, receives target annual bonuses
beginning with bonuses earned for fiscal year 2005, and cash
balances are credited with interest at a rate of four percent
per annum):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated |
|
|
|
|
Pay Credit Percentage |
|
Annual |
Named Executive |
|
Credited Service(1) |
|
During 2004 |
|
Benefits ($)(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas L. Foshee
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
5 |
% |
|
$ |
330,053 |
|
John W. Somerhalder II
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
7 |
% |
|
$ |
402,152 |
|
Lisa A. Stewart
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
5 |
% |
|
$ |
140,639 |
|
D. Dwight Scott
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
5 |
% |
|
$ |
261,592 |
|
Robert W. Baker
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
7 |
% |
|
$ |
142,601 |
|
|
|
(1) |
For Mr. Somerhalder, credited service shown is as of
December 31, 2001. |
|
(2) |
The Prior Plan minimum benefit for Mr. Somerhalder is
greater than his projected cash balance benefit at age 65.
As of his termination date, Mr. Somerhalders vested
pension benefit amount under the Prior Plan is estimated to be
$212,414, payable commencing at age 49 as an immediate lump sum.
Mr. Somerhalder will receive his Supplemental Benefits Plan
benefit in a lump sum of approximately $1.77 million, minus
amounts withheld for taxes. |
136
Employment Contracts, Termination of Employment, Change in
Control Arrangements,
and Director and Officer Indemnification Agreements
Employment Agreements
Douglas L. Foshee entered into a letter agreement with
El Paso effective September 1, 2003. Under this
agreement, Mr. Foshee serves as President, Chief Executive
Officer and a director of El Paso and receives an annual
salary of $900,000 (which Mr. Foshee voluntarily reduced
for 2004 to $630,000). Mr. Foshee is also eligible to earn
a target bonus amount equal to 100 percent of his annual
salary (a maximum bonus of 225 percent of salary) based on
El Pasos and his performance as determined by the
Compensation Committee. Mr. Foshee also receives the
employee benefits which are available to senior executive
officers. In addition, on the start date of his employment,
Mr. Foshee was granted 1,000,000 options to purchase
El Paso common stock and 200,000 shares of restricted
stock. The options will time vest pro-rata over a five-year
period. The shares of restricted stock have both time and
performance vesting provisions. Based on El Pasos
performance relative to its peer companies during the first
year, 100,000 of the 200,000 shares of restricted stock
vested and the remaining 100,000 shares were forfeited. The
100,000 shares that vested based on performance also time
vest pro-rata over a five-year period. The first
20,000 shares of restricted stock vested based on time on
October 11, 2004. In addition, on his start date,
Mr. Foshee received common stock with a value of $875,000
and an additional cash payment of $875,000. Mr. Foshee may
not pledge or sell the common stock received as part of the
sign-on bonus for a period of two years from the grant date. If
Mr. Foshees employment is involuntarily terminated
not for cause, Mr. Foshee will receive a lump sum payment
of two years base pay and target bonus. In the event he is
terminated within two years of a change in control (or
terminates employment for good reason),
Mr. Foshee will receive a lump sum payment of three years
annual salary and target bonus (plus a pro-rated portion of his
target bonus).
As part of the merger with Sonat, El Paso entered into a
termination and consulting agreement with Ronald L.
Kuehn, Jr., dated October 25, 1999. Under this
agreement, and for the remainder of his life, Mr. Kuehn
will receive certain ancillary benefits made available to him
prior to the merger with Sonat, including the provision of
office space and related services, and payment of life insurance
premiums sufficient to provide a death benefit equal to four
times his base pay as in effect immediately prior to
October 25, 1999. Mr. Kuehn and his eligible
dependents will also receive retiree medical coverage.
Effective April 30, 2005, John W. Somerhalder II
entered into an agreement and general release, dated May 4,
2005, pursuant to which Mr. Somerhalders separation
of employment with El Paso became effective. Under this
agreement, El Paso agreed to provide severance benefits to
Mr. Somerhalder under El Pasos existing
severance pay plan in the amount of $642,000. El Paso also
agreed to provide Mr. Somerhalder with a prorationing of
his incentive compensation for 2005, which included one third of
his target 2005 annual cash incentive bonus in the amount of
$203,300, a cash equivalent in the amount of $12,815 equal to
the pro-rated value of his 2005 equity award had he received
that grant, and eight months of continued medical coverage
subject to the payment of the required contributions. Upon his
departure, Mr. Somerhalder had 95,000 vested non-qualified
stock options and 49,531 shares of vested restricted stock.
These awards are subject to terms of the original grant and the
plans under which the awards were granted. In addition,
El Paso entered into a consulting agreement with
Mr. Somerhalder pursuant to which Mr. Somerhalder will
provide consulting services to El Paso on various pipeline
projects for a fee of $41,000 per month for a period of 12
months, subject to certain earlier termination rights set forth
in the consulting agreement.
Benefit Plans
Severance Pay Plan. The Severance Pay Plan is a
broad-based employee plan providing severance benefits following
a qualifying termination for all salaried employees
of El Paso and certain of its subsidiaries. The plan also
included an executive supplement, which provided enhanced
severance benefits for certain executive officers of
El Paso and certain of its subsidiaries, including all of
the executives named in this prospectus. The enhanced severance
benefits available under the supplement included an amount equal
to two times the sum of the officers annual salary,
including annual target bonus amounts as specified in the plan.
A qualifying termination included an involuntary termination of
the officer as a result of the elimination of the
137
officers position or a reduction in force and a
termination for good reason (as defined under the
plan). The executive supplement of the Severance Pay Plan
terminated on January 1, 2005. Accordingly, the executives
will receive severance pay pursuant to the Severance Pay Plan
which covers all employees of El Paso and provides for
severance benefits in a lesser amount than the executive
supplement.
2004 Key Executive Severance Protection Plan.
El Paso periodically reviews its benefit plans and engages
an independent executive compensation consultant to make
recommendations regarding its plans. Our executive compensation
consultant recommended that El Paso adopt a new executive
severance plan that more closely aligns with current market
arrangements than El Pasos Key Executive Severance
Protection Plan and Employee Severance Protection Plan (as
described below). In light of this recommendation, El Paso
adopted this plan in March 2004. This plan provides severance
benefits following a change in control of
El Paso for executives of El Paso and certain of its
subsidiaries designated by the Board or the Compensation
Committee, including Mr. Foshee, Ms. Stewart and
Messrs. Baker and Leland. This plan is intended to replace
the Key Executive Severance Protection Plan and the Employee
Severance Protection Plan, and participants are required to
waive their participation under those plans (if applicable) as a
condition to becoming participants in this plan. The benefits of
the plan include: (1) a cash severance payment in an amount
equal to three times the annual salary and target bonus for
Mr. Foshee, two times the annual salary and target bonus
for executive vice presidents and senior vice presidents,
including Ms. Stewart and Messrs. Scott and Baker, and
one times the annual salary and target bonus for vice
presidents; (2) a pro-rated portion of the executives
target bonus for the year in which the termination of employment
occurs; (3) continuation of life and health insurance
following termination for a period of 36 months for
Mr. Foshee, 24 months for executive vice presidents
and senior vice presidents, including Ms. Stewart and
Messrs. Scott and Baker, and 12 months for vice
presidents; (4) a gross-up payment for any federal excise
tax imposed on an executive in connection with any payment or
distribution made by El Paso or any of its affiliates under
the plan or otherwise; provided that in the event a reduction in
payments in respect of the executive of ten percent or less
would cause no excise tax to be payable in respect of that
executive, then the executive will not be entitled to a gross-up
payment and payments to the executive shall be reduced to the
extent necessary so that the payments shall not be subject to
the excise tax; and (5) payment of legal fees and expenses
incurred by the executive to enforce any rights or benefits
under the plan. Benefits are payable for any termination of
employment of an executive in the plan within two years
following the date of a change in control, except where
termination is by reason of death, disability, for
cause (as defined in the plan) or instituted by the
executive other than for good reason (as defined in
the plan). Benefits are also payable under the plan for
terminations of employment prior to a change in control that
arise in connection with, or in anticipation of, a change in
control. Benefits are not payable for any termination of
employment following a change in control if (i) the
termination occurs in connection with the sale, divestiture or
other disposition of designated subsidiaries of El Paso,
(ii) the purchaser or entity subject to the transaction
agrees to provide severance benefits at least equal to the
benefits available under the plan, and (iii) the executive
is offered, or accepts, employment with the purchaser or entity
subject to the transaction. A change in control generally occurs
if: (i) any person or entity becomes the beneficial owner
of more than 20 percent of El Pasos common
stock; (ii) a majority of the current members of the Board
of Directors of El Paso or their approved successors cease
to be directors of El Paso (or, in the event of a merger,
the ultimate parent following the merger); or (iii) a
merger, consolidation, or reorganization of El Paso, a
complete liquidation or dissolution of El Paso, or the sale
or disposition of all or substantially all of
El Pasos and its subsidiaries assets (other
than a transaction in which the same stockholders of
El Paso before the transaction own 50 percent of the
outstanding common stock after the transaction is complete).
This plan generally may be amended or terminated at any time
prior to a change in control, provided that any amendment or
termination that would adversely affect the benefits or
protections of any executive under the plan shall be null and
void as it relates to that executive if a change in control
occurs within one year of the amendment or termination. In
addition, any amendment or termination of the plan in connection
with, or in anticipation of, a change in control which actually
occurs shall be null and void. From and after a change in
control, the plan may not be amended in any manner that would
adversely affect the benefits or protections provided to any
executive under the plan.
Key Executive Severance Protection Plan. This plan,
initially adopted in 1992, provides severance benefits following
a change in control of El Paso for certain
officers of El Paso and certain of its subsidiaries.
138
The benefits of the plan include: (1) an amount equal to
three times the participants annual salary, including
maximum bonus amounts as specified in the plan;
(2) continuation of life and health insurance for an
18-month period following termination; (3) a supplemental
pension payment calculated by adding three years of additional
credited pension service; (4) certain additional payments
to the terminated employee to cover excise taxes if the payments
made under the plan are subject to excise taxes on golden
parachute payments; and (5) payment of legal fees and
expenses incurred by the employee to enforce any rights or
benefits under the plan. Benefits are payable for any
termination of employment for a participant in the plan within
two years of the date of a change in control, except where
termination is by reason of death, disability, for cause or
instituted by the employee for other than good
reason (as defined in the plan). A change in control
occurs if: (i) any person or entity becomes the beneficial
owner of 20 percent or more of El Pasos common
stock; (ii) any person or entity (other than El Paso)
purchases the common stock by way of a tender or exchange offer;
(iii) El Paso stockholders approve a merger or
consolidation, sale or disposition or a plan of liquidation or
dissolution of all or substantially all of El Pasos
assets; or (iv) if over a two year period a majority of the
members of the Board of Directors at the beginning of the period
cease to be directors. A change in control has not occurred if
El Paso is involved in a merger, consolidation or sale of
assets in which the same stockholders of El Paso before the
transaction own 80 percent of the outstanding common stock
after the transaction is complete. This plan generally may be
amended or terminated at any time, provided that no amendment or
termination may impair participants rights under the plan
or be made following the occurrence of a change in control. This
plan is closed to new participants, unless the Board determines
otherwise.
Employee Severance Protection Plan. This plan, initially
adopted in 1992, provides severance benefits following a
change in control (as defined in the Key Executive
Severance Protection Plan) of El Paso for certain salaried,
non-executive employees of El Paso and certain of its
subsidiaries. The benefits of the plan include:
(1) severance pay based on the formula described below, up
to a maximum of two times the participants annual salary,
including maximum bonus amounts as specified in the plan;
(2) continuation of life and health insurance for an
18-month period following termination (plus an additional
payment, if necessary, equal to any additional income tax
imposed on the participant by reason of his or her continued
life and health insurance coverage); and (3) payment of
legal fees and expenses incurred by the employee to enforce any
rights or benefits under the plan. The formula by which
severance pay is calculated under the plan consists of the sum
of: (i) one-twelfth of a participants annual salary
and maximum bonus for every $7,000 of his or her annual salary
and maximum bonus, but no less than five-twelfths nor more than
the entire salary and bonus amount, and (ii) one-twelfth of
a participants annual salary and maximum bonus for every
year of service performed immediately prior to a change in
control. Benefits are payable for any termination of employment
for a participant in the plan within two years of the date of a
change in control, except where termination is by reason of
death, disability, for cause or instituted by the employee for
other than good reason (as defined in the plan).
This plan generally may be amended or terminated at any time,
provided that no amendment or termination may impair
participants rights under the plan or be made following
the occurrence of a change in control. This plan is closed to
new participants, unless the Board determines otherwise.
Supplemental Benefits Plan. This plan provides for
certain benefits to officers and key management employees of
El Paso and its subsidiaries. The benefits include:
(1) a credit equal to the amount that a participant did not
receive under El Pasos Pension Plan because the
Pension Plan does not consider deferred compensation (whether in
deferred cash or deferred restricted common stock) for purposes
of calculating benefits and eligible compensation is subject to
certain Internal Revenue Code limitations; and (2) a credit
equal to the amount of El Pasos matching contribution
to El Pasos Retirement Savings Plan that cannot be
made because of a participants deferred compensation and
Internal Revenue Code limitations. The plan may not be
terminated so long as the Pension Plan and/or Retirement Savings
Plan remain in effect. The management committee of this plan
designates who may participate and also administers the plan.
Benefits under El Pasos Supplemental Benefits Plan
are paid upon termination of employment in a lump-sum payment.
In the event of a change in control (as defined under the Key
Executive Severance Protection Plan)
139
of El Paso, the supplemental pension benefits become fully
vested and nonforfeitable. El Pasos payment
obligations under the Supplemental Benefits Plan as of
December 31, 2004, are as follows:
Payment Obligations under the
Supplemental Benefits Plan
as of December 31, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retirement | |
|
Non-Qualified | |
Name |
|
Savings Plan | |
|
Pension Benefit(1) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Douglas L. Foshee
|
|
$ |
48,513 |
|
|
$ |
76,451 |
|
John W. Somerhalder II
|
|
$ |
54,488 |
|
|
$ |
1,774,503 |
|
Lisa A. Stewart
|
|
$ |
11,350 |
|
|
$ |
12,826 |
|
D. Dwight Scott
|
|
$ |
48,450 |
|
|
$ |
107,578 |
|
Robert W. Baker
|
|
$ |
27,195 |
|
|
$ |
114,818 |
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
This amount is included in the calculation of the estimated
annual benefits described under Pension
Plans on page 136 of this prospectus. |
Senior Executive Survivor Benefits Plan. This plan
provides certain senior executives (including each of the
executives named in this prospectus except for Messrs.
Somerhalder and Scott, who are no longer employed by
El Paso) of El Paso and its subsidiaries who are
designated by the plan administrator with survivor benefit
coverage in lieu of the coverage provided generally for
employees under El Pasos group life insurance plan.
The amount of benefits provided, on an after-tax basis, is two
and one-half times the executives annual salary. Benefits
are payable in installments over 30 months beginning within
31 days after the executives death, except that the
plan administrator may, in its discretion, accelerate payments.
Benefits Protection Trust Agreement. El Paso
maintains a trust for the purpose of funding certain of its
employee benefit plans (including the severance protection plans
described above). The trust consists of a trustee expense
account, which is used to pay the fees and expenses of the
trustee, and a benefit account, which is made up of three
subaccounts and used to make payments to participants and
beneficiaries in the participating plans. The trust is revocable
by El Paso at any time before a threatened change in
control (which is generally defined to include the
commencement of actions that would lead to a change in
control (as defined under the Key Executive Severance
Protection Plan)) as to assets held in the trustee expense
account, but is not revocable (except as provided below) as to
assets held in the benefit account at any time. The trust
generally becomes fully irrevocable as to assets held in the
trust upon a threatened change in control. The trust is a
grantor trust for federal tax purposes, and assets of the trust
are subject to claims by El Pasos general creditors
in preference to the claims of plan participants and
beneficiaries. Upon a threatened change in control, El Paso
must deliver $1.5 million in cash to the trustee expense
account. Prior to a threatened change in control, El Paso
may freely withdraw and substitute the assets held in the
benefit account, other than the initially funded amount;
however, no such assets may be withdrawn from the benefit
account during a threatened change in control period. Any assets
contributed to the trust during a threatened change in control
period may be withdrawn if the threatened change in control
period ends and there has been no threatened change in control.
In addition, after a change in control occurs, if the trustee
determines that the amounts held in the trust are less than
designated percentages (as defined in the
Trust Agreement) with respect to each subaccount in the
benefit account, the trustee must make a written demand on
El Paso to deliver funds in an amount determined by the
trustee sufficient to attain the designed percentages. Following
a change in control and if the trustee has not been requested to
pay benefits from any subaccount during a determination
period (as defined in the Trust Agreement),
El Paso may make a written request to the trustee to
withdraw certain amounts which were allocated to the subaccounts
after the change in control occurred. The trust generally may be
amended or terminated at any time, provided that no amendment or
termination may result, directly or indirectly, in the return of
any assets of the benefit account to El Paso prior to the
satisfaction of all liabilities under the participating plans
(except as described above) and no amendment may be made unless
El Paso, in its reasonable discretion, believes that such
amendment would have no material adverse effect on the amount of
benefits payable under the trust to participants. In addition,
no amendment may be made after
140
the occurrence of a change in control which would
(i) permit El Paso to withdraw any assets from the
trustee expense account, (ii) directly or indirectly reduce
or restrict the trustees rights and duties under the
trust, or (iii) permit El Paso to remove the trustee
following the date of the change in control.
Director and Officer Indemnification Agreements
El Paso has entered into indemnification agreements with
each member of the Board of Directors and certain officers,
including each of the executives named in this prospectus and
Mr. Leland. These agreements reiterate the rights to
indemnification that are provided to our Board of Directors and
certain officers under El Pasos By-laws, clarify
procedures related to those rights, and provide that such rights
are also available to fiduciaries under certain of
El Pasos employee benefit plans. As is the case under
the By-laws, the agreements provide for indemnification to the
full extent permitted by Delaware law, including the right to be
paid the reasonable expenses (including attorneys fees)
incurred in defending a proceeding related to service as a
director, officer or fiduciary in advance of that proceedings
final disposition. El Paso may maintain insurance, enter
into contracts, create a trust fund or use other means available
to provide for indemnity payments and advances. In the event of
a change in control of El Paso (as defined in the
indemnification agreements), El Paso is obligated to pay
the costs of independent legal counsel who will provide advice
concerning the rights of each director and officer to indemnity
payments and advances.
Insofar as indemnification for liabilities arising under the
Securities Act of 1933 may be permitted to directors, officers
or persons controlling us pursuant to the foregoing provisions,
we have been informed that in the opinion of the SEC such
indemnification is against public policy as expressed in the
Securities Act and is therefore unenforceable.
141
SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND
MANAGEMENT
The following table sets forth information as of August 19,
2005 (unless otherwise noted) regarding beneficial ownership of
common stock by each director and nominee, our Chief Executive
Officer, the other four most highly compensated executive
officers in the last fiscal year, our directors and executive
officers as a group and each person or entity known by
El Paso to own beneficially more than five percent of its
outstanding shares of common stock. No family relationship
exists between any of the directors or executive officers of
El Paso.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beneficial Ownership |
|
Stock |
|
|
|
Percent |
Title of Class |
|
Name of Beneficial Owner |
|
(Excluding Options)(1) |
|
Options(2) |
|
Total |
|
of Class |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
Pacific Financial Research Inc.(3) |
|
|
78,130,889 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
78,130,889 |
|
|
|
12.10 |
% |
|
|
|
|
9601 Wilshire Boulevard,
Suite 800
Beverly Hills, CA 90210 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
Brandes Investment Partners, L.L.C.(3) |
|
|
71,441,912 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
71,441,912 |
|
|
|
11.06 |
% |
|
|
|
|
11988 El Camino Real
Suite 500
San Diego, CA 92130 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
State Street Bank and Trust Company(3) |
|
|
32,321,279 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
32,321,279 |
|
|
|
5.01 |
% |
|
|
|
|
P.O. Box 1389
Boston, MA 02104-1389 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
J.C. Braniff |
|
|
77,334 |
(4) |
|
|
21,000 |
|
|
|
98,334 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
J.L. Dunlap |
|
|
39,343 |
(5) |
|
|
8,000 |
|
|
|
47,343 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
R.W. Goldman |
|
|
44,363 |
|
|
|
8,000 |
|
|
|
52,363 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
A.W. Hall, Jr. |
|
|
52,998 |
|
|
|
12,000 |
|
|
|
64,998 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
T.R. Hix |
|
|
21,136 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
21,136 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
W.H. Joyce |
|
|
22,136 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
22,136 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
R.L. Kuehn, Jr. |
|
|
329,397 |
(6) |
|
|
502,300 |
|
|
|
831,697 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
J.M. Talbert |
|
|
31,413 |
|
|
|
8,000 |
|
|
|
39,413 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
R.F. Vagt |
|
|
5,247 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
5,247 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
J.L. Whitmire |
|
|
52,019 |
|
|
|
8,000 |
|
|
|
60,019 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
J.B. Wyatt |
|
|
66,512 |
|
|
|
14,000 |
|
|
|
80,512 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
D.L. Foshee |
|
|
581,431 |
|
|
|
493,750 |
|
|
|
1,075,181 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
D.M. Leland |
|
|
125,855 |
(7) |
|
|
162,656 |
|
|
|
288,511 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
J.W. Somerhalder II |
|
|
357,154 |
(8) |
|
|
95,000 |
|
|
|
452,154 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
L.A. Stewart |
|
|
196,210 |
(9) |
|
|
73,750 |
|
|
|
269,960 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
D.D. Scott |
|
|
190,191 |
(10) |
|
|
195,994 |
|
|
|
386,185 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
R.W. Baker |
|
|
184,443 |
|
|
|
218,709 |
|
|
|
403,152 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
Common Stock |
|
|
Directors, nominee and executive officers as a group (17 persons
total), including those individuals listed above |
|
|
2,377,182 |
|
|
|
1,821,159 |
|
|
|
4,198,341 |
|
|
|
0.64 |
% |
|
|
(1) |
The individuals named in the table have sole voting and
investment power with respect to shares of El Paso common
stock beneficially owned, except that Mr. Talbert shares
with one or more other individuals voting and investment power
with respect to 5,000 shares of common stock. This column
also includes shares of common stock held in the El Paso
Benefits Protection Trust (as of August 19, 2005) as a
result of deferral elections made in accordance with
El Pasos benefit plans. These individuals share
voting power with the trustee under that plan and receive
dividend equivalents on such shares, but do not have the power
to dispose of, or direct the disposition of, such shares until
such shares are distributed. In addition, some shares of common
stock reflected in this column for certain individuals are
subject to restrictions. |
|
(2) |
The directors and executive officers have the right to acquire
the shares of common stock reflected in this column within
60 days of August 19, 2005, through the exercise of
stock options. |
142
|
|
|
|
(3) |
According to a Schedule 13G filed on February 11,
2005, as of December 31, 2004, Pacific Financial Research
Inc. had sole voting power over 73,376,789 shares of common
stock, no voting power over 4,754,100 shares of common
stock and sole dispositive power of 78,130,889 shares of
common stock. According to a Schedule 13G filed on
February 14, 2005, as of December 31, 2004, Brandes
Investment Partners, L.L.C. had shared voting power of
55,594,630 shares of common stock and shared dispositive
power over 71,441,912 shares of common stock. According to
a Schedule 13G/ A filed on February 18, 2005, as
of December 31, 2004, State Street Bank and
Trust Company had sole voting power over
17,728,241 shares of common stock, shared voting power over
14,593,038 shares of common stock and shared dispositive
power of 32,321,279 shares of common stock. |
|
|
(4) |
Mr. Braniffs beneficial ownership excludes
3,500 shares owned by his wife. Mr. Braniff disclaims
any beneficial ownership in those shares. |
|
|
(5) |
Mr. Dunlaps beneficial ownership excludes
900 shares held by his wife as trustee. Mr. Dunlap
disclaims any beneficial ownership in those shares. |
|
|
(6) |
Mr. Kuehns beneficial ownership excludes
28,720 shares owned by his wife or children. Mr. Kuehn
disclaims any beneficial ownership in those shares. |
|
|
(7) |
Effective as of August 10, 2005, Mr. Leland, the
former executive vice president and chief financial officer of
El Paso Production Company, replaced Mr. Scott as our
executive vice president and chief financial officer. |
|
|
(8) |
Mr. Somerhalders stock ownership is as of
April 30, 2005, when he left the company. |
|
|
(9) |
Ms. Stewarts beneficial ownership includes
216 shares held by her husband. |
|
|
(10) |
Mr. Scotts stock ownership is as of August 10,
2005, when he resigned as our executive vice president and chief
financial officer. |
CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS
See Executive Compensation Employment
Contracts, Termination of Employment, Change in Control
Arrangements, and Director and Officer Indemnification
Agreements starting on page 137 of this prospectus.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED STOCK
The terms of the preferred stock are contained in a certificate
of designation that was filed with Delaware Secretary of State
on April 14, 2005.
The following description is a summary of the material
provisions of the preferred stock, the certificate of
designation and the registration rights agreement. It does not
purport to be complete. We refer you to the provisions of the
certificate of designations, including the definitions of terms
used in the certificate of designations, a copy of which is
included as Exhibit 4.B to the registration statement of
which this prospectus is a part. We urge you to read the
certificate of designations because it, and not this
description, defines your rights as a holder of shares of
preferred stock.
As used in this Description of the Preferred Stock
section, references to El Paso, we,
our or us refer solely to El Paso
Corporation and not to our subsidiaries.
General
Under our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, our
board of directors is authorized, without further stockholder
action, to issue up to 50,000,000 shares of preferred
stock, par value $0.01 per share, in one or more series and
with such designations, powers, preferences and rights, and
qualifications, limitations or restrictions, as shall be set
forth in the resolutions providing therefor and which are
permitted by the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware. We have shares of authorized preferred stock which are
undesignated.
We issued 750,000 shares of our Convertible Perpetual
Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share and $1,000
liquidation preference per share on April 15, 2005. The
shares of preferred stock are validly issued, fully paid and
nonassessable.
The holders of the shares of preferred stock have no preemptive
rights or preferential rights to purchase or subscribe for
stock, obligations, warrants or any other of our securities.
143
Ranking
The preferred stock, with respect to dividend rights and upon
liquidation, winding up and dissolution, ranks:
|
|
|
|
|
junior to all our existing and future debt obligations; |
|
|
|
junior to senior stock, which is all classes or
series of our capital stock, other than (1) our common
stock and any other class or series of our capital stock the
terms of which provide that such class or series will rank
junior to the preferred stock and (2) any other class or
series of our capital stock the terms of which provide that such
class or series will rank on a parity with the preferred stock; |
|
|
|
on a parity with parity stock, which is any class or
series of our capital stock that has terms which provide that
such class or series will rank on a parity with the preferred
stock; |
|
|
|
senior to junior stock, which is our common stock
and each class or series of our capital stock that has terms
which provide that such class or series will rank junior to the
preferred stock; and |
|
|
|
effectively junior to all of our subsidiaries
(1) existing and future liabilities and (2) capital
stock held by others. |
The term senior stock includes warrants, rights,
calls or options exercisable for or convertible into that type
of stock.
Dividends
Holders of the shares of preferred stock are entitled to
receive, when, as and if declared by our board of directors, out
of funds legally available for payment, cumulative cash
dividends on each outstanding share of preferred stock at the
annual rate of 4.99% of the liquidation preference per share.
The dividend rate is equivalent to $49.90 per share
annually. The right of holders of the shares of preferred stock
to receive dividend payments is subject to the rights of any
holders of shares of senior stock and parity stock.
Dividends are payable quarterly in arrears on January 1,
April 1, July 1 and October 1 of each year, beginning
on July 1, 2005. If any of those dates is not a business
day, then dividends will be payable on the next succeeding
business day. Dividends will accumulate from the most recent
date as to which dividends will have been paid or, if no
dividends have been paid, from the date of original issuance of
the preferred stock. Dividends are payable to holders of record
as they appear in our stock records at the close of business on
December 15, March 15, June 15 and
September 15 of each year or on a record date that may be
fixed by our board of directors and that will be not more than
60 days nor fewer than 10 days before the applicable
quarterly dividend payment date. Dividends will be cumulative
from each quarterly dividend payment date, whether or not we
have funds legally available for the payment of those dividends.
Dividends payable on the shares of preferred stock, or amounts
determined with respect thereto, for any period shorter than a
full quarterly period will be computed on the basis of a 360-day
year consisting of twelve 30-day months. Dividends on the shares
of preferred stock will be payable in cash. Accumulated unpaid
dividends cumulate at the annual rate of 4.99% and are payable
in the manner provided above.
For so long as the preferred stock is outstanding, (1) we
will not declare, pay or set apart funds for the payment of any
dividend or other distribution with respect to any junior stock
or parity stock and (2) neither we, nor any of our
subsidiaries, will redeem, purchase or otherwise acquire for
consideration junior stock or parity stock through a sinking
fund or otherwise, in each case unless we have paid or set apart
funds for the payment of all accumulated and unpaid dividends,
including liquidated damages, if any, with respect to the shares
of the preferred stock and any parity stock for all preceding
dividend periods. As an exception to clause (2), we will be
able to redeem, purchase or otherwise acquire for consideration
junior stock or parity stock with junior stock or pursuant to a
purchase or exchange offer made on the same terms to all holders
of preferred stock and such parity stock.
144
Holders of the preferred stock will not have any right to
receive dividends that we may declare on our common stock. The
right to receive dividends declared on our common stock will be
realized only after conversion of such holders shares of
preferred stock into shares of our common stock.
Conversion Rights
Holders of the preferred stock may, at any time, convert shares
of preferred stock into fully paid and nonassessable shares of
our common stock at a conversion rate of 76.7754 shares of
common stock per $1,000 liquidation preference of preferred
stock, subject to adjustments as described under
Make Whole Payment Upon the Occurrence of a
Fundamental Change and Adjustments to
the Conversion Rate. This represents an initial conversion
price of approximately $13.03 per share of common stock.
A holder of shares of the preferred stock may convert any or all
of those shares by surrendering to us at our principal office or
at the office of the conversion agent, as may be designated by
our board of directors, the certificate or certificates for
those shares of the preferred stock accompanied by a written
notice stating that the holder elects to convert all or a
specified whole number of those shares in accordance with the
provisions described in this offering memorandum and specifying
the name or names in which the holder wishes the certificate or
certificates for shares of common stock to be issued. In case
the notice specifies a name or names other than that of the
holder, the notice will be accompanied by payment of all
transfer taxes payable upon the issuance of shares of common
stock in that name or names. Other than those taxes, we will pay
any documentary, stamp or similar issue or transfer taxes that
may be payable in respect of any issuance or delivery of shares
of common stock upon conversion of shares of the preferred
stock. As promptly as practicable after the surrender of that
certificate or certificates and the receipt of the notice
relating to the conversion and payment of all required transfer
taxes, if any, or the demonstration to our satisfaction that
those taxes have been paid, we will deliver or cause to be
delivered (1) certificates representing the whole number of
validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable full shares of our
common stock to which the holder, or the holders
transferee, of shares of the preferred stock being converted
will be entitled and (2) if less than the full number of
shares of preferred stock evidenced by the surrendered
certificate or certificates is being converted, a new
certificate or certificates, of like tenor, for the number of
shares evidenced by the surrendered certificate or certificates
less the number of shares being converted, along with cash
payment for any fractional shares. This conversion will be
deemed to have been made at the close of business on the date of
giving of the notice of conversion, the receipt of payment of
all required transfer taxes, if any, and of surrendering the
certificate or certificates representing the shares of preferred
stock to be converted so that the rights of the holder thereof
as to the shares being converted will cease except for the right
to receive shares of common stock, and the person entitled to
receive the shares of common stock will be treated for all
purposes as having become the record holder of those shares of
common stock at that time.
In lieu of the foregoing procedures, if the preferred stock is
held in global form, you must comply with The Depository Trust
Company, or DTC, procedures to convert your beneficial interest
in respect of preferred stock evidenced by a global share of
preferred stock.
If a holder of shares of preferred stock exercises conversion
rights, upon delivery of the preferred stock for conversion,
those shares will cease to cumulate dividends as of the end of
the day immediately preceding the date of conversion. Holders of
shares of preferred stock who convert their shares into our
common stock will not be entitled to, nor will the conversion
rate be adjusted for, any accumulated and unpaid dividends or
liquidated damages, if any. Accordingly, shares of preferred
stock surrendered for conversion after the close of business on
any record date for the payment of dividends declared and before
the opening of business on the dividend payment date relating to
that record date must be accompanied by a payment in cash of an
amount equal to the dividend payable in respect of those shares
for the dividend period in which the shares are converted. A
holder of shares of preferred stock on a dividend payment record
date who converts such shares into shares of our common stock on
the corresponding dividend payment date will be entitled to
receive the dividend payable on such shares of preferred stock
on such dividend payment date, and the converting holder need
not include payment of the amount of such dividend upon
surrender of shares of preferred stock for conversion.
145
Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, if (1) shares of
preferred stock are converted during the period between the
close of business on any dividend payment record date and the
opening of business on the corresponding dividend payment date,
and (2) we have called such shares of preferred stock for
redemption during such period, then the holder who so tenders
such shares for conversion will receive the dividend payable on
such dividend payment date and need not include payment of the
amount of such dividend upon surrender of shares of preferred
stock for conversion.
In case any shares of preferred stock are to be redeemed, the
right to convert those shares of the preferred stock will
terminate at 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on the business
day immediately preceding the date fixed for redemption unless
we default in the payment of the redemption price of those
shares.
In connection with the conversion of any shares of preferred
stock, no fractional shares of common stock will be issued, but
we will pay a cash adjustment in respect of any fractional
interest in an amount equal to the fractional interest
multiplied by the closing sale price of our common stock on the
date the shares of preferred stock are surrendered for
conversion. If more than one share of preferred stock will be
surrendered for conversion by the same holder at the same time,
the number of whole shares of common stock issuable on
conversion of those shares will be computed on the basis of the
total number of shares of preferred stock so surrendered.
We will at all times reserve and keep available, free from
preemptive rights, for issuance upon the conversion of shares of
preferred stock a number of our authorized but unissued shares
of common stock that will from time to time be sufficient to
permit the conversion of all outstanding shares of preferred
stock.
Before the delivery of any securities that we will be obligated
to deliver upon conversion of the preferred stock, we will
comply with all applicable federal and state laws and
regulations that require action to be taken by us. All shares of
common stock delivered upon conversion of the preferred stock
will upon delivery be duly and validly issued, fully paid and
nonassessable, free of all liens and charges and not subject to
any preemptive rights.
|
|
|
Fundamental Change Requires Us to Redeem Shares of
Preferred Stock at the Option of the Holder |
If a fundamental change (as defined below) occurs prior to
April 1, 2015, you will have the right, exercisable at your
option, subject to legally available funds and to the terms and
conditions of our amended and restated certificate of
incorporation, to require us to redeem any or all of your shares
of preferred stock. We will redeem the preferred stock at a
price equal to 100% of the liquidation preference of the
preferred stock to be redeemed plus an amount equal to any
accumulated and unpaid dividends, including liquidated damages,
if any, to, but excluding, the fundamental change redemption
date (as defined below), unless such fundamental change
redemption date falls after a record date and on or prior to the
corresponding dividend payment date, in which case (1) we
will pay the full amount of accumulated and unpaid dividends,
including liquidated damages, if any, payable on such dividend
payment date only to the holder of record at the close of
business on the corresponding record date and (2) the
redemption price payable on the fundamental change redemption
date will include only the liquidation preference, but will not
include any amount in respect of dividends declared and payable
on such corresponding dividend payment date. We will be required
to redeem the preferred stock as of a date (which we refer to as
the fundamental change redemption date) that is not more than 30
calendar days after we mail to all holders of the preferred
stock a notice regarding the fundamental change as described
below. If such thirtieth calendar day is not a business day, the
fundamental change redemption date will be the next succeeding
business day. We will pay the redemption price in cash.
A fundamental change is any transaction or event
(whether by means of an exchange offer, liquidation, tender
offer, consolidation, merger, combination, reclassification,
recapitalization or otherwise) in connection with which 90% or
more of our shares of common stock are exchanged for, converted
into, acquired for or constitute solely the right to receive,
consideration that is not at least 90% shares of common stock
that:
|
|
|
|
|
are listed on, or immediately after the transaction or event
will be listed on, a United States national securities
exchange, or |
146
|
|
|
|
|
are approved, or immediately after the transaction or event will
be approved, for quotation on a United States national
securities exchange or quotation thereof in an inter-dealer
quotation system of any registered United States national
securities association. |
In addition, holders of shares of preferred stock shall not have
the right to require us to repurchase shares of preferred stock
upon a fundamental change unless and until our board of
directors has approved such fundamental change or elected to
take a neutral position with respect to such fundamental change.
Within 30 calendar days after the occurrence of a fundamental
change, we are obligated to mail (1) to all holders of
preferred stock at their addresses shown in the register of the
registrar and to beneficial owners as required by applicable law
(2) or to cause DTC to send a notice to its participants
that own preferred stock (and issue a press release and publish
on our website on the World Wide Web) a notice regarding the
fundamental change, stating, among other things:
|
|
|
|
|
the event causing a fundamental change; |
|
|
|
the date of such fundamental change; |
|
|
|
the last date on which the redemption right triggered by such
fundamental change may be exercised; |
|
|
|
the fundamental change redemption price; |
|
|
|
the fundamental change redemption date; |
|
|
|
the name and address of the paying agent and the conversion
agent; |
|
|
|
the conversion rate and any adjustments to the conversion rate; |
|
|
|
that the preferred stock with respect to which a fundamental
change redemption notice is given by the holder may be converted
only if the fundamental change redemption notice has been
withdrawn in accordance with the terms of the preferred
stock; and |
|
|
|
the procedures that holders must follow to exercise these rights. |
To exercise this right, you must deliver a written notice to the
transfer agent prior to the close of business on the business
day immediately before the fundamental change redemption date.
The required redemption notice upon a fundamental change must
state:
|
|
|
|
|
if certificated shares of preferred stock have been issued, the
preferred stock certificate numbers, or if not, such information
as may be required under applicable DTC procedures; |
|
|
|
the number of preferred shares to be redeemed; and |
|
|
|
that we are to redeem such preferred stock pursuant to the
applicable provisions of the preferred stock and our amended and
restated certificate of incorporation. |
You may withdraw any fundamental change redemption notice by a
written notice of withdrawal delivered to the transfer agent
prior to the close of business on the business day before the
fundamental change redemption date. The notice of withdrawal
must state:
|
|
|
|
|
the number of the withdrawn shares of preferred stock; |
|
|
|
if certificated shares of preferred stock have been issued, the
preferred stock certificate numbers, or if not, such information
as may be required under applicable DTC procedures; and |
|
|
|
the number, if any, of shares of preferred stock that remain
subject to your fundamental change redemption notice. |
A holder must either effect book-entry transfer or deliver the
preferred stock to be redeemed, together with necessary
endorsements, to the office of the transfer agent after delivery
of the fundamental change redemption notice to receive payment
of the fundamental change redemption price. You will receive
payment in cash on the later of the fundamental change
redemption date or the time of book-entry transfer or the
delivery of the preferred stock. If the transfer agent holds
cash sufficient to pay the fundamental change
147
redemption price of the preferred stock on the business day
following the fundamental change redemption date, then,
immediately after the fundamental change redemption date:
|
|
|
|
|
the shares of preferred stock will cease to be outstanding; |
|
|
|
dividends will cease to accrue; and |
|
|
|
all other rights of the holder will terminate. |
This will be the case whether or not book-entry transfer of the
preferred stock is made or whether or not the preferred stock is
delivered to the transfer agent.
The fundamental change redemption feature of the preferred stock
may in certain circumstances make more difficult or discourage a
takeover of our company. The fundamental change redemption
feature, however, is not the result of our knowledge of any
specific effort:
|
|
|
|
|
to accumulate shares of common stock; |
|
|
|
to obtain control of our company by means of a merger, tender
offer, solicitation or otherwise; or |
|
|
|
by management to adopt a series of anti-takeover provisions. |
Instead, the terms of the fundamental change redemption feature
resulted from negotiations between the initial purchasers and us.
We could, in the future, enter into certain transactions,
including certain recapitalizations, that would not constitute a
fundamental change with respect to the fundamental change
redemption feature of the preferred stock but that would
increase the amount of our (or our subsidiaries)
outstanding indebtedness.
Our ability to redeem shares of preferred stock upon the
occurrence of a fundamental change is subject to important
limitations. Because we are a holding company, our ability to
redeem the preferred stock for cash may be limited by
restrictions on our ability to obtain funds for such redemption
through dividends from our subsidiaries and the terms of our
current and then existing borrowing agreements. Our ability to
redeem the preferred stock is also subject to restrictions under
Delaware law. If a fundamental change were to occur, we may not
have sufficient legally available funds to pay the redemption
price in cash for all tendered shares of preferred stock. Our
current revolving credit facilities do, and any future credit
agreements or other agreements relating to our indebtedness may,
contain provisions prohibiting the redemption of the preferred
stock under certain circumstances, or expressly prohibit our
redemption of the preferred stock upon a fundamental change or
may provide that a fundamental change constitutes an event of
default under that agreement. If a fundamental change occurs at
a time when we are prohibited from redeeming shares of preferred
stock for cash, we could seek the consent of our lenders to
redeem the preferred stock or attempt to refinance this debt. If
we do not obtain consent, we would not be permitted to redeem
the preferred stock for cash.
We will comply with any applicable provisions of Rule 13e-4
and any other tender offer rules under the Exchange Act in
connection with any offer by us to redeem the preferred stock.
|
|
|
Make Whole Payment Upon the Occurrence of a Fundamental
Change |
If you elect to convert your preferred stock upon the occurrence
of a fundamental change (as defined above) that occurs prior to
April 5, 2015, in certain circumstances, you will be
entitled to receive, in addition to a number of shares of common
stock equal to the applicable conversion rate, an additional
number of shares of common stock (the additional
shares) upon conversion as described below.
We must give notice to all holders and to the conversion agent
at least 15 trading days prior to the anticipated effective date
of such fundamental change. We must also give notice to all
holders and to the conversion agent that such fundamental change
has become effective. Holders may surrender preferred stock for
conversion and receive the additional shares described below at
any time from and after the date that is 15 days prior to
the anticipated effective date of such fundamental change until
and including the date that is
148
15 days after the actual effective date (or, if such
transaction also results in holders having a right to require us
to redeem their preferred stock, until the fundamental change
redemption date).
The number of additional shares will be determined for the
preferred stock by reference to the table below, based on the
date on which the corporate transaction becomes effective (the
effective date) and the average of the last reported
sale prices of our common stock over the ten trading day period
ending on the fifth trading day immediately preceding the
effective date (the stock price). If holders of our
common stock receive only cash in the transaction constituting a
fundamental change, the share price shall be the cash amount
paid per share. Otherwise, the share price shall be the average
of the closing sale prices of our common stock on the five
trading days prior to but not including the effective date of
the transaction constituting a fundamental change.
The stock prices set forth in the first row of each table below
(i.e., column headers) will be adjusted as of any date on which
the conversion rate of the preferred stock is adjusted. The
adjusted stock prices will equal the stock prices applicable
immediately prior to such adjustment, multiplied by a fraction,
the numerator of which is the conversion rate immediately prior
to the adjustment giving rise to the stock price adjustment and
the denominator of which is the conversion rate as so adjusted.
The number of additional shares will be adjusted in the same
manner as the conversion rate as set forth under
Adjustments to the Conversion Rate.
The following table sets forth the number of additional shares
to be received per $1,000 liquidation preference per share of
preferred stock:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Price on the Effective Date | |
|
|
| |
Fundamental Change Date in Years |
|
$10.42 | |
|
$11.00 | |
|
$12.00 | |
|
$13.00 | |
|
$14.00 | |
|
$15.00 | |
|
$16.00 | |
|
$17.00 | |
|
$18.00 | |
|
$19.00 | |
|
$20.00 | |
|
$25.00 | |
|
$30.00 | |
|
$35.00 | |
|
$40.00 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
April 15, 2005
|
|
|
17.59 |
|
|
|
15.72 |
|
|
|
13.16 |
|
|
|
11.10 |
|
|
|
9.41 |
|
|
|
8.01 |
|
|
|
6.96 |
|
|
|
6.00 |
|
|
|
5.17 |
|
|
|
4.48 |
|
|
|
3.90 |
|
|
|
1.88 |
|
|
|
0.81 |
|
|
|
0.24 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
April 5, 2006
|
|
|
16.92 |
|
|
|
14.98 |
|
|
|
12.39 |
|
|
|
10.34 |
|
|
|
8.68 |
|
|
|
7.47 |
|
|
|
6.40 |
|
|
|
5.46 |
|
|
|
4.66 |
|
|
|
4.07 |
|
|
|
3.51 |
|
|
|
1.68 |
|
|
|
0.72 |
|
|
|
0.21 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
April 5, 2007
|
|
|
16.12 |
|
|
|
14.47 |
|
|
|
11.74 |
|
|
|
9.63 |
|
|
|
8.02 |
|
|
|
6.70 |
|
|
|
5.61 |
|
|
|
4.70 |
|
|
|
3.94 |
|
|
|
3.46 |
|
|
|
2.94 |
|
|
|
1.37 |
|
|
|
0.58 |
|
|
|
0.16 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
April 5, 2008
|
|
|
15.75 |
|
|
|
13.84 |
|
|
|
11.03 |
|
|
|
8.83 |
|
|
|
7.12 |
|
|
|
5.75 |
|
|
|
4.65 |
|
|
|
3.77 |
|
|
|
3.23 |
|
|
|
2.71 |
|
|
|
2.25 |
|
|
|
1.03 |
|
|
|
0.43 |
|
|
|
0.11 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
April 5, 2009
|
|
|
15.51 |
|
|
|
13.31 |
|
|
|
10.35 |
|
|
|
7.96 |
|
|
|
6.04 |
|
|
|
4.51 |
|
|
|
3.33 |
|
|
|
2.44 |
|
|
|
2.10 |
|
|
|
1.61 |
|
|
|
1.23 |
|
|
|
0.52 |
|
|
|
0.21 |
|
|
|
0.04 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
April 5, 2010
|
|
|
15.60 |
|
|
|
13.33 |
|
|
|
10.28 |
|
|
|
7.75 |
|
|
|
5.46 |
|
|
|
3.56 |
|
|
|
1.50 |
|
|
|
0.65 |
|
|
|
0.54 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
April 5, 2011
|
|
|
15.46 |
|
|
|
13.07 |
|
|
|
10.08 |
|
|
|
7.47 |
|
|
|
5.27 |
|
|
|
3.12 |
|
|
|
1.39 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
April 5, 2012
|
|
|
15.37 |
|
|
|
13.19 |
|
|
|
10.00 |
|
|
|
7.42 |
|
|
|
5.24 |
|
|
|
3.11 |
|
|
|
1.39 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
April 5, 2013
|
|
|
15.22 |
|
|
|
13.32 |
|
|
|
9.85 |
|
|
|
7.31 |
|
|
|
5.15 |
|
|
|
3.06 |
|
|
|
1.37 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
April 5, 2014
|
|
|
15.36 |
|
|
|
13.39 |
|
|
|
10.10 |
|
|
|
7.22 |
|
|
|
5.07 |
|
|
|
3.02 |
|
|
|
1.35 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
April 5, 2015
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
|
The exact stock prices and effective dates may not be set forth
in the table above, in which case:
|
|
|
|
|
If the stock price is between two stock price amounts in the
table or the effective date is between two effective dates in
the table, the number of additional shares will be determined by
a straight-line interpolation between the number of additional
shares set forth for the higher and lower stock price amounts
and the two dates, as applicable, based on a 365-day year. |
|
|
|
If the stock price is equal to or in excess of $40.00 per
share (subject to adjustment), no additional shares will be
issued upon conversion. |
|
|
|
If the stock price is less than $10.42 per share (subject
to adjustment), no additional shares will be issued upon
conversion. |
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event will the total number
of shares of common stock issuable upon conversion exceed
95.9693 per $1,000 liquidation preference per share of
preferred stock, subject to adjustments in the same manner of
the conversion rate as set forth under
Adjustments to the Conversion Rate below.
Our obligation to deliver the additional shares could be
considered a penalty under applicable law, in which case the
enforceability thereof would be subject to general principles of
reasonableness of economic remedies.
149
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the case of a public acquirer
fundamental change (as defined below), we may, in lieu of
increasing the conversion rate by additional shares as described
above, elect to adjust the conversion rate and the related
conversion obligation such that, from and after the effective
date of such public acquirer fundamental change, holders of the
preferred stock who elect to convert will be entitled to convert
their preferred stock into a number of shares of public acquirer
common stock (as defined below) that have been registered, or
the resale of which will be registered, under the Securities
Act, by multiplying the conversion rate in effect immediately
before the public acquirer fundamental change by a fraction:
|
|
|
|
|
The numerator of which will be (i) in the case of a
consolidation, merger or binding share exchange, pursuant to
which our common stock is converted into or exchanged for the
right to receive cash, securities or other property, the value
of all cash and any other consideration (as determined by our
board of directors) paid or payable per share of common stock or
(ii) in the case of any other public acquirer fundamental
change, the average of the last closing price of our common
stock for the five consecutive trading days prior to but
excluding the effective date of such public acquirer fundamental
change, and |
|
|
|
The denominator of which will be the average of the last closing
sale prices of the public acquirer common stock for the five
consecutive trading days commencing on the trading day next
succeeding the effective date of such public acquirer
fundamental change. |
A public acquirer fundamental change means any
fundamental change that would otherwise obligate us to increase
the conversion rate as described above where the acquirer has a
class of common stock traded on a national securities exchange
or quoted on the Nasdaq National Market or which will be so
traded or quoted when issued or exchanged in connection with
such fundamental change (the public acquirer common
stock). If an acquirer does not itself have a class of
common stock satisfying the foregoing requirement, it will be
deemed to have public acquirer common stock if a
corporation that directly or indirectly owns at least a majority
of the acquirer, has a class of common stock satisfying the
foregoing requirement and all references to public acquirer
common stock will refer to such class of common stock. Majority
owned for these purposes means having the beneficial
ownership (as defined in Rule 13d-3 under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) of more than 50% of
the total voting power of all shares of the respective
entitys capital stock that are entitled to vote generally
in the election of directors.
Upon our decision to adjust the conversion rate and related
conversion obligation upon a public acquirer fundamental change,
holders may convert their preferred stock at the adjusted
conversion rate described in the preceding paragraph but will
not be entitled to the additional shares as described above. The
registered shares of public acquirer common stock, or the shares
of public acquirer common stock registered for resale, as the
case may be, shall be listed, or approved for listing subject
only to the official notice of issuance, on a national
securities exchange or the Nasdaq National Market.
Adjustments to the Conversion Rate
The conversion rate is subject to adjustment from time to time
if any of the following events occur:
|
|
|
|
|
the issuance of our common stock as a dividend or distribution
on our common stock; |
|
|
|
certain subdivisions and combinations of our common stock; |
|
|
|
the issuance to all holders of our common stock of certain
rights or warrants to purchase our common stock (or securities
convertible into our common stock) at less than (or having a
conversion price per share less than) the current market price
of our common stock, provided that no such adjustment shall be
made for the rights of holders of our common stock to
participate in any dividend reinvestment plan in existence on
the date hereof and made available to all holders of our common
stock or the employee stock purchase plan effective in July
2005, or the purchase of shares pursuant to any such plan; |
|
|
|
the dividend or other distribution to all holders of our common
stock of shares of our capital stock (other than common stock)
or evidences of indebtedness or assets (including securities,
but excluding |
150
|
|
|
|
|
(1) those rights and warrants referred to above or
(2) dividends or distributions paid exclusively in cash); |
|
|
|
In the event that we make a dividend or distribution to all or
substantially all holders of our common stock consisting of
capital stock of, or similar equity interest in, a subsidiary or
other business unit of ours, unless we distribute such capital
stock or equity interests to holders of the preferred stock in
such distribution on the same basis as they would have received
had they converted their shares of preferred stock into shares
of our common stock immediately prior to such distributions, the
conversion rate will be adjusted based on the market value of
the securities so distributed relative to the market value of
our common stock, in each case based on the average closing sale
prices of those securities for the 10 trading days commencing on
and including the fifth trading day after the date on which
ex-dividend trading commences for such dividend or
distribution on the New York Stock Exchange or such other
national or regional exchange or market on which the securities
are then listed or quoted; |
|
|
|
|
|
distributions consisting exclusively of cash to all holders of
shares of our common stock (excluding (1) any dividend or
distribution in connection with our liquidation, dissolution or
winding up and (2) any quarterly cash dividend on our
shares of common stock to the extent that the aggregate cash
dividend per share of our common stock in any quarter does not
exceed $0.04 (such amount being the dividend threshold
amount); if there is a dividend or distribution to which
this bullet point applies, the conversion rate will be adjusted
by multiplying the applicable conversion rate by a fraction, |
|
|
|
|
|
the numerator of which will be the current market price of our
common stock minus the dividend threshold amount; and |
|
|
|
the denominator of which will be the current market price of our
common stock minus the amount per share of such dividend or
distribution; if an adjustment is required to be made as a
result of a distribution that is not a quarterly dividend, the
dividend threshold amount will be deemed to be zero; and |
|
|
|
|
|
we or one of our subsidiaries makes a payment in respect of a
tender offer or exchange offer for our common stock (other than
payments made under our odd-lot stock sales program
in existence on the date hereof) to the extent that the cash and
value of any other consideration included in the payment per
share of common stock exceeds the closing sale price per share
of common stock on the trading day next succeeding the last date
on which tenders or exchanges may be made pursuant to such
tender or exchange offer. |
No adjustment in the conversion rate will be required (except in
the case of the fifth bullet point under
Adjustments to the Conversion Rate)
unless such adjustment would require a change of at least 1% in
the conversion rate then in effect at such time. Any adjustment
that would otherwise be required to be made shall be carried
forward and taken into account in any subsequent adjustment.
Except as stated above, the conversion rate will not be adjusted
for the issuance of our common stock or any securities
convertible into or exchangeable for our common stock or
carrying the right to purchase any of the foregoing.
Trading day means a day during which trading in
securities generally occurs on the New York Stock Exchange or,
if our common stock is not listed on the New York Stock
Exchange, on the principal other national or regional securities
exchange on which our common stock is then listed or, if our
common stock is not listed on a national or regional securities
exchange, on the Nasdaq or, if our common stock is not quoted on
Nasdaq, on the principal other market on which our common stock
is then traded or, if our common stock is not so traded on a
principal other market, on the New York Stock Exchange.
The closing sale price of our common stock or other
capital stock or similar equity interests on any date means the
closing sale price per share (or if no closing sale price is
reported, the average of the closing bid and ask prices or, if
more than one in either case, the average of the average closing
bid and the average closing ask prices) on such date as reported
on the New York Stock Exchange or such other national or
regional exchange or market on which our common stock or such
other capital stock or equity interests are then listed or
quoted. In the absence of such a quotation, we will determine
the closing sale price on the basis we consider
151
appropriate. The closing sale price shall be determined without
reference to any extended or after-hours trading.
Current market price of our common stock on any day
means the average of the closing price per common stock for each
of the ten consecutive trading days ending on the earlier of the
day in question and the day before the ex-date with
respect to the issuance or distribution requiring such
computation. For purposes of this paragraph, ex-date
means the first date on which the shares of common stock trade
on the applicable exchange or in the applicable market, regular
way, without the right to receive such issuance or distribution.
We may adopt a rights agreement following consummation of this
offering, pursuant to which certain rights would be issued with
respect to our shares of common stock. In such event, you would
receive, upon conversion of your preferred stock, in addition to
the common stock, the rights under any such rights agreement or
any other rights plan then in effect unless, prior to
conversion, the rights have expired, terminated or been redeemed
or unless the rights have separated from the common stock. In
the case of such separation, the conversion rate would be
adjusted at the time of separation as if we had distributed to
all holders of our common stock, shares of our capital stock,
evidences of indebtedness or assets as described in the fourth
bullet point under Adjustments to the
Conversion Rate (provided that no such adjustment to the
conversion rate shall be made if at the time of such separation,
(1) we set aside for issuance upon conversion of the
preferred stock a number of rights equal to the rights the
holders of preferred stock would have received if conversion had
occurred immediately prior to such separation and (2) the
rights so set aside are perpetual in duration), subject to
readjustment in the event of the expiration, termination or
redemption of such rights.
In the event of:
|
|
|
|
|
any reclassification of our common stock; |
|
|
|
a consolidation, merger or combination involving us; or |
|
|
|
a sale or conveyance to another person or entity of all or
substantially all of our property and assets; |
in which holders of our common stock would be entitled to
receive stock, other securities, other property, assets or cash
for their common stock, upon conversion of your preferred stock,
you will be entitled to receive the same type of consideration
that you would have been entitled to receive if you had
converted the preferred stock into our common stock immediately
prior to any of these events. However, if we elect to adjust the
conversion rate and the related conversion obligation so that
the preferred stock will be convertible into shares of the
acquiring or surviving company after a public acquirer
fundamental change, then the previous sentence will not be
applicable.
We may not become a party to any such transaction unless its
terms are consistent with the foregoing.
You may in certain situations be deemed to have received a
distribution subject to United States federal income tax as a
dividend in the event of any taxable distribution to holders of
common stock or in certain other situations requiring a
conversion rate adjustment. See Certain United
States Federal Income Tax Considerations.
We may, from time to time, increase the conversion rate if our
board of directors has made a determination that this increase
would be in our best interests. Any such determination by our
board of directors will be conclusive. In addition, we may
increase the conversion rate if our board of directors deems it
advisable to avoid or diminish any income tax to holders of
common stock resulting from any stock or rights distribution.
See Certain United States Federal Income Tax
Considerations.
Mandatory Conversion
At any time on or after April 5, 2010, we may at our option
cause the preferred stock to be automatically converted into
that number of shares of common stock at the then prevailing
conversion rate. We may exercise this right only if the closing
sale price of our common stock equals or exceeds 130% of the
then prevailing conversion price for at least 20 trading days in
a period of 30 consecutive trading days, including the last
152
trading day of such 30-day period, ending on the trading day
prior to our issuance of a press release announcing the
mandatory conversion as described below.
To exercise the mandatory conversion right described above, we
must issue a press release for publication on the Dow Jones News
Service prior to the opening of business on the first trading
day following any date on which the conditions described in the
preceding paragraph are met, announcing such a mandatory
conversion. We will also give notice by mail or by publication
(with subsequent prompt notice by mail) to the holders of the
preferred stock, or cause DTC to send notice to its participants
that own preferred stock (which notice or publication shall be
given not more than four business days after the date of the
press release), of the mandatory conversion announcing our
intention to convert the preferred stock. The conversion date
will be a date selected by us, which we will refer to as the
Mandatory Conversion Date, and will be the earlier of
(1) no more than five days after the date on which we issue
such press release, or (2) the date that such notice is
sent by DTC to its participants that own preferred stock as
described above. In addition to any information required by
applicable law or regulation, the press release and notice of a
mandatory conversion shall state, as appropriate:
|
|
|
|
|
the Mandatory Conversion Date; |
|
|
|
the number of shares of common stock to be issued upon
conversion of each share of preferred stock; |
|
|
|
the number of shares of preferred stock to be converted; and |
|
|
|
that dividends on the preferred stock to be converted will cease
to accrue on the Mandatory Conversion Date. |
On and after the Mandatory Conversion Date, dividends will cease
to accrue on the preferred stock called for a mandatory
conversion and all rights of holders of such preferred stock
will terminate except for the right to receive the shares of
common stock issuable upon conversion thereof. The dividend
payment with respect to the preferred stock called for a
mandatory conversion on a date during the period between the
close of business on any record date for the payment of
dividends to the close of business on the corresponding dividend
payment date will be payable on such dividend payment date to
the record holder of such share on such record date if such
share has been converted after such record date and prior to
such dividend payment date. Except as provided in the
immediately preceding sentence with respect to a mandatory
conversion, no payment or adjustment will be made upon
conversion of preferred stock for accumulated and unpaid
dividends or for dividends with respect to the common stock
issued upon such conversion.
We may not authorize, issue a press release or give notice of
any mandatory conversion unless, prior to giving the conversion
notice, all accumulated and unpaid dividends on the preferred
stock for dividend payment dates ending prior to the date of
such conversion notice shall have been paid in cash.
Limited Optional Redemption
If on or after April 5, 2010, (1) the total number of
shares of preferred stock outstanding is less than 10% of the
total number of shares of the preferred stock outstanding after
this offering and (2) the closing sale price of our common
stock for 20 trading days within a period of 30 consecutive
trading days ending on the trading day before the date that we
give the redemption notice equals or exceeds the conversion
price in effect on each such day, we will have the option to
redeem the shares of outstanding preferred stock, in whole but
not in part, at a redemption price of 100% of the liquidation
preference, plus an amount equal to any accumulated and unpaid
dividends, including liquidated damages, if any, to the
redemption date. If full cumulative dividends on the preferred
stock have not been paid to the most recent quarterly dividend
payment date occurring before notice is given, the preferred
stock may not be redeemed. We will pay the redemption price in
cash.
In the event of an optional redemption pursuant to this
provision, we will (1) send a written notice by first class
mail to each holder of record of the preferred stock at such
holders registered address, not fewer than 10 nor more
than 30 days prior to the redemption date and (2) if
the preferred shares are held by DTC or its nominee, request
that DTC send a copy of such notice to its participants. The
notice will include, among other
153
things, a statement that the holders of preferred stock may
elect to convert their shares into our common stock prior to the
redemption date. In addition, we will (1) publish such
information once in a daily newspaper printed in the English
language and of general circulation in the Borough of Manhattan,
City of New York, (2) issue a press release containing such
information and (3) publish such information on our web
site on the World Wide Web.
If we give notice of redemption, then, by 12:00 p.m., New
York City time, on the redemption date, to the extent funds are
legally available, we shall, with respect to:
|
|
|
|
|
shares of preferred stock held by DTC or its nominees, deposit
or cause to be deposited, irrevocably with DTC, cash sufficient
to pay the redemption price and will give DTC irrevocable
instructions and authority to pay the redemption price to
holders of such shares of preferred stock; and |
|
|
|
shares of preferred stock held in certificated form, deposit or
cause to be deposited, irrevocably with the paying agent, cash
sufficient to pay the redemption price and will give the paying
agent irrevocable instructions and authority to pay the
redemption price to holders of such shares of preferred stock
upon surrender of their certificates evidencing their shares of
preferred stock. |
If on the redemption date DTC and the paying agent hold cash
sufficient to pay the redemption price for the shares of
preferred stock delivered for redemption in accordance with the
terms of the certificate of designations, dividends will cease
to accumulate on all outstanding shares of preferred stock and
all rights of holders of such shares will terminate except for
the right to receive the redemption price.
Payment of the redemption price for the shares of preferred
stock is conditioned upon book-entry transfer of or physical
delivery of certificates representing the preferred stock,
together with necessary endorsements, to the paying agent, or to
the paying agents account at DTC, at any time after
delivery of the redemption notice. Payment of the redemption
price for the preferred stock will be made (1) if
book-entry transfer of or physical delivery of the preferred
stock has been made by or on the redemption date, on the
redemption date, or (2) if book-entry transfer of or
physical delivery of the preferred stock has not been made by or
on such date, at the time of book-entry transfer of or physical
delivery of the preferred stock.
If the redemption date falls after a dividend payment record
date and before the related dividend payment date, holders of
the shares of preferred stock at the close of business on that
dividend payment record date will be entitled to receive the
dividend payable on those shares on the corresponding dividend
payment date. The redemption price payable on such redemption
date will include only the liquidation preference, but will not
include any amount in respect of dividends declared and payable
on such corresponding dividend payment date.
Voting Rights
Holders of shares of preferred stock will not have any voting
rights except as described below or as otherwise required from
time to time by law. Whenever (1) dividends on any shares
of preferred stock or any other class or series of stock ranking
on a parity with the preferred stock with respect to the payment
of dividends shall be in arrears for dividend periods, whether
or not consecutive, containing in the aggregate a number of days
equivalent to six calendar quarters or (2) we fail to pay
the redemption price on the date shares of preferred stock are
called for redemption (whether the redemption is pursuant to the
optional redemption provisions or the redemption is in
connection with a fundamental change) then, immediately prior to
the next annual meeting of shareholders, the total number of
directors constituting the entire board will automatically be
increased by two and, in each case, the holders of shares of
preferred stock (voting separately as a class with all other
series of other preferred stock on parity with the preferred
stock upon which like voting rights have been conferred and are
exercisable) will be entitled to vote for the election of two of
the authorized number of our directors at the next annual
meeting of stockholders and each subsequent meeting until the
redemption price or all accumulated and unpaid dividends on the
preferred stock to the most recent quarterly dividend payment
date have been fully paid or set aside for payment. The
directors elected by the holders of the preferred stock shall
not be divided into the classes of the board of directors and
the term of office of all such directors will terminate
immediately upon the termination of the right of the holders of
preferred stock to
154
vote for directors and upon such termination the total number of
directors constituting the entire board will automatically be
reduced by two. Each holder of shares of the preferred stock
will have one vote for each share of preferred stock held. At
any time after the power to elect directors becomes vested and
continuing in the holders of shares of preferred stock, or if a
vacancy exists in the office of the directors elected by the
holders of the preferred stock, the board may, and upon the
written request of the holders of record of at least 25% of the
outstanding preferred stock shall, call a special meeting of the
holders of the preferred stock (voting separately as a class
with all other series of stock ranking on a parity with the
preferred stock) for the purpose of electing those directors.
So long as any shares of the preferred stock remain outstanding,
we will not, without the consent of the holders of at least
two-thirds of the shares of preferred stock outstanding at the
time, voting separately as a class with all other series of
preferred stock upon which like voting rights have been
conferred and are exercisable issue or increase the authorized
amount of any class or series of stock ranking senior to the
outstanding preferred stock as to dividends or upon liquidation.
In addition, we will not amend, alter or repeal provisions of
our amended and restated certificate of incorporation or of the
resolutions contained in the certificate of designations,
whether by merger, consolidation or otherwise, so as to amend,
alter or adversely affect any power, preference or special right
of the outstanding preferred stock or the holders thereof
without the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of the
issued and outstanding preferred stock voting separately as a
class with all other series of preferred stock upon which like
voting rights have been conferred and are exercisable; provided,
however, that any increase in the amount of the authorized
common stock or authorized preferred stock or the creation and
issuance of other series of common stock or preferred stock
ranking on a parity with or junior to the preferred stock as to
dividends and upon liquidation will not be deemed to adversely
affect such powers, preference or special rights.
Liquidation Preference
Upon any voluntary or involuntary liquidation, dissolution or
winding up of our company resulting in a distribution of assets
to the holders of any class or series of our capital stock, each
holder of shares of preferred stock will be entitled to payment
out of our assets available for distribution to stockholders of
an amount equal to the liquidation preference per share of
preferred stock held by that holder, plus an amount equal to all
accumulated and unpaid dividends, including liquidated damages,
if any, on those shares to the date of that liquidation,
dissolution, or winding up, before any distribution is made on
any junior stock, including our common stock, but after any
distributions on any of our indebtedness and senior stock. After
payment in full of the liquidation preference and an amount
equal to all accumulated and unpaid dividends, including
liquidated damages, if any, to which holders of shares of
preferred stock are entitled, holders will not be entitled to
any further participation in any distribution of our assets. If,
upon any voluntary or involuntary liquidation, dissolution or
winding up of our company, the amounts payable with respect to
shares of preferred stock and all other parity stock are not
paid in full, holders of shares of preferred stock and holders
of the parity stock will share equally and ratably in any
distribution of our assets in proportion to the liquidation
preference and all accumulated and unpaid dividends, including
liquidated damages, if any, to which each such holder is
entitled.
Neither the voluntary sale, conveyance, exchange or transfer,
for cash, shares of stock, securities or other consideration, of
all or substantially all of our property or assets nor the
consolidation, merger or amalgamation of our company with or
into any corporation or the consolidation, merger or
amalgamation of any corporation with or into our company will be
deemed to be a voluntary or involuntary liquidation, dissolution
or winding up of our company.
We are not required to set aside any funds to protect the
liquidation preference of the shares of preferred stock,
although the liquidation preference will be substantially in
excess of the par value of the shares of the preferred stock.
155
Transfer Agent, Paying Agent, Conversion Agent and
Registrar
The transfer agent, paying agent, conversion agent and registrar
for the preferred stock is EquiServe Trust Company, N.A.
Book-Entry, Delivery and Form
The Depository Trust Company, or DTC, will act as securities
depositary for the preferred stock. The shares of preferred
stock are issued only as fully-registered securities registered
in the name of Cede & Co., the depositarys
nominee. One or more fully-registered global security
certificates, representing the total aggregate number of shares
of preferred stock, will be issued and deposited with the
depositary.
The laws of some jurisdictions require that some purchasers of
securities take physical delivery of securities in definitive
form. Those laws may impair the ability to transfer beneficial
interests in shares of preferred stock so long as shares of
preferred stock are represented by global security certificates.
The depositary is a limited-purpose trust company organized
under the New York Banking Law, a banking
organization within the meaning of the New York Banking
Law, a member of the Federal Reserve System, a clearing
corporation within the meaning of the New York Uniform
Commercial Code and a clearing agency registered
pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The depositary holds securities that its participants deposit
with the depositary. The depositary also facilitates the
settlement among participants of securities transactions,
including transfers and pledges, in deposited securities through
electronic computerized book-entry changes in participants
accounts, thus eliminating the need for physical movement of
securities certificates. Direct participants include securities
brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing
corporations and certain other organizations. The depositary is
owned by a number of its direct participants and by the New York
Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, Inc. and the
National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., collectively
referred to as participants. Access to the depositary system is
also available to others, including securities brokers and
dealers, bank and trust companies that clear transactions
through or maintain a direct or indirect custodial relationship
with a direct participant, collectively referred to as indirect
participants. The rules applicable to the depositary and its
participants are on file with the SEC.
We will issue shares of preferred stock in definitive
certificated form if the depositary notifies us that it is
unwilling or unable to continue as depositary or the depositary
ceases to be a clearing agency registered under the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and a
successor depositary is not appointed by us within 90 days.
In addition, beneficial interests in a global security
certificate may be exchanged for physical certificates upon
request by or on behalf of the depositary in accordance with
customary procedures. The certificate of designations permits us
to determine at any time and in our sole discretion that shares
of preferred stock shall no longer be represented by global
security certificates. The depositary has advised us that, under
its current practices, it would notify its participants of our
request, but will only withdraw beneficial interests from the
global security certificate at the request of each depositary
participant. We would issue physical certificates in exchange
for any such beneficial interests withdrawn.
As long as the depositary or its nominee is the registered owner
of the global security certificates, the depositary or that
nominee will be considered the sole owner and holder of the
global security certificates and all of the shares of preferred
stock represented by those certificates for all purposes under
the preferred stock. All payments on the shares of preferred
stock represented by the global security certificates and all
related transfers and deliveries of common stock will be made to
the depositary or its nominee as their holder.
Ownership of beneficial interests in the global security
certificates will be limited to participants or persons that may
hold beneficial interests through institutions that have
accounts with the depositary or its nominee. Ownership of
beneficial interests in global security certificates will be
shown only on, and the transfer of those ownership interests
will be effected only through, records maintained by the
depositary or its nominee with respect to participants
interests or by the participant with respect to interests of
persons held by the participants on their behalf.
156
Procedures for conversion will be governed by arrangements among
the depositary, participants and persons that may hold
beneficial interests through participants designed to permit the
settlement without the physical movement of certificates.
Payments, transfers, deliveries, exchanges and other matters
relating to beneficial interests in global security certificates
may be subject to various policies and procedures adopted by the
depositary from time to time.
Neither we nor any of our agents will have any responsibility or
liability for any aspect of the depositarys or any
participants records relating to, or for payments made on
account of, beneficial interests in global security
certificates, or for maintaining, supervising or reviewing any
of the depositarys records or any participants
records relating to those beneficial ownership interests.
Replacement of Preferred Stock Certificates
If physical certificates are issued, we will replace any
mutilated certificate at your expense upon surrender of that
certificate to the transfer agent. We will replace certificates
that become destroyed or lost at your expense upon delivery to
us and the transfer agent of satisfactory evidence that the
certificate has been destroyed or lost, together with any
indemnity that may be required by the transfer agent and us.
We, however, are not required to issue any certificates
representing shares of preferred stock on or after the
applicable conversion date. In place of the delivery of a
replacement certificate following the applicable conversion
date, the transfer agent, upon delivery of the evidence and
indemnity described above, will deliver the shares of our common
stock issuable pursuant to the terms of the preferred stock
formerly evidenced by the certificate.
Registration Rights
On April 15, 2005, we entered into a registration rights
agreement with the initial purchasers pursuant to which we
agreed to, at our expense, for the benefit of the holders, file
with the SEC a shelf registration statement covering resale of
the preferred stock and the common stock issuable upon
conversion of the preferred stock within 130 days after the
date of original issuance of the preferred stock. The
registration statement of which this prospectus is a part is
filed pursuant to our obligations under the registration rights
agreement. We have agreed to use our reasonable best efforts to
cause the shelf registration statement to become effective
within 210 days of such date of original issuance of the
preferred stock, and to keep the shelf registration statement
effective until the earlier of (1) the sale pursuant to
Rule 144 under the Securities Act or the shelf registration
statement of all the securities registered thereunder, and
(2) the expiration of the holding period (currently two
years from the initial purchase date) applicable to such
securities held by persons that are not affiliates of ours under
Rule 144(k) under the Securities Act or any successor
provision, subject to permitted exceptions.
We may suspend the use of the prospectus under certain
circumstances relating to pending corporate developments, public
filings with the SEC and similar events. Any suspension period
shall not:
|
|
|
|
|
exceed 30 days in any three-month period; or |
|
|
|
exceed an aggregate of 90 days for all periods in any
12-month period. |
We will pay predetermined liquidated damages as described herein
to holders of transfer restricted preferred stock and to holders
of transfer restricted common stock issued upon conversion of
such preferred stock, if this registration statement is not
declared effective or if the prospectus is unavailable for the
periods in excess of those permitted above. Such liquidated
damages payments shall accumulate until such failure to file or
become effective or unavailability is cured:
|
|
|
|
|
on the preferred stock at an annual rate equal 0.50% of the
aggregate liquidation preference of preferred stock; and |
|
|
|
on the common stock, if any, that have been issued on conversion
of the preferred stock, at an annual rate equal to 0.50% of an
amount equal to the conversion price. |
157
So long as the failure to become effective or unavailability
continues, we will make liquidated damages payments in cash on
each dividend payment date for the preferred stock to the holder
of record of such transfer restricted preferred stock or common
stock on the record date immediately preceding the applicable
dividend payment date. When such registration default is cured,
accumulated and unpaid liquidated damages payments will be paid
in cash to the record holder as of the date of such cure.
A holder who sells preferred stock or our common stock issued
upon conversion of the preferred stock pursuant to the shelf
registration statement generally will be required to:
|
|
|
|
|
be named as a selling security holder in this prospectus or an
amendment or supplement thereto; |
|
|
|
deliver a prospectus to purchasers; and |
|
|
|
be bound by certain provisions of the registration rights
agreement that are applicable to such holder, including certain
indemnification provisions, and will be subject to certain civil
liability provisions under the Securities Act. |
Under the registration rights agreement we will:
|
|
|
|
|
pay all of our expenses of the shelf registration statement of
which this prospectus is a part; |
|
|
|
provide copies of the prospectus to each holder that has
notified us of its acquisition of preferred stock or common
stock issued upon conversion of the preferred stock; |
|
|
|
notify each such holder when the shelf registration statement of
which this prospectus is a part has become effective as
described below; and |
|
|
|
take certain other actions as are required to permit, subject to
the foregoing, unrestricted resales of the preferred stock and
the common stock issued upon conversion of the preferred stock. |
We agreed in the registration rights agreement to give notice to
all holders of the filing and effectiveness of the shelf
registration statement by release made to Reuters Economic
Services and Bloomberg Business News or other reasonable means
of distribution. We attached to the offering memorandum used in
the private placement of the preferred stock, a form of notice
and questionnaire (the questionnaire) to be
completed and delivered by a holder to us at least three
business days prior to any intended distribution of preferred
stock or our common stock issuable upon conversion of the
preferred stock pursuant to the shelf registration statement.
Holders are required to complete and deliver the questionnaire
at least ten business days prior to the effectiveness of this
shelf registration statement in order to be named as a selling
security holder in this prospectus at the time of effectiveness.
Upon receipt of a completed questionnaire after that time,
together with such other information as we may reasonably
request from a holder, we will, within ten business days after
receipt of such questionnaire and information, file such
amendments to the shelf registration statement of which this
prospectus is a part or supplements to such prospectus as are
necessary to permit such holder to deliver such prospectus to
purchasers of preferred stock or common stock issuable upon
conversion of the preferred stock, subject to our right to
suspend the use of the prospectus as described above; provided,
however, that if we are required by law to file a post-effective
amendment to add a selling security holder, we will not be
obligated to file more than one such post-effective amendment,
solely in order to add additional selling security holders, for
all holders during any three-month period. We will pay the
liquidated damages payments described above to the holder if we
fail to make the filing in the time required or, if such filing
is a post-effective amendment to the shelf registration
statement required to be declared effective under the Securities
Act, if such amendment is not declared effective within
45 days of the filing. Any holder that does not complete
and deliver a questionnaire or provide such other information
will not be named as a selling security holder in this
prospectus and therefore will not be permitted to sell the
preferred stock or common stock issuable upon conversion of the
preferred stock pursuant to the shelf registration statement.
The summary herein of certain provisions of the registration
rights agreement is subject to, and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to, all the provisions of the registration rights
agreement, a copy of which is available from us upon request.
158
DESCRIPTION OF EL PASO CAPITAL STOCK
General
As of August 19, 2005, there were 659,367,168 shares
of our common stock issued and outstanding and
750,000 shares of our preferred stock issued and
outstanding. The statements under this caption are brief
summaries and are subject to, and are qualified in their
entirety by reference to, the more complete descriptions
contained in our Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation, which we refer to as our charter.
Common Stock
We are currently authorized by our Charter to issue up to
1,500,000,000 shares of common stock. The holders of common
stock are entitled to one vote for each share held of record on
all matters submitted to a vote of stockholders. Holders of
common stock do not have the right to cumulate votes in the
election of directors. Subject to preferences that may be
applicable to any outstanding preferred stock, holders of common
stock are entitled to receive ratably dividends which are
declared by our board of directors out of funds legally
available for such a purpose. In the event of our liquidation,
dissolution, or winding up, holders of common stock are entitled
to share ratably in all assets remaining after payment of
liabilities and liquidation preference of any outstanding
preferred stock. Holders of common stock have no preemptive
rights and have no rights to convert their common stock into any
other securities. The common stock is not redeemable. All of the
outstanding shares of common stock are fully paid and
nonassessable upon issuance against full payment of the purchase
price.
EquiServe Trust Company, N.A. is the transfer agent and
registrar for our common stock.
Preferred Stock
Our board of directors, without any further action by our
stockholders, is authorized to issue up to
50,000,000 shares of preferred stock, and to divide the
preferred stock into one or more series. The Board may fix by
resolution or resolutions any of the designations and the
powers, preferences and rights, and the qualifications,
limitations, or restrictions which are permitted by the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware of the shares of each
such series. Preferred stock, upon issuance against full payment
of the purchase price therefor, will be fully paid and
nonassessable. The issuance of preferred stock may have the
effect of delaying, deterring or preventing a change in control
of El Paso. The specific terms of a particular series of
preferred stock will be described in the certificate of
designation relating to that series. The designations, powers,
preferences and rights, and the qualifications, limitations, or
restrictions of the preferred stock will vary depending on the
series, therefore reference to the certificate of designation
relating to that particular series of preferred stock should be
made for a complete description of terms.
As of the date of this prospectus, a total of
750,000 shares of our preferred stock is issued and
outstanding.
Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law
We are a Delaware corporation subject to Section 203 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law. Generally, Section 203
prohibits a publicly held Delaware corporation from engaging in
a business combination with an interested
stockholder for a period of three years after the time of
the transaction in which the person became an interested
stockholder, unless (1) prior to such time, either the
business combination or such transaction which resulted in the
stockholder becoming an interested stockholder is approved by
the board of directors of the corporation, (2) upon
consummation of the transaction which resulted in the
stockholder becoming an interested stockholder, the interested
stockholder owns at least 85% of the outstanding voting stock,
or (3) at or subsequent to such time, the business
combination is approved by the board of directors of the
corporation and by the affirmative vote at least
662/3%
of the outstanding voting stock that is not owned by the
interested stockholder. A business combination
includes mergers, asset sales and other transactions resulting
in a financial benefit to the interested stockholder. An
interested
159
stockholder is a person who, together with affiliates and
associates, owns, or, within three years, did own, 15% or more
of the corporations outstanding voting stock.
El Pasos Restated Certificate of Incorporation and
By-laws
The following provisions in our charter or by-laws may make a
takeover of El Paso more difficult:
|
|
|
|
|
our charter prohibits the taking of any action by written
stockholder consent in lieu of a meeting; |
|
|
|
our by-laws provide that special meetings of stockholders may be
called only by a majority of the Board, the Chairman of the
Board, the Chief Executive Officer, the President or the Vice
Chairman of the Board; and |
|
|
|
our by-laws establish an advance notice procedure for
stockholders to make nominations of candidates for election as
directors or to bring other business before an annual meeting of
stockholders. |
SELLING STOCKHOLDERS
Information about the selling stockholders may change over time.
Any changed information will be set forth in a post-effective
amendment or, if permissible, a prospectus supplement to the
extent we are advised of such changes. From time to time,
additional information concerning ownership of the shares may
rest with certain holders thereof not named in the table below
and of whom we are unaware. All information in the following
tables and related footnotes has been supplied to us by the
selling stockholders, and we have relied on their
representations.
The following table and accompanying notes set forth certain
information provided to us by the selling stockholders. Under
this prospectus, the selling stockholders and any of their
respective transferees, assignees, donees, distributees,
pledgees, or other successors-in-interest may offer and sell
from time to time up to an aggregate of 750,000 shares of
preferred stock, or 57,581,550 shares of our common stock
issuable upon conversion of the preferred stock. The shares
listed below are being registered to permit public sales of
these securities by the selling stockholders, and the selling
stockholders may offer all, some or none of their securities.
The number of shares of preferred stock and common stock that
may be actually purchased by certain selling stockholders and
the number of shares of preferred stock and common stock that
may be actually sold by each selling stockholder will be
determined by such selling stockholder. Because certain selling
stockholders may purchase all, some or none of the shares of
preferred stock or common stock that can be purchased upon
conversion of the preferred stock and each selling stockholder
may sell all, some or none of the shares of preferred stock and
common stock that each holds, and because the offering
contemplated by this prospectus is not currently being
underwritten, no estimate can be given as to the number of
shares of preferred stock and common stock that will be held by
the selling stockholders upon termination of the offering. In
addition, the selling stockholders listed below may have
acquired, sold or transferred, in transactions exempt from the
registration requirements of the Securities Act, some or all of
their shares of preferred stock and common stock since the date
as of which the information in the tables is presented.
The following table sets forth information regarding the
beneficial ownership of shares of common stock by the selling
stockholders as of the date of this prospectus, and the number
of shares of preferred stock and common stock covered by this
prospectus. Except as otherwise noted below, none of the selling
stockholders has held any position or office, or has had any
other material relationship with us or any of our affiliates
within the past three years.
The information set forth in the following table regarding the
beneficial ownership after resale of shares is based on the
assumption that each selling stockholder will sell all of the
shares of preferred stock and common stock owned by the selling
stockholder and covered by the prospectus. If all of the shares
of our preferred stock
160
and common stock listed below are sold pursuant to this
prospectus, then the selling stockholders will sell 750,000
shares of Preferred Stock, or 57,581,550 shares of our common
stock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities Offered by | |
|
|
|
|
Ownership Before Closing | |
|
this Prospectus | |
|
Ownership After Offering | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Name |
|
Preferred | |
|
Common | |
|
Preferred | |
|
Common | |
|
Preferred | |
|
Common | |
|
% of Common(1) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
ADAR Investment Fund Ltd.
|
|
|
36,000 |
|
|
|
2,763,914 |
|
|
|
36,000 |
|
|
|
2,763,914 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
AG Domestic Convertibles, LP
|
|
|
5,600 |
|
|
|
478,242 |
|
|
|
5,600 |
|
|
|
429,942 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
48,300 |
|
|
|
* |
|
AG Offshore Convertibles, Ltd.
|
|
|
10,400 |
|
|
|
888,164 |
|
|
|
10,400 |
|
|
|
798,464 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
89,700 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Alpine Associates
|
|
|
2,502 |
|
|
|
192,092 |
|
|
|
2,502 |
|
|
|
192,092 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Alpine Partners, L.P.
|
|
|
345 |
|
|
|
26,488 |
|
|
|
345 |
|
|
|
26,488 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
|
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
|
153,551 |
|
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
|
153,551 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Clinton Multistrategy Master Fund, Ltd.
|
|
|
1,950 |
|
|
|
149,712 |
|
|
|
1,950 |
|
|
|
149,712 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
DBAG London
|
|
|
50,625 |
|
|
|
3,886,795 |
|
|
|
50,625 |
|
|
|
3,886,755 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Franklin Income Fund
|
|
|
215,000 |
|
|
|
16,506,711 |
|
|
|
215,000 |
|
|
|
16,506,711 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
FTVIP Franklin Income Securities Fund
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
1,535,508 |
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
1,535,508 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
FIST Convertible Securities Fund
|
|
|
12,000 |
|
|
|
921,304 |
|
|
|
12,000 |
|
|
|
921,304 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
FTIF Franklin Income Fund
|
|
|
13,000 |
|
|
|
998,080 |
|
|
|
13,000 |
|
|
|
998,080 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
FrontPoint Convertible Arbitrage Fund, LP
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
76,775 |
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
76,775 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Institutional Benchmark Management Fund c/o Quattro Fund
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
19,194 |
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
19,194 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Kamunting Street Master Fund, Ltd.
|
|
|
15,500 |
|
|
|
190,019 |
|
|
|
15,500 |
|
|
|
1,190,019 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
LDG Limited
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
7,370 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
7,370 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Mohican VCA Master Fund, Ltd.
|
|
|
1,180 |
|
|
|
90,595 |
|
|
|
1,180 |
|
|
|
90,595 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
MSS Convertible Arbitrage 1
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
5,028 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
2,610 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
2,418 |
|
|
|
|
|
Newport Alternative Income Fund
|
|
|
520 |
|
|
|
39,923 |
|
|
|
520 |
|
|
|
39,923 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Partners Group c/o Quattro Fund
|
|
|
750 |
|
|
|
57,582 |
|
|
|
750 |
|
|
|
57,582 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Pebble Limited Partnership
|
|
|
280 |
|
|
|
21,497 |
|
|
|
280 |
|
|
|
21,497 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Quattro Fund Ltd
|
|
|
3,750 |
|
|
|
287,908 |
|
|
|
3,750 |
|
|
|
287,908 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Quattro Multistrategy Masterfund LP
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
19,194 |
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
19,194 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
RCG Latitude Master Fund, Ltd.
|
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
|
115,163 |
|
|
|
1,500 |
|
|
|
115,163 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
RGC Multi-Strategy Master Fund, Ltd
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
76,775 |
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
76,775 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Ritchie Convertible Arbitrage Trading
|
|
|
820 |
|
|
|
62,956 |
|
|
|
820 |
|
|
|
62,956 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Sage Capital Management, LLC
|
|
|
3,500 |
|
|
|
268,714 |
|
|
|
3,500 |
|
|
|
268,714 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Sphinx Fund
|
|
|
398 |
|
|
|
70,458 |
|
|
|
398 |
|
|
|
30,557 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
39,901 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Sphinx Convertible Arbitrage (Clinton) Segregated Portfolio
|
|
|
550 |
|
|
|
42,226 |
|
|
|
550 |
|
|
|
42,226 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Tribeca Global Convertible Investments Ltd.
|
|
|
3,500 |
|
|
|
317,314 |
|
|
|
3500 |
|
|
|
268,714 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
48,600 |
|
|
|
* |
|
TQA Master Plus Fund, Ltd.
|
|
|
3,760 |
|
|
|
725,537 |
|
|
|
3,760 |
|
|
|
288,676 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
436,861 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Silvercreek Limited Partnership
|
|
|
1,600 |
|
|
|
122,841 |
|
|
|
1,600 |
|
|
|
122,841 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Silvercreek II Limited
|
|
|
1,600 |
|
|
|
122,841 |
|
|
|
1,600 |
|
|
|
122,841 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
TQA Master Fund, Ltd.
|
|
|
2,335 |
|
|
|
506,232 |
|
|
|
2,335 |
|
|
|
179,271 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
326,961 |
|
|
|
* |
|
Xavex-Convertible Arbitrage 7 c/o TQA
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
38,635 |
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
11,516 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
27,119 |
|
|
|
* |
|
ZLP Master Fund, Ltd.
|
|
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
1,919,385 |
|
|
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
1,919,385 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Zurich Institutional Benchmark Master c/o TQA
|
|
|
557 |
|
|
|
99,205 |
|
|
|
557 |
|
|
|
42,764 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
56,441 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
(1) |
Based on 659,367,168 shares of common stock outstanding as
of August 19, 2005. |
161
PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION
We are registering a total of 750,000 shares of our
preferred stock, and 57,581,550 shares of our common stock
issuable upon conversion of the preferred stock. We will not
receive any of the proceeds from the sale by the selling
stockholders of the shares of the preferred stock or common
stock. A selling stockholder is a person named in the section of
this prospectus entitled Selling Stockholders and
also includes any donee, pledgee, transferee, or other
successor-in-interest selling shares of our preferred stock or
common stock received after the date of this prospectus from a
selling stockholder as a gift, pledge, partnership distribution,
or other non-sale related transfer.
We will bear all costs, fees and expenses in connection to our
obligation to register the shares of the preferred stock and
common stock offered by this prospectus. If the shares of
preferred stock or common stock are sold through broker-dealers
or agents, the selling stockholders will be responsible for any
compensation to such broker-dealers or agents.
The selling stockholders may pledge or grant a security interest
in some or all of the shares of preferred stock or common stock
owned by them and, if they default in the performance of their
secured obligations, the pledgees or secured parties may offer
and sell the shares of preferred stock or common stock from time
to time pursuant to this prospectus. The selling stockholders
also may transfer and donate the shares of preferred stock or
common stock in other circumstances in which case the
transferees, donees, pledgees or other successors-in-interest
will be the selling beneficial owners for purpose of this
prospectus.
The selling stockholders will sell their shares of preferred
stock and common stock subject to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
all or a portion of the shares of preferred stock or common
stock beneficially owned by selling stockholders or their
respective pledgees, donees, transferees or
successors-in-interest, may be sold on any national securities
exchange or quotation service on which the shares of preferred
stock or common stock may be listed or quoted at the time of
sale, in the over-the counter market, in privately negotiated
transactions, through the writing of options, whether such
options are listed on an options exchange or otherwise, short
sales or in combination of such transactions; |
|
|
|
each sale may be made at market prices prevailing at the time of
such sale, at negotiated prices, at fixed prices, or at varying
prices determined at the time of sale; and |
|
|
|
some or all of the shares of preferred stock or common stock may
be sold through one or more broker-dealers or agents and may
involve crosses, block transactions in which the broker-dealer
will attempt to sell shares as agent but may position and resell
a portion of the block as principal to facilitate the
transaction, or hedging transactions. The selling stockholders
may enter into hedging transactions with broker-dealers or
agents, which may in turn engage in short sales of preferred
stock and common stock in the course of hedging in positions
they assume. The selling stockholders may also sell shares of
preferred stock and common stock short and deliver shares of
preferred stock and common stock to close out short positions,
or loan pledge shares of preferred stock and common stock to
broker-dealers or agents that in turn may sell such shares. |
In connection with such sales through one or more broker-dealers
or agents, such broker-dealers or agents may receive
compensation in the form of discounts, concessions or
commissions from the selling stockholders and receive
commissions from the purchasers of the shares of preferred stock
or common stock for whom they act as broker-agent or to whom
they sell as principal (which discounts, concessions or
commissions as to particular broker-dealers or agents may be
excess of those customary in the types of transactions involved).
The selling stockholders and any broker-dealer participating in
the distribution of the shares of preferred stock and common
stock may be deemed to be underwriters within the
meaning of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and any
profits realized by the selling stockholder, and commissions
paid, or any discounts or concessions allowed to any
broker-dealer may be deemed to be underwriting commissions or
discounts under the Securities Act of 1933. If the selling
stockholders were deemed to be underwriters, the selling
stockholders could be subject to certain statutory liabilities
under the federal securities laws, including under
162
Sections 11, 12 and 17 of the Securities Act and
Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act. In addition, any shares
of preferred stock and common stock covered by this prospectus
that qualify for sale pursuant to Rule 144 may be sold
under Rule 144 rather than pursuant to this prospectus.
The aggregate proceeds to the selling stockholders from the sale
of the offered securities offered by them will be the purchase
price of such preferred stock or common stock less discounts and
commissions, if any, payable by them. Each of the selling
stockholders reserves the right to accept and, together with
their broker-dealers or agents from time to time, to reject, in
whole or in part, any proposed purchase of the offered
securities to be made directly or through broker-dealers or
agents. We will not receive any of the proceeds from the
offering of the offered securities.
If required at the time a particular offering of the shares of
preferred stock and common stock is made, a prospectus
supplement or, if appropriate, a post-effective amendment to the
registration statement of which this prospectus is a part, will
be distributed which will set forth the aggregate amount of
shares of preferred stock and common stock being offered and the
terms of the offering, including the name or names of any
broker-dealers or agents, any discounts, commissions and other
terms constituting compensation from the selling stockholder and
any discounts, commissions or concessions allowed or reallowed
or paid to broker-dealers.
Under the securities laws of some states, the shares of
preferred stock and common stock may be sold in such states only
through registered or licensed brokers or dealers. In addition,
in some states the shares of preferred stock and common stock
may not be sold unless such shares have been registered or
qualified for sale in such state or an exemption from
registration or qualification is available and is complied with.
There can be no assurance that any selling stockholder will sell
any or all of the shares of preferred stock or common stock
registered pursuant to the registration statement of which this
prospectus forms a part.
The selling stockholders and any other person participating in
such distribution will be subject to applicable provisions of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules
and regulations thereunder, including, without limitation,
Regulation M of the Exchange Act, which may limit the
timing of purchases and sales of any of the shares of preferred
stock and common stock by the selling stockholders and
participating person. Regulation M may also restrict the
ability of any person engaged in the distribution of the shares
of preferred stock and common stock to engage in market-making
activities with respect to the shares of preferred stock and
common stock. All of the foregoing may affect the marketability
of the shares of preferred stock and common stock and the
ability of any person or entity to engage in market-making
activities with respect to the shares of preferred stock and
common stock.
In that regard, the selling stockholders are required to
acknowledge that they understand their obligations to comply
with the provisions of the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder
relating to stock manipulation, particularly Regulation M
thereunder (or any successor rules or regulations), in
connection with the offering made by this prospectus. Each
selling stockholder is required to agree that neither it nor any
person acting on its behalf will engage in any transaction in
violation of such provisions.
Pursuant to the registration rights agreements described below
under Description of the Preferred Stock
Registration Rights, we and the selling stockholders have
agreed, subject to exceptions, to indemnify each other against
specified liabilities, including liabilities under the
Securities Act, and may be entitled to contribution from each
other in respect of those liabilities. Once sold under this
registration statement, of which this prospectus forms a part,
the shares of preferred stock and common stock will be freely
tradable in the hands of persons other than affiliates.
The preferred stock issued in the initial private placement are
eligible for trading in the
Portalsm
Market of the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. The preferred stock sold
using this prospectus, however, will no longer be eligible for
trading in the
Portalsm
Market of the Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. We do not intend to list
the preferred stock on any national securities exchange or
automated quotation system.
163
CERTAIN UNITED STATES FEDERAL INCOME TAX CONSIDERATIONS
The following is a general discussion of certain United States
federal income tax considerations relating to the ownership of
the preferred stock (and any common stock received upon
conversion thereof). This discussion is based upon provisions of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, Treasury
regulations promulgated thereunder, and administrative and
judicial interpretations thereof as of the date hereof all of
which are subject to change, possibly with retroactive effect.
This discussion does not address all of the tax considerations
that may be relevant to specific holders in light of their
particular circumstances or to holders that may be subject to
special treatment under United States federal income tax laws,
including, for example, pass-through entities, banks or
financial institutions, broker-dealers, insurance companies,
tax-exempt entities, regulated investment companies, common
trust funds, pension plans, controlled foreign corporations,
passive foreign investment companies, certain United States
expatriates, dealers and certain traders in securities or
currencies, holders that have a functional currency other than
the United States dollar, holders subject to the alternative
minimum tax, and holders that acquire our preferred stock (or
common stock received upon conversion thereof) as part of a
straddle, hedge, constructive sale, conversion transaction, or
other integrated investment. This discussion is limited to the
tax considerations of holders who hold the preferred stock (or
common stock received upon conversion thereof) as capital
assets. In addition, this discussion does not address United
States estate tax consequences or any tax considerations arising
under the laws of any state, local or non-United States
jurisdiction.
As used in this discussion, a U.S. holder is a
beneficial owner of preferred stock (or common stock received
upon conversion thereof) that is, for United States federal
income tax purposes:
|
|
|
|
|
an individual citizen or resident of the United States; |
|
|
|
a corporation, or other entity taxable as a corporation, created
or organized in or under the laws of the United States, any
state thereof or the District of Columbia; |
|
|
|
an estate the income of which is subject to United States
federal income tax regardless of source thereof; or |
|
|
|
a trust with respect to which a court within the United States
is able to exercise primary supervision over its administration
and one or more United States persons have the authority to
control all of its substantial decisions, or that has in effect
a valid election under applicable Treasury regulations to be
treated as a United States person. |
A non-U.S. holder is a beneficial owner (other
than a partnership) of preferred stock (or common stock received
upon conversion thereof) that is not a U.S. holder.
If a partnership or other entity or arrangement treated as a
partnership for United States federal income tax purposes holds
preferred stock (or common stock received upon conversion
thereof), the tax treatment of a partner will generally depend
upon the status of the partner and upon the activities of the
partnership.
You are urged to consult your own tax advisor regarding the
United States federal, state, local and foreign tax consequences
of the acquisition, ownership, conversion and disposition of
preferred stock (and common stock received upon conversion
thereof).
U.S. Holders
The amount of any distribution to a U.S. holder with
respect to preferred stock (or common stock received upon
conversion thereof) will be treated as a dividend to the extent
paid out of our current or accumulated earnings and profits, as
calculated for United States federal income tax purposes. If the
distribution is a dividend, it may be taxable as ordinary income
or, if a U.S. holder is an individual, trust or estate, as
qualified dividend income, which is taxed at
preferential rates. One of the requirements for a dividend to
qualify as qualified dividend income is that, in the
case of dividends on preferred stock
164
attributable to periods in excess of 366 days, the
U.S. holder must have owned the stock for more than
90 days during the 181-day period beginning on the date
before the ex-dividend date and, in the case of other dividends
on preferred stock and dividends on common stock, the
U.S. holder must have owned the stock for more than
60 days during the 121-day period beginning on the date
that is 60 days before the ex-dividend date.
U.S. holders are urged to consult their own tax advisor as
to these and other exceptions to qualified dividend income
treatment.
There can be no assurance that the amount of distributions made
with respect to the preferred stock (or common stock received
upon conversion thereof) will not exceed the amount of our
current and accumulated earnings and profits, as calculated for
United States federal income tax purposes. To the extent the
amount of any distribution exceeds our current and accumulated
earnings and profits, as calculated for United States federal
income tax purposes, the excess will be applied against and will
reduce a U.S. holders tax basis in the preferred
stock (or common stock received upon conversion thereof, as the
case may be). Any amount in excess of a U.S. holders
tax basis will be treated as capital gain.
Although the issuance of preferred stock at a price less than
its redemption price may, in certain circumstances, give rise to
periodic constructive distributions for United States federal
income tax purposes, we do not intend to treat holders of the
preferred stock as receiving such periodic constructive
distributions. Each U.S. holder, other than a U.S. holder that
explicitly discloses its differing determination on its United
States federal income tax return, is bound by this determination.
|
|
|
Dividends to Corporate Shareholders |
In general, a distribution that is treated as a dividend for
United States federal income tax purposes and is made to a
corporate shareholder that is a U.S. holder with respect to
the preferred stock (or common stock received upon conversion
thereof) will qualify for a 70% dividends received deduction
under the Internal Revenue Code. Corporate shareholders should
note, however, that there can be no assurance that the amount of
distributions made with respect to the preferred stock (or the
common stock received upon conversion thereof) will not exceed
the amount of our current and accumulated earnings and profits,
as calculated for United States federal income tax purposes.
Accordingly, there can be no assurance that a dividends received
deduction will be available in respect of distributions on the
preferred stock (or common stock received upon conversion
thereof).
In addition, there are many exceptions and restrictions relating
to the availability of the dividends received deduction such as
those relating to:
|
|
|
|
|
the holders holding period for the stock; |
|
|
|
debt-financed portfolio stock; |
|
|
|
dividends treated as extraordinary dividends for
purposes of Section 1059 of the Internal Revenue
Code; and |
|
|
|
holders that pay corporate alternative minimum tax. |
Corporate shareholders are urged to consult their own tax
advisors regarding the extent, if any, to which such exceptions
and restrictions may apply to their particular circumstances.
|
|
|
Sale or Other Taxable Disposition |
Upon a sale or other taxable disposition of preferred stock or
common stock received upon conversion thereof, a
U.S. holder generally will recognize capital gain or loss
equal to the difference between the amount of cash and the fair
market value of any other property the U.S. holder receives
on the sale or other taxable disposition and the
U.S. holders adjusted tax basis in the preferred
stock or common stock, as applicable. Such capital gain or loss
will be long-term capital gain or loss if the
U.S. holders holding period for the preferred stock
or common stock, as applicable, is more than one year. The
deductibility of capital losses is, however, subject to a number
of limitations.
165
If we purchase the preferred stock for cash, the transaction
will generally be treated as a redemption for United States
federal income tax purposes. The United States federal income
tax treatment of such a redemption to a U.S. holder will
depend on the particular facts relating to such U.S. holder
at the time of the redemption. The receipt of cash in connection
with a redemption generally will be treated as gain or loss from
the sale or other disposition of the preferred stock, taxable as
described in the preceding paragraph, if, taking into account
stock that is actually or constructively owned:
|
|
|
|
|
the U.S. holders interest in our stock is completely
terminated as a result of the redemption; |
|
|
|
the U.S. holders percentage ownership in our voting
stock immediately after the redemption is less than 80% of the
holders percentage ownership immediately before the
redemption; or |
|
|
|
the redemption is not essentially equivalent to a
dividend. |
If none of the above tests giving rise to sale treatment is
satisfied, then a payment made in redemption of the preferred
stock generally will be treated as a distribution, taxable as
described above under Distributions, and the
U.S. holders adjusted tax basis in the redeemed
preferred stock will be transferred to any remaining ownership
interest the U.S. holder holds in our stock. If the
U.S. holder does not retain any stock ownership in us
following such redemption, then the U.S. holder may lose
its tax basis completely.
|
|
|
Conversion of Preferred Stock |
A U.S. holder generally will not recognize gain or loss
when it receives common stock upon conversion of its preferred
stock, except that gain or loss will be recognized with respect
to any cash received in lieu of fractional shares, and the fair
market value of any shares of common stock attributable to
dividend arrearages may be treated as a constructive
distribution, taxable as described above under
Distributions. The adjusted tax basis of the common
stock (including fractional share interests, but excluding any
common stock treated as a constructive distribution) will equal
the tax basis of the shares of preferred stock exchanged and the
holding period of the common stock received (excluding any
common stock treated as a constructive distribution) will
include the holding period of the preferred stock. The tax basis
of any common stock treated as a constructive distribution will
equal its fair market value on the date of the conversion, and
the U.S. holder will begin a new holding period for such
common stock.
|
|
|
Adjustments of Conversion Rate |
U.S. holders of preferred stock may, in certain
circumstances, be deemed to have received constructive
distributions of stock if the conversion rate for the preferred
stock is adjusted. Adjustments to the conversion price made
pursuant to a bona fide, reasonable adjustment formula that has
the effect of preventing the dilution of the interest of the
U.S. holders of the preferred stock, however, generally
will not be considered to result in a constructive distribution
of stock. Certain adjustments provided in the anti-dilution
provisions of the preferred stock, including, without
limitation, adjustments in respect of stock dividends or the
distribution of rights to subscribe for common stock should
qualify as being pursuant to a bona fide, reasonable adjustment
formula and should not result in a constructive distribution. In
contrast, adjustments in respect of distributions of our
indebtedness, cash or assets to our stockholders, for example,
will not qualify as being pursuant to a bona fide, reasonable
adjustment formula. If such adjustments are made, the
U.S. holders of preferred stock generally will be deemed to
have received constructive distributions in amounts based upon
the value of such U.S. holders increased interests in
our equity resulting from such adjustments. The amount of the
distribution will be treated as a distribution to a
U.S. holder, taxable as described above under
Distributions. Accordingly, a U.S. holder could
be considered to have received distributions taxable as
dividends to the extent of our current or accumulated earnings
and profits, as calculated for United States federal income tax
purposes, even though the U.S. holder did not receive any
cash or property as a result of such adjustments. Moreover, if
there is not a full adjustment to the conversion rate of the
preferred stock to reflect a stock dividend or other event
increasing the proportionate interest of the holders of
outstanding common stock in our assets or earnings and profits,
then such increase in the proportionate interest of the holders
of the common stock generally will be treated as a distribution
to such holders, taxable as described above under
Distributions.
166
|
|
|
Information Reporting and Backup Withholding |
A U.S. holder will generally be subject to information
reporting and backup withholding with respect to dividends paid
on, or the proceeds of a sale, exchange or redemption of,
preferred stock (or common stock received upon conversion
thereof) unless:
|
|
|
|
|
the U.S. holder is a corporation or comes within certain
other exempt categories and, when required, demonstrates this
fact; or |
|
|
|
within a reasonable period of time, the U.S. holder
provides a taxpayer identification number, certified under
penalties of perjury, as well as certain other information, or
otherwise establishes an exemption from the backup withholding
rules. |
The amount of any backup withholding from a payment to a
U.S. holder generally will be allowed as a credit against
the U.S. holders United States federal income tax
liability and may entitle the U.S. holder to a refund,
provided that the required information is timely furnished to
the Internal Revenue Service.
Non-U.S. Holders
In general, distributions treated as dividends (including
certain constructive distributions described above in
U.S. Holders Adjustments of Conversion
Rate) received by non-U.S. holders of the preferred
stock (or common stock received upon conversion thereof) will be
subject to a 30% United States federal withholding tax unless
(i) an applicable income tax treaty reduces or eliminates
such tax, and a non-U.S. holder claiming the benefit of
such treaty provides to us or such agent proper Internal Revenue
Service documentation or (ii) the dividends are effectively
connected with a non-U.S. holders conduct of a trade
or business in the United States and the non-U.S. holder
provides to us or such agent proper Internal Revenue Service
documentation. In the latter case, such non-U.S. holder
generally will be subject to U.S. federal income tax with
respect to such dividends in the same manner as a
U.S. citizen or corporation, as applicable, unless
otherwise provided in an applicable income tax treaty.
Additionally, a non-U.S. holder that is a corporation could
be subject to a branch profits tax on effectively connected
dividend income at a rate of 30% (or at a reduced rate under an
applicable income tax treaty). If a non-U.S. holder is
eligible for a reduced rate of U.S. federal withholding tax
pursuant to an income tax treaty, such non-U.S. holder may
obtain a refund of any excess amount withheld by timely filing
an appropriate claim for refund with the Internal Revenue
Service.
|
|
|
Sale or Other Taxable Disposition |
Non-U.S. holders will generally not be subject to United
States federal income tax on any gain realized on a disposition
of preferred stock (or common stock received upon conversion
thereof) unless:
|
|
|
|
|
the gain is effectively connected with the conduct by the
non-U.S. holder of a trade or business within the United
States (and, if required by an applicable income tax treaty, is
attributable to a United States permanent establishment of the
non-U.S. holder); |
|
|
|
the non-U.S. holder is an individual who is present in the
United States for 183 days or more in the taxable year of
disposition and certain other requirements are met; or |
|
|
|
we are or have been a United States real property holding
corporation for United States federal income tax purposes
at any time during the shorter of the five-year period preceding
such sale or other disposition or the period that such
non-U.S. holder held the preferred stock (or is treated as
having held the common stock received upon conversion thereof,
as applicable.) |
In general, we will be treated as a United States real property
holding corporation for United States federal income tax
purposes if the fair market value of our U.S. real property
interests equals or exceeds 50% of the total fair market value
of our U.S. real property interests, interests in real
property located outside the United States and other assets used
or held in our business. We have not determined whether we are a
United
167
States real property holding corporation for United States
federal income tax purposes, and there can be no assurances we
are not, or will not become, a United States real property
holding corporation. If we are or become a United States real
property holding corporation, so long as our common stock
continues to be regularly traded on an established securities
market, a non-U.S. holder:
|
|
|
|
|
will not be subject to United States federal income tax on the
disposition of the common stock if it holds and has held (at all
times during the shorter of the five-year period immediately
preceding the date of disposition or the holders holding
period) not more than 5% of the total outstanding shares of our
common stock; and |
|
|
|
will not be subject to United States federal income tax on the
disposition of the preferred stock if it holds and has held (at
all times during the shorter of the five-year period immediately
preceding the date of disposition or the holders holding
period) preferred stock with a fair market value that is not
more than 5% of the total outstanding shares of the preferred
stock. |
|
|
|
Conversion of Preferred Stock |
Non-U.S. holders will generally not recognize any gain or
loss for United States federal income tax purposes upon the
conversion of the preferred stock into our common stock, except
to the extent of cash received in lieu of fractional shares
which will be treated as described above in Sale or Other
Taxable Disposition and common stock received in respect
of dividends in arrears on the preferred stock at the time of
conversion into our common stock, which may be taxed as
dividends described above in Distributions.
|
|
|
Information Reporting and Backup Withholding |
We must report annually to the Internal Revenue Service and to
each non-U.S. holder the amount of distributions qualifying
as dividends paid to such holder and the tax withheld with
respect to such dividends, regardless of whether withholding was
required. Copies of the information returns reporting such
dividends and withholding may also be made available to the tax
authorities in the country in which the non-U.S. holder
resides under the provisions of an applicable income tax treaty.
A non-U.S. holder will be subject to backup withholding for
dividends paid to such holder unless the holder certifies under
penalty of perjury that it is a non-U.S. holder (and the
payor does not have actual knowledge or reason to know that such
holder is a United States person as defined under the Internal
Revenue Code), or the holder otherwise establishes an exemption.
Information reporting, and depending on the circumstances,
backup withholding, will apply to the proceeds of a sale of the
preferred stock (or common stock received upon conversion
thereof) within the United States or conducted through certain
United States-related financial intermediaries, unless the
beneficial owner certifies under penalty of perjury that it is a
non-U.S. holder (and the payor does not have actual
knowledge or reason to know that such holder is a United States
person as defined under the Internal Revenue Code), or the
holder otherwise establishes an exemption.
Any amounts withheld under the backup withholding rules from a
payment to a non-U.S. holder will be allowed as a refund or
a credit against the non-U.S. holders United States
federal income tax liability provided the required information
is timely furnished to the Internal Revenue Service.
ERISA CONSIDERATIONS
The preferred stock may be purchased and held by an employee
benefit plan subject to Title I of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), or
by an individual retirement account or other plan subject to
Section 4975 of the Code. A fiduciary of an employee benefit
plan subject to ERISA must determine that the purchase and
holding of a note is consistent with its fiduciary duties under
ERISA. The fiduciary of an ERISA plan, as well as any other
prospective investor subject to Section 4975 of the Code or any
similar law, must also determine that its purchase and holding
of preferred stock does not result in a non-exempt prohibited
transaction as defined in Section 406 of ERISA or Section
4975 of the Code
168
or similar law. Each purchaser and transferee of a note who is
subject to ERISA and/or Section 4975 of the Code or a similar
law will be deemed to have represented by its acquisition and
holding of the note that its acquisition and holding of the note
does not constitute or give rise to a non-exempt prohibited
transaction under ERISA, Section 4975 of the Code or any
similar law.
LEGAL MATTERS
The validity of our preferred stock and common stock offered
hereby will be passed upon by Andrews Kurth LLP, Houston, Texas.
EXPERTS
The consolidated financial statements of El Paso as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003 and for each of the three years
in the period ended December 31, 2004 and managements
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting (which is included in Managements
Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting) as of
December 31, 2004 included in this Prospectus have been so
included in reliance on the report (which contains an
explanatory paragraph relating to the Companys
restatements of its financial statements as described in
Note 1 to the financial statements and an adverse opinion
on the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting), of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent
registered public accounting firm, given on the authority of
said firm as experts in auditing and accounting.
The consolidated financial statements of Midland Cogeneration
Venture Limited Partnership as of December 31, 2004 and
2003 and for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 2004 and managements assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
(which is included in Managements Report on Internal
Control over Financial Reporting) as of December 31, 2004
included in this Prospectus have been so included in reliance on
the report of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent
registered public accounting firm, given on the authority of
said firm as experts in auditing and accounting.
Information included in this prospectus related to the estimated
reserves attributable to certain of our oil and natural gas
properties was prepared by Ryder Scott Company, L.P., an
independent petroleum engineering firm. The report of Ryder
Scott Company for our reserves as of December 31, 2004 is
referenced herein in reliance upon the authority of said firm as
experts with respect to the matters covered by their report and
the giving of their report.
169
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, MANAGEMENTS REPORT ON
INTERNAL CONTROL AND SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page | |
|
|
| |
El Paso Corporation
|
|
|
|
|
Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-3 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-4 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-6 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-7 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-32 |
|
|
Controls and Procedures
|
|
|
F-37 |
|
Audited Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-39 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-40 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-42 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-44 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-45 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-73 |
|
F-1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
F-73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-79 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-79 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-81 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-81 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-89 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-99 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-103 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-103 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-105 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-110 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-118 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-121 |
|
|
Supplemental Financial Information
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-125 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-126 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-135 |
|
|
|
Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FA-1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FA-2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FA-4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FA-5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FA-6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FA-7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FA-8 |
|
|
El Paso Corporation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduction
|
|
|
FB-1 |
|
|
|
|
|
FB-2 |
|
|
|
|
|
FB-3 |
|
|
|
|
|
FB-4 |
|
|
|
|
|
FB-5 |
|
F-2
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(In millions, except per common share amounts)
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
Six Months Ended | |
|
|
June 30, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
1,224 |
|
|
$ |
1,524 |
|
|
$ |
2,366 |
|
|
$ |
3,081 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of products and services
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
435 |
|
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
825 |
|
|
Operation and maintenance
|
|
|
438 |
|
|
|
373 |
|
|
|
880 |
|
|
|
774 |
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
294 |
|
|
|
263 |
|
|
|
574 |
|
|
|
538 |
|
|
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
360 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
381 |
|
|
|
255 |
|
|
Taxes, other than income taxes
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
130 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,217 |
|
|
|
1,154 |
|
|
|
2,130 |
|
|
|
2,522 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
370 |
|
|
|
236 |
|
|
|
559 |
|
Earnings (loss) from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
171 |
|
|
|
185 |
|
Other income, net
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
(340 |
) |
|
|
(410 |
) |
|
|
(690 |
) |
|
|
(833 |
) |
Distributions on preferred interests of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
(284 |
) |
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
(188 |
) |
|
|
(27 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
(233 |
) |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
(131 |
) |
|
|
(85 |
) |
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(106 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
(238 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(132 |
) |
|
|
(191 |
) |
Preferred stock dividends
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) available to common stockholders
|
|
$ |
(246 |
) |
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
(140 |
) |
|
$ |
(191 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted income (loss) per common share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(0.37 |
) |
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
|
$ |
(0.22 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.13 |
) |
|
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(0.01 |
) |
|
|
(0.04 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.17 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per common share
|
|
$ |
(0.38 |
) |
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
|
$ |
(0.22 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.30 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
641 |
|
|
|
639 |
|
|
|
640 |
|
|
|
639 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends declared per common share
|
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
$ |
0.08 |
|
|
$ |
0.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
F-3
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(In millions, except share amounts)
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
ASSETS |
Current assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
1,540 |
|
|
$ |
2,117 |
|
|
Accounts and notes receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customers, net of allowance of $77 in 2005 and $199 in 2004
|
|
|
975 |
|
|
|
1,388 |
|
|
|
Affiliates
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
151 |
|
|
|
188 |
|
|
Assets from price risk management activities
|
|
|
576 |
|
|
|
601 |
|
|
Margin and other deposits held by others
|
|
|
328 |
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
607 |
|
|
|
418 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
539 |
|
|
|
708 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
4,806 |
|
|
|
5,632 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, at cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pipelines
|
|
|
19,609 |
|
|
|
19,418 |
|
|
Natural gas and oil properties, at full cost
|
|
|
15,693 |
|
|
|
14,968 |
|
|
Power facilities
|
|
|
957 |
|
|
|
1,550 |
|
|
Gathering and processing systems
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
171 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
629 |
|
|
|
882 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36,952 |
|
|
|
36,989 |
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
18,265 |
|
|
|
18,177 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
18,687 |
|
|
|
18,812 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
2,275 |
|
|
|
2,614 |
|
|
Assets from price risk management activities
|
|
|
1,203 |
|
|
|
1,584 |
|
|
Goodwill and other intangible assets, net
|
|
|
422 |
|
|
|
428 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2,283 |
|
|
|
2,313 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,183 |
|
|
|
6,939 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
29,676 |
|
|
$ |
31,383 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
F-4
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Continued)
(In millions, except share amounts)
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
Current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade
|
|
$ |
792 |
|
|
$ |
1,052 |
|
|
|
Affiliates
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
399 |
|
|
|
483 |
|
|
Short-term financing obligations, including current maturities
|
|
|
1,099 |
|
|
|
955 |
|
|
Liabilities from price risk management activities
|
|
|
920 |
|
|
|
852 |
|
|
Margin and other deposits
|
|
|
342 |
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
Western Energy Settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
Accrued interest
|
|
|
281 |
|
|
|
333 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
818 |
|
|
|
701 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
4,659 |
|
|
|
4,572 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term financing obligations, less current maturities
|
|
|
16,379 |
|
|
|
18,241 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities from price risk management activities
|
|
|
1,390 |
|
|
|
1,026 |
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
1,528 |
|
|
|
1,312 |
|
|
Western Energy Settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
351 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1,861 |
|
|
|
2,076 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,779 |
|
|
|
4,765 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities of subsidiaries
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
367 |
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.99% Convertible perpetual preferred stock, par value $0.01 per
share; authorized 50,000,000 shares; issued
750,000 shares in 2005; stated at liquidation value
|
|
|
750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, par value $3 per share; authorized
1,500,000,000 shares; issued 653,065,090 shares in
2005 and 651,064,508 shares in 2004
|
|
|
1,959 |
|
|
|
1,953 |
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
4,431 |
|
|
|
4,538 |
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(2,941 |
) |
|
|
(2,809 |
) |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
(183 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
Treasury stock (at cost); 7,361,325 shares in 2005 and
7,767,088 shares in 2004
|
|
|
(189 |
) |
|
|
(225 |
) |
|
Unamortized compensation
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
3,800 |
|
|
|
3,438 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity
|
|
$ |
29,676 |
|
|
$ |
31,383 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
F-5
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(In millions)
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended | |
|
|
June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cash flows from operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(132 |
) |
|
$ |
(191 |
) |
|
|
Less loss from discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(106 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss from continuing operations
|
|
|
(131 |
) |
|
|
(85 |
) |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash from operating
activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
574 |
|
|
|
538 |
|
|
|
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
381 |
|
|
|
255 |
|
|
|
Earnings from unconsolidated affiliates, adjusted for cash
distributions
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
Other non-cash items
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
Other asset and liability changes
|
|
|
(812 |
) |
|
|
(636 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash provided by continuing operations
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
Cash provided by (used in) discontinued operations
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
296 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
(806 |
) |
|
|
(782 |
) |
|
Purchases of interests in equity investments
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
Net proceeds from the sale of assets and investments
|
|
|
834 |
|
|
|
165 |
|
|
Proceeds from settlement of a foreign currency derivative
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid for acquisitions, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
(178 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
Net change in restricted cash
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
447 |
|
|
Net change in notes receivable from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash provided by (used in) continuing operations
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
(91 |
) |
|
|
Cash provided by discontinued operations
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
1,113 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by investing activities
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
1,022 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments to retire long-term debt and other financing obligations
|
|
|
(1,563 |
) |
|
|
(1,024 |
) |
|
Net proceeds from the issuance of long-term debt and other
financing obligations
|
|
|
458 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
Net proceeds from the issuance of preferred stock
|
|
|
723 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redemption of preferred stock of subsidiary
|
|
|
(300 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
(49 |
) |
|
Contributions from discontinued operations
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
909 |
|
|
Issuances of common stock, net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash used in continuing operations
|
|
|
(684 |
) |
|
|
(62 |
) |
|
|
Cash used in discontinued operations
|
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
(1,274 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in financing activities
|
|
|
(737 |
) |
|
|
(1,336 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
(577 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning of period
|
|
|
2,117 |
|
|
|
1,429 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
End of period
|
|
$ |
1,540 |
|
|
$ |
1,411 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
F-6
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(In millions)
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
Six Months | |
|
|
June 30, | |
|
Ended June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(238 |
) |
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
(132 |
) |
|
$ |
(191 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency translation adjustments (net of income taxes of
$6 and $7 in 2005 and $14 and $51 in 2004)
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
Unrealized net gains (losses) from cash flow hedging activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized mark-to-market gains (losses) arising during period
(net of income taxes of $13 and $89 in 2005 and $2 and $12 in
2004)
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(172 |
) |
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
Reclassification adjustments for changes in initial value to the
settlement date (net of income taxes of $1 and $12 in 2005 and
$7 and $15 in 2004)
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(184 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(223 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
(316 |
) |
|
$ |
(195 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
F-7
EL PASO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
1. Basis of Presentation and Significant Accounting
Policies
Basis of Presentation
We prepared the accompanying condensed consolidated financial
statements and related notes under the rules and regulations of
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Because
this is an interim period filing presented using a condensed
format, it does not include all of the disclosures required by
generally accepted accounting principles. You should read this
these consolidated interim financial statements along with our
2004 consolidated financial statements, included herein,
beginning on page F-39, which includes a summary of our
significant accounting policies and other disclosures. The
financial statements as of June 30, 2005, and for the
quarters and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004,
are unaudited. We derived the balance sheet as of
December 31, 2004, from the audited balance sheet
included herein, beginning on page F-40. In our opinion, we have
made all adjustments which are of a normal, recurring nature to
fairly present our interim period results. Due to the seasonal
nature of our businesses, information for interim periods may
not be indicative of the results of operations for the entire
year. During the second quarter of 2005, our Board of Directors
approved the sale of our south Louisiana gathering and
processing assets, which were part of our Field Services
segment. These assets and the results of their operations for
the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2005, have been
reclassified as discontinued operations. Prior period amounts
have not been adjusted as these operations were not material to
prior period results or historical trends. Additionally, our
financial statements for prior periods include reclassifications
to conform to the current period presentation. These
reclassifications had no effect on our previously reported net
income (loss) or stockholders equity.
Significant Accounting
Policies
Our significant accounting policies are discussed in our 2004
Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended. The information
below provides updating information, disclosure where these
policies have changed or required interim disclosures with
respect to those policies.
Variable Interest
Entities
In 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued
Financial Interpretation (FIN) No. 46,
Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, an
Interpretation of ARB No. 51, which we adopted on
January 1, 2004. This interpretation defined a variable
interest entity as a legal entity whose equity owners do not
have sufficient equity at risk or a controlling financial
interest in the entity. This standard requires a company to
consolidate a variable interest entity if it is allocated a
majority of the entitys losses or income, including fees
paid by the entity.
In conjunction with our application of FIN No. 46, we
attempted to obtain financial information on several potential
variable interest entities but were unable to obtain that
information. The most significant of these entities is the
Cordova power project which is the counterparty to our largest
tolling arrangement. Under this tolling arrangement, we supply
on average a total of 54,000 MMBtu of natural gas per day
to the entitys two 274 gross MW power facilities and
are obligated to market the power generated by those facilities
through 2019. In addition, we pay that entity a capacity charge
that ranges from $27 million to $32 million per year
related to its power plants. The following is a summary of the
financial statement impacts of our transactions
F-8
with this entity for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and
2004 and as of June 30, 2005 and
December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
(111 |
) |
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
Current liabilities from price risk management activities
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
Non-current liabilities from price risk management activities
|
|
|
127 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
As of December 31, 2004, our financial statements included
two consolidated entities that own a 238 MW power facility
and a 158 MW power facility in Manaus, Brazil. In January
2005, these entities entered into agreements with Manaus
Energia, under which Manaus Energia will supply substantially
all of the fuel consumed and will purchase all of the power
generated by the projects through January 2008, at which time
Manaus Energia will assume ownership of the plants. We
deconsolidated these two entities in January 2005 because
Manaus Energia will absorb a majority of the potential losses of
the entities under the new agreements and will assume ownership
of the plants at the end of the agreements. The impact of this
deconsolidation was an increase in investments in unconsolidated
affiliates of $103 million, a decrease in property, plant
and equipment of $74 million, a decrease in other assets of
$32 million and a decrease in other liabilities of
$3 million.
We account for our stock-based compensation plans using the
intrinsic value method under the provisions of Accounting
Principles Board Opinion (APB) No. 25, Accounting for
Stock Issued to Employees, and its related interpretations.
Had we accounted for our stock option grants using Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123,
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, rather than APB
No. 25, the loss and per share impacts of stock-based
compensation on our financial statements would have been
different. The following table shows the impact on net income
(loss) and income (loss) per share had we applied SFAS
No. 123:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
Six Months | |
|
|
June 30, | |
|
Ended June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Net income (loss) available to common stockholders as reported
|
|
$ |
(246 |
) |
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
(140 |
) |
|
$ |
(191 |
) |
Add: Stock-based compensation expense in net income (loss), net
of taxes
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
Deduct: Stock-based compensation expense determined under fair
value-based method for all awards, net of taxes
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) available to common stockholders, pro forma
|
|
$ |
(248 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
(145 |
) |
|
$ |
(201 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted, as reported
|
|
$ |
(0.38 |
) |
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
|
$ |
(0.22 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.30 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted, pro forma
|
|
$ |
(0.39 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(0.23 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.31 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Accounting Pronouncements Issued But Not Yet Adopted |
As of June 30, 2005, there were several accounting
standards and interpretations that had not yet been adopted by
us. Below is a discussion of significant standards that may
impact us.
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation. In
December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123R,
Share-Based Payment: an amendment of SFAS No. 123 and
95. This standard requires that companies measure and record
the fair value of their stock based compensation awards at fair
value on the date they are granted to employees. This fair value
is determined using a variety of assumptions, including those
related to
F-9
volatility rates, forfeiture rates and the option pricing model
used (e.g. binomial or Black Scholes). These assumptions could
differ from those we have utilized in determining our proforma
compensation expense (indicated above). This standard will also
impact the manner in which we recognize the income tax impacts
of our stock compensation programs in our financial statements.
This standard is required to be adopted beginning
January 1, 2006. Upon adoption, we will apply the standard
prospectively for new stock-based compensation arrangements and
the unvested portion of existing arrangements. We are currently
evaluating the impact of this adoption on our consolidated
financial statements.
Accounting for Deferred Taxes on Foreign Earnings. In
December 2004, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (FSP)
No. 109-2, Accounting and Disclosure Guidance for the
Foreign Earnings Repatriation Provision within the American Jobs
Creation Act of 2004. FSP No. 109-2 clarified the
existing accounting literature that requires companies to record
deferred taxes on foreign earnings, unless they intend to
indefinitely reinvest those earnings outside the U.S. This
pronouncement will temporarily allow companies that are
evaluating whether to repatriate foreign earnings under the
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 to delay recognizing any
related taxes until that decision is made. This pronouncement
also requires companies that are considering repatriating
earnings to disclose the status of their evaluation and the
potential amounts being considered for repatriation. The U.S.
Treasury Department has indicated that additional guidance for
applying the repatriation provisions of the American Jobs
Creation Act of 2004 will be issued. We have not yet determined
the potential range of our foreign earnings that could be
impacted by this legislation and FSP No. 109-2, and we
continue to evaluate whether we will repatriate any foreign
earnings and the impact, if any, that this pronouncement will
have on our financial statements.
Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations. In March
2005, the FASB Issued FIN Interpretation (FIN) No. 47,
Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations.
FIN No. 47 requires companies to record a liability for
those asset retirement obligations in which the timing and/or
amount of settlement of the obligation are uncertain. These
conditional obligations were not addressed by SFAS No. 143,
Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations, which we
adopted on January 1, 2003. FIN No. 47 will require us
to accrue a liability when a range of scenarios indicates that
the potential timing and/or settlement amounts of our
conditional asset retirement obligations can be determined. We
will adopt the provisions of this standard in the fourth quarter
of 2005 and have not yet determined the impact, if any, that
this pronouncement will have on our financial statements.
Accounting for Pipeline Integrity Costs. In June 2005,
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued an
accounting release that will impact certain costs our interstate
pipelines incur related to their pipeline integrity programs.
This release will require us to expense certain pipeline
integrity costs incurred after January 1, 2006, instead of
capitalizing them as part of our property, plant and equipment.
Although we continue to evaluate the impact that this accounting
release will have on our consolidated financial statements, we
currently estimate that we would be required to expense an
additional amount of pipeline integrity costs under the release
in the range of approximately $23 million to
$39 million annually.
2. Acquisitions
In July 2005, we announced that our subsidiary, El Paso
Production Holding Company (EPPH), will acquire Medicine Bow
Energy Corporation for $814 million in cash. This
transaction is expected to close during the third quarter of
2005.
F-10
3. Divestitures
|
|
|
Sales of Assets and Investments |
During the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, we
completed the sale of a number of assets and investments in each
of our business segments. The following table summarizes the
proceeds from these sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Regulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pipelines |
|
$ |
35 |
|
|
$ |
50 |
|
Non-regulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power |
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
Field Services |
|
|
501 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate |
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total continuing |
|
|
833 |
(1) |
|
|
165 |
|
Discontinued |
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
1,261 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
918 |
|
|
$ |
1,426 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Proceeds exclude returns of capital from unconsolidated
affiliates and cash transferred with the assets sold and include
costs incurred for disposal. These increased our sales proceeds
by $1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005. |
The following table summarizes the significant assets sold
during the six months ended June 30:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005 |
|
2004 |
|
|
|
|
|
Pipelines
|
|
Facilities located in the southeastern U.S. |
|
Australia pipeline
Aircraft |
|
Power
|
|
Cedar Brakes I and II
Interest in a power plant in India
Interest in a power plant in England
4 domestic power facilities
Power turbine |
|
Mohawk River Funding IV
Utility Contract Funding (UCF)
Bastrop Company equity investment |
|
Field Services
|
|
9.9% interest in general partner of Enterprise
Products Partners, L.P. |
|
None |
|
|
13.5 million common units in Enterprise |
|
|
|
|
Interest in Indian Springs natural gas gathering
system and processing facility |
|
|
|
Corporate
|
|
Lakeside Technology Center |
|
Aircraft |
|
Discontinued
|
|
Interest in Paraxylene facility
MTBE processing facility
International natural gas and oil production
properties |
|
Natural gas and oil production properties in
Canada
Aruba and Eagle Point refineries and other petroleum
assets |
In the third quarter of 2005, we also completed the sale of our
50 percent interest in the Korean Independent Energy
Corporation power facility. We will record the receipt of
$284 million in proceeds and a $109 million gain in
the third quarter of 2005 related to this sale in our Power
segment. Additionally, in the second and third quarters of 2005,
we announced the sales of substantially all of our other Asia
power assets. We expect to receive total proceeds of
approximately $180 million for these assets.
F-11
Under SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or
Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, we classify assets to be
disposed of as held for sale or, if appropriate, discontinued
operations when they have received appropriate approvals by our
management or Board of Directors and when they meet other
criteria. As of June 30, 2005, we had assets held for sale
of $5 million related to two Asian power plants and a
domestic power asset, which was fully impaired in previous
years. We expect to sell these assets within the next twelve
months. As of December 31, 2004, we had assets held for
sale of $75 million related to our Indian Springs natural
gas gathering system and processing facility which was sold in
the first quarter of 2005 and certain domestic power assets.
South Louisiana Gathering and Processing Operations.
During the second quarter of 2005, our Board of Directors
approved the sale of our south Louisiana gathering and
processing assets, which were part of our Field Services
segment. This sale is expected to be completed by the end of
2005.
International Natural Gas and Oil Production Operations.
During 2004, our Canadian and certain other international
natural gas and oil production operations were approved for
sale. As of December 31, 2004, we had completed the sale of
all of our Canadian operations and substantially all of our
operations in Indonesia for total proceeds of approximately
$389 million. We completed the sale of substantially all of
our remaining properties in 2005 for total proceeds of
approximately $6 million.
Petroleum Markets. During 2003, our Board of Directors
approved the sales of our petroleum markets businesses and
operations. These businesses and operations consisted of our
Eagle Point and Aruba refineries, our asphalt business, our
Florida terminal, tug and barge business, our lease crude
operations, our Unilube blending operations, our domestic and
international terminalling facilities and our petrochemical and
chemical plants. In 2004, we completed the sales of our Aruba
and Eagle Point refineries for $880 million.
F-12
The petroleum markets, other international natural gas and oil
production operations, and south Louisiana gathering and
processing operations discussed above are classified as
discontinued operations in our financial statements. As of
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, the total assets
of our discontinued operations were $193 million and
$106 million, and our total liabilities were
$121 million and $12 million. These amounts are
classified in other current assets and liabilities. The assets
and liabilities of our south Louisiana gathering and processing
operations as of December 31, 2004, and the results of its
operations for periods prior to January 1, 2005, were not
reclassified to discontinued operations, as these operations
were not material to prior period results or historical trends.
The summarized operating results of our discontinued operations
were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
International | |
|
Louisiana | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas | |
|
Gathering | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Oil | |
|
and | |
|
|
|
|
Petroleum | |
|
Production | |
|
Processing | |
|
|
|
|
Markets | |
|
Operations | |
|
Operations | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating Results Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended June 30, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
30 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
90 |
|
|
$ |
120 |
|
Costs and expenses
|
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(79 |
) |
|
|
(113 |
) |
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
Other expense
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
|
|
6 |
|
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended June 30, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
55 |
|
Costs and expenses
|
|
|
(77 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(80 |
) |
Gain on long-lived assets
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
Other income
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
$ |
(14 |
) |
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(29 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
74 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
177 |
|
|
$ |
253 |
|
Costs and expenses
|
|
|
(86 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(157 |
) |
|
|
(245 |
) |
Gain (loss) on long-lived assets
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
Other income
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
$ |
(11 |
) |
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
|
12 |
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South |
|
|
|
|
|
|
International | |
|
Louisiana |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas | |
|
Gathering |
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Oil | |
|
and |
|
|
|
|
Petroleum | |
|
Production | |
|
Processing |
|
|
|
|
Markets | |
|
Operations | |
|
Operations |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Six Months Ended June 30, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
693 |
|
|
$ |
28 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
721 |
|
Costs and expenses
|
|
|
(730 |
) |
|
|
(47 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(777 |
) |
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(54 |
) |
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
Other expense
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes
|
|
|
(86 |
) |
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(120 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
$ |
(77 |
) |
|
$ |
(29 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(106 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Restructuring Costs
During 2004 and 2005, we incurred organizational restructuring
costs included in our operation and maintenance expenses as part
of our ongoing liquidity enhancement and cost reduction efforts.
The discussion below provides additional details of these costs.
Office relocation and consolidation. As of
December 31, 2004, we had a liability related to our
remaining lease obligations associated with the consolidation of
our Houston based operations. This liability was discounted, net
of estimated sub-lease rentals. During the quarter and six
months ended June 30, 2005, we recorded additional charges
of $17 million related to vacating this remaining leased
space. In June 2005, we signed a termination agreement releasing
us from this lease obligation, which resulted in an additional
charge of $10 million. As of June 30, 2005, our total
liability was $114 million.
Employee severance, retention, and transition costs.
During the six months ended June 30, 2004, we
incurred $33 million of employee severance costs, which
included severance payments and costs for pension benefits
settled under existing benefit plans. During this period, we
eliminated approximately 350 full-time positions from our
continuing business and approximately 1,100 positions related to
businesses we discontinued. During the six months ended
June 30, 2005, severance costs were not significant.
Substantially all of our employee severance costs have been paid
as of June 30, 2005.
5. Loss on Long-Lived Assets
Our loss on long-lived assets consists of realized gains and
losses on sales of long-lived assets and impairments of
long-lived assets. During each of the periods ended
June 30, our loss on long-lived assets was as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months | |
|
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
Ended | |
|
|
June 30, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Net realized gain
|
|
$ |
(6 |
) |
|
$ |
(6 |
) |
|
$ |
(13 |
) |
|
$ |
(14 |
) |
Asset impairments
|
|
|
366 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
394 |
|
|
|
269 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
360 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
381 |
|
|
|
255 |
|
(Gain) loss on investments in unconsolidated affiliates
(1)
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on long-lived assets and investments
|
|
$ |
447 |
|
|
$ |
35 |
|
|
$ |
349 |
|
|
$ |
297 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
See Note 14 on page F-32 for a further description of
these gains and losses. |
F-14
Net Realized Gain
Our 2005 net realized gains are primarily related to a
$9 million gain on the sale of facilities located in the
southeastern United States in our Pipelines segment. Also,
during the second quarter of 2005, our corporate operations
recorded a $5 million gain on the sale of our Lakeside
Technology Center, which was previously impaired in 2003. Our
2004 net realized gains are primarily related to a gain on
aircraft sales associated with our corporate activities.
Asset Impairments
In 2005, our Power segment recorded approximately
$388 million of asset impairments. During the quarter ended
June 30, 2005, we recorded a $276 million impairment
of our long-lived assets associated with the Macae power project
in Brazil as a result of ongoing negotiations with Petrobras
related to the plant. See Note 10 for a further discussion
of these matters. Our Power segment also recorded impairments of
$14 million during the first quarter of 2005 and
$83 million during the second quarter of 2005 related to
our Asian and Central American assets based on additional
information received about the value we may receive upon the
sale of these assets. Finally, in the first quarter of 2005, we
recorded a $15 million impairment of our power turbines
based on further information we received about their fair value.
Our 2004 asset impairments primarily occurred in our Power
segment, including a $151 million impairment during the
first quarter of 2004 related to our Manaus and Rio Negro power
plants in Brazil based on the status of our negotiations to
extend the power contracts at these plants, which was negatively
impacted by changes in the Brazilian political environment. In
addition, our Power segment recorded a $98 million
impairment charge during the first quarter of 2004 related to
the sale of our subsidiary, Utility Contract Funding, which
owned a restructured power contract, and $10 million of
impairments in the second quarter of 2004 on our domestic power
plants to adjust the carrying value of these plants to their
expected sales price. Finally, our Field Services segment
recorded $7 million of impairments in the second quarter of
2004, primarily related to the abandonment of miscellaneous
assets.
6. Income Taxes
Income taxes included in our income (loss) from continuing
operations for the periods ended June 30 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months | |
|
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
Ended | |
|
|
June 30, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except rates) | |
Income taxes
|
|
$ |
(51 |
) |
|
$ |
48 |
|
|
$ |
(57 |
) |
|
$ |
58 |
|
Effective tax rate
|
|
|
18 |
% |
|
|
59 |
% |
|
|
30 |
% |
|
|
(215 |
)% |
We compute our quarterly taxes under the effective tax rate
method based on applying an anticipated annual effective rate to
our year-to-date income or loss, except for significant unusual
or extraordinary transactions. Income taxes for significant
unusual or extraordinary transactions are computed and recorded
in the period that the specific transaction occurs. During 2005,
our overall effective tax rate on continuing operations was
different than the statutory rate of 35% due primarily to:
|
|
|
|
|
Impairments of certain foreign investments for which there was
only a partial corresponding income tax benefit, as well as
foreign income taxed at different rates; |
|
|
|
Benefits recorded on book versus tax differences related to
certain of our Asian and Indian power assets as further
described below; |
|
|
|
A reduction of our liabilities for tax contingencies as a result
of an IRS settlement on the 1995 to 1997 Coastal Corporation
income tax returns of $33 million, expiration of a tax
indemnity claim, and approval of a 1986 refund claim; and |
F-15
|
|
|
|
|
Other items including (i) state income taxes (including
valuation allowances) and state tax adjustments to reflect
income tax returns as filed, net of federal income tax effects;
(ii) earnings/losses from unconsolidated affiliates where
we anticipate receiving dividends; and (iii) non-deductible
dividends on the preferred stock of subsidiaries. |
We have not historically recorded U.S. deferred tax assets or
liabilities on book versus tax basis differences for a
substantial portion of our international investments based on
our intent to indefinitely reinvest earnings from these
investments outside the U.S. However, based on current sales
negotiations on certain of our Asian power assets, we currently
expect to receive these sales proceeds within the U.S. During
the six months ended June 30, 2005, our effective tax rate
was impacted upon recording net deferred tax assets on book
versus tax basis differences in these investments based on the
status of these negotiations. We also recorded deferred tax
benefits on the sale of an Indian power asset. As of
June 30, 2005, and December 31, 2004, we have deferred
tax assets of $97 million and $6 million and deferred
tax liabilities of $39 million in both periods related to
these investments.
In 2004, our overall effective tax rate on continuing operations
was impacted by impairments of certain of our foreign
investments for which there was either a partial or no
corresponding tax benefit. Additionally, for the six month
period ended June 30, 2004, income tax expense in a period
in which there was a pre-tax loss resulted in a negative
effective tax rate.
7. Earnings Per Share
We have excluded 73 million and 16 million of potentially
dilutive securities for the quarters and six months ended
June 30, 2005 and 2004, from the determination of diluted
earnings per share (as well as their related income statement
impacts) due to their antidilutive effect on income (loss) per
common share. The excluded securities included convertible
preferred stock and restricted stock in 2005 and stock options,
trust preferred securities and convertible debentures in 2005
and 2004.
8. Price Risk Management Activities
The following table summarizes the carrying value of the
derivatives used in our price risk management activities as of
June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004. In the table,
derivatives designated as hedges primarily consist of
instruments used to hedge our natural gas and oil production.
Derivatives from power contract restructuring activities relate
to power purchase and sale agreements that arose from our
activities in that business and other commodity-based derivative
contracts relate to our historical energy trading activities.
Interest rate and foreign currency hedging derivatives consist
of instruments to hedge our interest rate and currency risks on
long-term debt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Net assets (liabilities)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives designated as hedges
|
|
$ |
(640 |
) |
|
$ |
(536 |
) |
|
Derivatives from power contract restructuring activities
(1)
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
665 |
|
|
Other commodity-based derivative
contracts(1)
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
(61 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total commodity-based derivatives
|
|
|
(544 |
) |
|
|
68 |
|
|
Interest rate and foreign currency hedging derivatives
(2)
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
239 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets (liabilities) from price risk management
activities(3)
|
|
$ |
(531 |
) |
|
$ |
307 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Derivatives from power contract restructuring activities as of
December 31, 2004 includes $596 million of derivative
contracts sold in connection with the sale of Cedar
Brakes I and II in March 2005. In connection with this
sale, we also assigned or terminated other commodity-based
derivatives that had a fair value liability of $240 million
as of December 31, 2004. |
(2) |
In March 2005, we repurchased approximately
528 million
of debt, of which
375 million
was hedged with interest rate and foreign currency derivatives.
As a result of the repurchase, we removed the hedging
designation on these derivatives and cancelled |
F-16
|
|
|
substantially all of the contracts.
We recorded a gain of approximately $2 million during the
first quarter of 2005 upon the reversal of the related
accumulated other comprehensive income associated with these
derivatives.
|
(3) |
Included in both current and
non-current assets and liabilities on the balance sheet.
|
Our derivative contracts are recorded in our financial
statements at fair value. The best indication of fair value is
quoted market prices. However, when quoted market prices are not
available, we estimate the fair value of those derivative
contracts. Prior to April 2005, we used commodity prices
from market-based sources such as the New York Mercantile
Exchange for forward pricing data within two years. For
forecasted settlement prices beyond two years, we used a
combination of commodity pricing data from market-based sources
and other independent pricing sources to develop price curves.
These curves were then used to estimate the value of settlements
in future periods based on the contractual settlement quantities
and dates. Finally, we discounted these estimated settlement
values using a LIBOR curve for the majority of our derivative
contracts or by using an adjusted risk free rate for our
restructured power contracts.
Effective April 1, 2005, we began using new forward pricing
data provided by Platts Research and Consulting, our independent
pricing source, due to their decision to discontinue the
publication of the pricing data we had been utilizing in prior
periods. In addition, due to the nature of the new forward
pricing data, we extended the use of that data over the entire
contractual term of our derivative contracts. Previously, we
only used Platts pricing data to value our derivative
contracts beyond two years. Based on our analysis, we do not
believe the overall impact of this change in estimate was
material to our results for the period.
9. Debt, Other Financing Obligations and Other Credit
Facilities
We had the following long-term and short-term borrowings and
other financing obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Short-term financing obligations, including current maturities
|
|
$ |
1,099 |
(1) |
|
$ |
955 |
|
Long-term financing obligations
|
|
|
16,379 |
|
|
|
18,241 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
17,478 |
|
|
$ |
19,196 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes $599 million of zero coupon debentures that the
holders may require us to redeem in February 2006, prior to
their stated maturities. |
F-17
|
|
|
Long-Term Financing Obligations |
From January 1, 2005 through the date of this filing, we
had the following changes in our long-term financing obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Received/ | |
Company | |
|
Type | |
|
Interest Rate | |
|
Book Value | |
|
Paid | |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
Issuances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG) |
|
|
Senior Notes due 2015 |
|
|
|
5.95% |
|
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
$ |
197 |
|
Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company(1) |
|
|
Non-recourse term loan due 2015 |
|
|
|
Variable |
|
|
|
266 |
|
|
|
261 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increases through June 30, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
466 |
|
|
$ |
458 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repayments, repurchases, retirements and other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
El Paso |
|
|
|
Zero coupon debenture(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
236 |
|
|
$ |
237 |
|
|
El Paso |
|
|
|
Notes |
|
|
|
6.88% |
|
|
|
167 |
|
|
|
167 |
|
|
Cedar Brakes I(3) |
|
|
|
Non-recourse notes |
|
|
|
8.5% |
|
|
|
241 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
Cedar Brakes II(3) |
|
|
|
Non-recourse notes |
|
|
|
9.88% |
|
|
|
334 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
El Paso(4) |
|
|
|
Euro notes |
|
|
|
5.75% |
|
|
|
695 |
|
|
|
722 |
|
|
CIG |
|
|
|
Debentures |
|
|
|
10.00% |
|
|
|
180 |
|
|
|
180 |
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
Various |
|
|
|
331 |
|
|
|
228 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decreases through June 30, 2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,184 |
|
|
$ |
1,563 |
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decreases through filing date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,189 |
|
|
$ |
1,568 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
In addition to the borrowing, we have an associated letter of
credit facility for $12 million, under which we issued
$6 million of letters of credit in May 2005. We also
concurrently entered into swaps to convert the variable interest
rate on approximately $213 million of this debt to a
current fixed rate of 5.94 percent. |
|
(2) |
This security has a yield-to-maturity of approximately four
percent. |
|
(3) |
Prior to the sale of Cedar Brakes I and II, we made
$29 million of scheduled principal repayments. Upon the
sale of these entities in March 2005, the remaining balance
of the debt was eliminated. |
|
(4) |
We recorded a $26 million loss on the early extinguishment
of this debt. |
On July 1, 2005, we remarketed our $272 million, 6.14%
Senior Notes that were due August 16, 2007. The remarketed
notes bear interest at 7.625% and are due August 16, 2007.
The proceeds from the offering are being held by a collateral
agent in connection with our 9.0% equity security units. For a
further discussion of our equity security units, see Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statements, Note 15, on
page F-81. The equity security unit holders are obligated
to fulfill their commitment to purchase approximately
13.6 million shares of our common stock on August 16,
2005. At that time, we will issue the common stock and will
receive approximately $272 million in cash.
We recorded accretion expense on our zero coupon bonds of
$6 million and $9 million during the second quarter of
2005 and 2004, and $13 million and $18 million during
the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004. These amounts
are added to the principal balance each period and are included
in our long term debt. We account for redemption of zero coupon
debentures as a financing activity in our statement of cash
flows, which included this accretion. During the six months
ended June 30, 2005 we redeemed $236 million of our
zero coupon debentures of which $34 million represented
increased principal due to the accretion of interest on the
debentures.
Credit Facilities
As of June 30, 2005, we had borrowing capacity under our
$3 billion credit agreement of $0.4 billion. Amounts
outstanding under the credit agreement were a $1.2 billion
term loan and $1.4 billion of letters of
F-18
credit. For a further discussion of our $3 billion credit
agreement, our other credit facilities and their related
restrictive covenants, see Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements, Note 15, on page F-81.
The availability of borrowings under our $3 billion credit
agreement and our ability to incur additional debt is subject to
various financial and non-financial covenants and restrictions.
There have been no substantial changes to our restrictive
covenants from those described in our Annual Report of
Form 10-K, as amended. However, El Paso CGP Company is no
longer required to maintain a minimum net worth of
$850 million due to the repayment of the debt covered by
the indenture.
Letters of Credit
As of June 30, 2005, we had outstanding letters of credit
of approximately $1.5 billion, of which $1.4 billion
was outstanding under our $3 billion credit agreement and
$102 million was supported with cash collateral. Included
in our outstanding letters of credit were approximately
$1.0 billion of letters of credit securing our recorded
obligations related to price risk management activities.
|
|
10. |
Commitments and Contingencies |
Western Energy Settlement. In June 2003, we entered
into various agreements to resolve the principal litigation,
investigations, claims, and regulatory proceedings arising out
of the sale or delivery of natural gas and/or electricity to the
western United States (the Western Energy Settlement). In April
2005, we paid the remaining $442 million due under a
20 year cash payment obligation that arose under certain of
these agreements and recorded an additional $59 million
charge in the first quarter of 2005 resulting from this
prepayment. These agreements also included a Joint Settlement
Agreement or JSA where we agreed to certain conditions regarding
service and facilities on El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG). In
June 2003, El Paso, the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC), Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern
California Edison Company, and the City of Los Angeles filed the
JSA with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In
November 2003, the FERC approved the JSA with minor
modifications. Our east of California shippers filed requests
for rehearing, which were denied by the FERC on
March 30, 2004. Certain shippers have appealed the
FERCs ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia, where this matter is pending. This appeal
has been fully briefed but has not yet been set for oral
argument.
|
|
|
Shareholder/ Derivative/ ERISA Litigation |
|
|
|
Shareholder Litigation. Twenty-eight purported
shareholder class action lawsuits have been pending since 2002
and are consolidated in federal court in Houston, Texas. This
consolidated lawsuit, which alleges violations of federal
securities laws against us and several of our current and former
officers and directors, includes allegations regarding the
accuracy or completeness of press releases and other public
statements made during the class period from 2001 through early
2004 related to wash trades, mark-to-market accounting,
off-balance sheet debt, the overstatement of oil and gas
reserves and manipulation of the California energy market.
Discovery in the consolidated lawsuit is currently stayed. |
|
|
Derivative Litigation. Since 2002, six shareholder
derivative actions have also been filed. Three of the actions
allege the same claims as in the consolidated shareholder class
action suit described above, with one of the actions including a
claim for compensation disgorgement against certain individuals.
Discovery in two of those three lawsuits are stayed in federal
court in Houston, Texas. The third, originally pending in
Delaware, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in
July 2005. The Delaware plaintiffs claims will be
pursued with two other actions consolidated in state court in
Houston, Texas. The state court lawsuits generally allege that
the manipulation of California gas prices exposed us to claims
of antitrust conspiracy, FERC penalties and erosion of share
value and are set for trial in January 2006. The sixth
derivative action, Laties v. El Paso,
et al. was filed in Delaware in April 2005 against
our former Chief Executive Officer, William Wise and current and
former members of our Board of Directors. This derivative action
seeks restitution of the 2001 incentive compensation paid to
William Wise due to the Companys restatement of its
financial statements for that year. |
F-19
|
|
|
ERISA Class Action Suits. In December 2002, a
purported class action lawsuit entitled William H.
Lewis, III v. El Paso Corporation, et al.
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas alleging generally that our direct and
indirect communications with participants in the El Paso
Corporation Retirement Savings Plan included misrepresentations
and omissions that caused members of the class to hold and
maintain investments in El Paso stock in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). That lawsuit
was subsequently amended to include allegations relating to our
reporting of natural gas and oil reserves. Discovery in this
lawsuit is currently stayed. |
|
|
We and our representatives have insurance coverages that are
applicable to each of these shareholder, derivative and ERISA
lawsuits. There are certain deductibles and co-pay obligations
under some of those insurance coverages for which we have
established certain accruals we believe are adequate. |
Cash Balance Plan Lawsuit. In December 2004, a
lawsuit entitled Tomlinson, et al. v. El Paso
Corporation and El Paso Corporation Pension Plan was
filed in U.S. District Court for Denver, Colorado. The
lawsuit seeks class action status and alleges that the change
from a final average earnings formula pension plan to a cash
balance pension plan, the accrual of benefits under the plan,
and the communications about the change violate the ERISA and/or
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Our costs and
legal exposure related to this lawsuit are not currently
determinable.
Retiree Medical Benefits Matters. We currently serve as
the plan administrator for a medical benefits plan that covers a
closed group of retirees of the Case Corporation who retired on
or before June 30, 1994. Case was formerly a
subsidiary of Tenneco, Inc. that was spun off prior to our
acquisition of Tenneco in 1996. In connection with the
Tenneco-Case Reorganization Agreement of 1994, Tenneco assumed
the obligation to provide certain medical and prescription drug
benefits to eligible retirees and their spouses. We assumed this
obligation as a result of our merger with Tenneco. However, we
believe that our liability for these benefits is limited to
certain maximums, or caps, and costs in excess of these maximums
are assumed by plan participants. In 2002, we and Case were sued
by individual retirees in federal court in Detroit, Michigan in
an action entitled Yolton et al. v. El Paso
Tennessee Pipeline Company and Case Corporation. The suit
alleges, among other things, that El Paso and Case violated
ERISA, and that they should be required to pay all amounts above
the cap. Although such amounts will vary over time, the amounts
above the cap have recently been approximately $1.8 million
per month. Case further filed claims against El Paso
asserting that El Paso is obligated to indemnify, defend,
and hold Case harmless for the amounts it would be required to
pay. In February 2004, a judge ruled that Case would be
required to pay the amounts incurred above the cap. Furthermore,
in September 2004, a judge ruled that pending resolution of
this matter, El Paso must indemnify and reimburse Case for
the monthly amounts above the cap. These rulings have been
appealed. In the meantime, El Paso will indemnify Case for
any payments Case makes above the cap. While we believe we have
meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs claims and to
Cases crossclaim, if we were required to ultimately pay
for all future amounts above the cap, and if Case were not found
to be responsible for these amounts, our exposure could be as
high as $400 million, on an undiscounted basis.
Natural Gas Commodities Litigation. Beginning in
August 2003, several lawsuits were filed against
El Paso and El Paso Marketing L.P. (EPM), formerly
El Paso Merchant Energy L.P., our affiliate, in which
plaintiffs alleged, in part, that El Paso, EPM and other
energy companies conspired to manipulate the price of natural
gas by providing false price reporting information to industry
trade publications that published gas indices. Those cases, all
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, are as follows: Cornerstone Propane
Partners, L.P. v. Reliant Energy Services Inc.,
et al.; Roberto E. Calle Gracey v. American
Electric Power Company, Inc., et al.; and Dominick
Viola v. Reliant Energy Services Inc., et al. In
December 2003, those cases were consolidated with others into a
single master file in federal court in New York for all
pre-trial purposes. In September 2004, the court dismissed
El Paso from the master litigation. EPM and approximately
27 other energy companies remain in the litigation. In January
2005, a purported class action lawsuit styled Leggett
et al. v Duke Energy Corporation et al. was filed
against El Paso, EPM and a number of other energy companies
in the Chancery Court of Tennessee for the Twenty-Fifth Judicial
District at Somerville on behalf of all residential and
commercial purchasers of natural gas in the state of Tennessee.
Plaintiffs allege the defendants conspired to manipulate the
price of natural gas by providing false
F-20
price reporting information to industry trade publications that
published gas indices. We have also had similar purported class
claims filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California by and on behalf of commercial and
residential customers in that state. The case of Texas-Ohio
Energy, Inc. v. CenterPoint Energy, Inc., et al.
was filed in November 2003; Fairhaven Power v.
El Paso Corporation, et al. was filed in
September 2004; Utility Savings and Refund Services,
et al. v. Reliant Energy, et al. was filed in
December 2004; Abelman Art Glass, et al. v.
Encana Corporation, et al. was filed in
December 2004; and Ever-Bloom Inc. v. AEP Energy
Services Inc. et al was filed in June 2005, and
FLI Liquidating Trust v. Oneok Inc. was filed
in July 2005. The defendants motion to dismiss in the
Texas-Ohio matter has been granted and similar motions
are anticipated in the other cases. Our costs and legal exposure
related to these lawsuits and claims are not currently
determinable.
Grynberg. In 1997, a number of our subsidiaries were
named defendants in actions brought by Jack Grynberg on behalf
of the U.S. Government under the False Claims Act.
Generally, these complaints allege an industry-wide conspiracy
to underreport the heating value as well as the volumes of the
natural gas produced from federal and Native American lands,
which deprived the U.S. Government of royalties due to the
alleged mismeasurement. The plaintiff seeks royalties along with
interest, expenses, and punitive damages. The plaintiff also
seeks injunctive relief with regard to future gas measurement
practices. No monetary relief has been specified in this case.
These matters have been consolidated for pretrial purposes
(In re: Natural Gas Royalties Qui Tam Litigation,
U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, filed
June 1997). Motions to dismiss were argued before a
representative appointed by the court. In May 2005, the
representative issued its recommendation, which if adopted by
the district court judge, will result in the dismissal on
jurisdictional grounds of six of the seven Qui Tam
actions filed by Grynberg against El Paso subsidiaries. The
seventh case involves only a few midstream entities owned by
El Paso, which have meritorious defenses to the underlying
claims. If the district court judge adopts the
representatives recommendations, an appeal by the
plaintiff of the district courts order is likely. Our
costs and legal exposure related to these lawsuits and claims
are not currently determinable.
Will Price (formerly Quinque). A number of our
subsidiaries are named as defendants in Will Price,
et al. v. Gas Pipelines and Their Predecessors,
et al., filed in 1999 in the District Court of Stevens
County, Kansas. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants
mismeasured natural gas volumes and heating content of natural
gas on non-federal and non-Native American lands and seek to
recover royalties that they contend they should have received
had the volume and heating value of natural gas produced from
their properties been differently measured, analyzed, calculated
and reported, together with prejudgment and postjudgment
interest, punitive damages, treble damages, attorneys
fees, costs and expenses, and future injunctive relief to
require the defendants to adopt allegedly appropriate gas
measurement practices. No monetary relief has been specified in
this case. Plaintiffs motion for class certification of a
nationwide class of natural gas working interest owners and
natural gas royalty owners was denied in April 2003.
Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a Fourth Amended Petition,
which narrows the proposed class to royalty owners in wells in
Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado and removes claims as to heating
content. A second class action petition has since been filed as
to the heating content claims. Motions for class certification
have been briefed and argued in both proceedings, and the
parties are awaiting the courts ruling. Our costs and
legal exposure related to these lawsuits and claims are not
currently determinable.
Bank of America. We are a named defendant, along with
Burlington Resources, Inc., in two class action lawsuits styled
as Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural
Gas Company, et al., and Deane W. Moore,
et al. v. Burlington Northern, Inc., et al.,
each filed in 1997 in the District Court of Washita County,
State of Oklahoma and subsequently consolidated by the court.
The plaintiffs have filed reports alleging damages of
approximately $480 million which includes alleged royalty
underpayments from 1982 to the present on natural gas produced
from specified wells in Oklahoma, plus interest from the time
such amounts were allegedly due. The plaintiffs have also
requested punitive damages. The court has certified the
plaintiff classes of royalty and overriding royalty interest
owners. The consolidated class action has been set for trial in
the fourth quarter of 2005. While Burlington accepted our tender
of the defense of these cases in 1997, pursuant to the spin-off
agreement entered into in 1992 between EPNG and Burlington
Resources, Inc., and had been defending the matter since that
time, at the end of 2003 it asserted contractual claims for
indemnity against us. A third
F-21
action, styled Bank of America, et al. v.
El Paso Natural Gas and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas
Company, was filed in October 2003 in the District
Court of Kiowa County, Oklahoma asserting similar claims as to
specified shallow wells in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico.
Defendants succeeded in transferring this action to Washita
County. A class has not been certified. We have filed an action
styled El Paso Natural Gas Company v. Burlington
Resources, Inc. and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company,
L.P. against Burlington in state court in Harris County
relating to the indemnity issues between Burlington and us. That
action is currently stayed by agreement of the parties. We
believe we have substantial defenses to the plaintiffs
claims as well as to the claims for indemnity by Burlington. Our
costs and legal exposure related to these lawsuits and claims
are not currently determinable.
Araucaria. We own a 60 percent interest in a
484 MW gas-fired power project known as the Araucaria
project located near Curitiba, Brazil. The Araucaria project has
a 20-year power purchase agreement (PPA) with a
government-controlled regional utility. In December 2002,
the utility ceased making payments to the project and, as a
result, the Araucaria project and the utility are currently
involved in international arbitration over the PPA, which is
scheduled for hearing in the first quarter of 2006. A Curitiba
court has ruled that the arbitration clause in the PPA is
invalid. The project company is appealing this ruling. Our
investment in the Araucaria project was $187 million at
June 30, 2005. We have political risk insurance that
covers a substantial portion of our investment in the project.
Based on the future outcome of our dispute under the PPA and
depending on our ability to collect amounts from the utility or
under our political risk insurance policies, we could be
required to write down the value of our investment.
Macae. We own a 928 MW gas-fired power plant known
as the Macae project located near the city of Macae, Brazil. The
Macae project revenues are derived from sales to the spot
market, bilateral contracts and minimum capacity and revenue
payments. The minimum capacity and energy revenue payments of
the Macae project are paid by Petrobras until August 2007
under a participation agreement. Petrobras has filed a notice of
arbitration with an international arbitration institution that
effectively seeks rescission of the participation agreement and
reimbursement of a portion of the capacity payments that it has
made. If such claim were successful, it would result in a
termination of the minimum revenue payments as well as
Petrobras obligation to provide a firm gas supply to the
project through 2012. Beginning in December 2004, and
continuing through the second quarter of 2005, Petrobras has
failed to make payments that were due under the participation
agreement. Various actions have been filed in Brazilian courts
and before the arbitration panel to address Petrobras
payment obligations during the pendency of the arbitration
proceedings. Although various appellate proceedings in such
actions are outstanding, currently the arbitration panel has
required Petrobras to pay past due amounts and additional
amounts owed during the arbitration process, subject to
Macaes obligation to post a bank guarantee as security for
any repayment obligation if Petrobras were to prevail on the
merits. Due to this ongoing dispute, during the first
six months of 2005 we have not recognized approximately
$99 million of revenues under our participation agreement,
because of the uncertainty about their collectibility. We
believe we have substantial defenses to the claims of Petrobras
and will vigorously defend our legal rights. In addition, we
will continue to seek reasonable negotiated settlements of this
dispute, including the restructuring of the participation
agreement or the sale of the plant. Macae has non-recourse debt
of approximately $276 million at June 30, 2005,
and Petrobras non-payment has created an event of default
under the applicable loan agreements. As a result, we have
classified the entire $276 million of debt as current. We
also have restricted cash balances of approximately
$14 million as of June 30, 2005, which are
reflected in current assets, related to required debt service
reserve balances, debt service payment accounts and funds held
for future distribution by Macae. We have also issued cash
collateralized letters of credit of approximately
$47 million as part of funding the required debt service
reserve accounts. The restricted cash related to these letters
of credit has also been classified as a current asset. In light
of the default of Petrobras under the participation agreement
and the potential inability of Macae to continue to make ongoing
payments under its loan agreements, one or more of the lenders
could exercise certain remedies under the loan agreements in the
future, one of which could be an acceleration of the amounts
owed under the loan agreements which could ultimately result in
the lenders foreclosing on the Macae project.
In light of the pending arbitration proceedings, and as a result
of continued negotiations and discussions with Petrobras
regarding this dispute, we may sell our investment in the Macae
power facility to Petrobras in
F-22
connection with the eventual resolution of this dispute or
exchange our interest in the plant for Brazilian production
properties owned by Petrobras. We recorded a $276 million
impairment charge on our investment and also reserved
$18 million of related receivables in the second quarter of
2005 based on information regarding the potential value we may
receive from the resolution of this matter. In the event that
the lenders call the loans and ultimately foreclose on the
project, we may incur additional losses of up to approximately
$204 million. As new information becomes available or
future material developments occur, we will reassess the
carrying value of our interests in this project.
MTBE. In compliance with the 1990 amendments to the Clean
Air Act, we used the gasoline additive methyl tertiary-butyl
ether (MTBE) in some of our gasoline. We have also
produced, bought, sold and distributed MTBE. A number of
lawsuits have been filed throughout the U.S. regarding
MTBEs potential impact on water supplies. We and some of
our subsidiaries are among the defendants in over 60 such
lawsuits. As a result of a ruling issued on
March 16, 2004, these suits have been consolidated for
pre-trial purposes in multi-district litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The plaintiffs, certain state attorneys general
and various water districts, seek remediation of their
groundwater, prevention of future contamination, a variety of
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees,
and court costs. The plaintiff states of California and
New Hampshire have filed an appeal to the 2nd Circuit Court
of Appeals challenging the removal of the cases from state to
federal court. That appeal is pending. On
April 20, 2005, the judge denied a motion by
defendants to dismiss the lawsuits. In that opinion the Court
recognized, for certain states, a potential commingled product
market share basis for collective liability. Our costs and legal
exposure related to these lawsuits are not currently
determinable.
Wise Arbitration. William Wise, our former Chief
Executive Officer, initiated an arbitration proceeding alleging
that we breached his employment agreement, as well as several
other alleged agreements by failing to make certain payments to
him following his departure from El Paso in 2003. Although
Mr. Wise initially sought approximately $20 million in
additional compensation, Mr. Wise revised his claims and
sought cash compensation in excess of $15 million, as well
as injunctive relief that would require us to make certain
future payments. The arbitration panel issued an interim
decision in July 2005 generally finding that Mr. Wise was
not entitled to any payments other than those set forth in his
employment agreement that governed his post employment
compensation. A final decision will be issued following
additional briefings.
|
|
|
Government Investigations |
Power Restructuring. El Paso has cooperated with the
SEC with regard to an investigation of our power plant contract
restructurings and the related disclosures and accounting
treatment for the restructured power contracts, including, in
particular, the Eagle Point restructuring transaction completed
in 2002. In July 2005, we were informed by the staff of the
SEC that they do not intend to recommend any enforcement action
concerning this investigation.
Wash Trades. In June 2002, we received an informal
inquiry from the SEC regarding the issue of round trip trades.
Although we do not believe any round trip trades occurred, we
submitted data to the SEC in July 2002. In July 2002,
we received a federal grand jury subpoena for documents
concerning round trip or wash trades. We have complied with
those requests. We have also cooperated with the
U.S. Attorney regarding an investigation of specific
transactions executed in connection with hedges of our natural
gas and oil production and the restatement of such hedges. On
May 24, 2005, we received a subpoena from the SEC
requesting the production of documents related to such
production hedges. We are cooperating with the SEC investigation.
Price Reporting. In October 2002, the FERC issued
data requests regarding price reporting of transactional data to
the energy trade press. We provided information to the FERC, the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the
U.S. Attorney in response to their requests. In the first
quarter of 2003, we announced a settlement with the CFTC of the
price reporting matter providing for the payment of a civil
monetary penalty by EPM of $20 million, $10 million of
which is payable in 2006, without admitting or denying the CFTC
holdings in the order. We are continuing to cooperate with the
U.S. Attorneys investigation of this matter.
F-23
Reserve Revisions. In March 2004, we received a
subpoena from the SEC requesting documents relating to our
December 31, 2003 natural gas and oil reserve
revisions. We have also received federal grand jury subpoenas
for documents with regard to these reserve revisions and we
cooperated with the U.S. Attorneys investigation
related to this matter. In June 2005, we were informed that the
U.S. Attorneys office closed this investigation and
will not pursue prosecution at this time. We will continue to
cooperate with the SEC in its investigation related to such
reserve revisions.
Iraq Oil Sales. In September 2004, The Coastal
Corporation (now known as El Paso CGP Company, which we
acquired in January 2001) received a subpoena from the
grand jury of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York to produce records regarding the
United Nations Oil for Food Program governing sales
of Iraqi oil. The subpoena seeks various records related to
transactions in oil of Iraqi origin during the period from 1995
to 2003. In November 2004, we received an order from the
SEC to provide a written statement and to produce certain
documents in connection with The Coastal Corporations and
El Pasos participation in the Oil for Food Program.
In June 2005, we received an additional request for
documents and information from the SEC. We have also received
informal requests for information and documents from the United
States Senates Permanent Subcommittee of Investigations
and the House of Representatives International Relations
Committee related to Coastals purchases of Iraqi crude
under the Oil for Food Program. We are cooperating with the
U.S. Attorneys, the SECs, the Senate
Subcommittees, and the House Committees
investigations of this matter.
Carlsbad. In August 2000, a main transmission line
owned and operated by EPNG ruptured at the crossing of the Pecos
River near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Twelve individuals at the site
were fatally injured. In June 2001, the
U.S. Department of Transportations Office of Pipeline
Safety (DOT) issued a Notice of Probable Violation and
Proposed Civil Penalty to EPNG. The Notice alleged violations of
DOT regulations, proposed fines totaling $2.5 million and
proposed corrective actions. In April 2003, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued its final report
on the rupture, finding that the rupture was probably caused by
internal corrosion that was not detected by EPNGs
corrosion control program. In December 2003, this matter
was referred by the DOT to the Department of Justice (DOJ). We
recently entered into a tolling agreement with the DOJ to
attempt to reach resolution of this civil proceeding. In
addition, we, EPNG and several of its current and former
employees had received several federal grand jury subpoenas for
documents or testimony related to the Carlsbad rupture. In
July 2005, we were informed by the DOJ that the United
States is not pursuing any criminal prosecutions associated with
the rupture.
In addition to the above matters, we and our subsidiaries and
affiliates are named defendants in numerous lawsuits and
governmental proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of
our business. There are also other regulatory rules and orders
in various stages of adoption, review and/or implementation,
none of which we believe will have a material impact on us.
Rates and Regulatory Matters
Selective Discounting Notice of Inquiry (NOI). In
November 2004, the FERC issued a NOI seeking comments on
its policy regarding selective discounting by natural gas
pipelines. In May 2005, the FERC issued an order
reaffirming its prior practice of permitting pipelines to adjust
their ratemaking throughput downward in rate cases to reflect
discounts given by pipelines for competitive reasons when the
discount is given to meet competition from another natural gas
pipeline.
EPNG Rate Case. In June 2005, EPNG filed a rate case with
the FERC proposing an increase in revenues of 10.6 percent
or $56 million over current tariff rates, new services and
revisions to certain terms and conditions of existing services,
including the adoption of a fuel tracking mechanism. The rate
case would be effective January 1, 2006. In addition, the
reduced tariff rates provided to EPNGs former full
requirements (FR) customers under the terms of our FERC
approved systemwide capacity allocation proceeding will expire
on January 1, 2006. The combined effect of the proposed
increase in tariff rates and the expiration of the lower rates
to EPNGs FR customers are estimated to increase our
revenues by approximately $138 million. In July 2005, the
FERC accepted certain of the proposed tariff revisions,
including the adoption of a fuel tracking mechanism and set the
rate case for hearing and technical conference. The FERC
directed the scheduling of
F-24
the technical conference within 150 days of the order and
held the hearing pending resolution of the various matters
identified for consideration at the technical conference. We
anticipate continued discussions with intervening parties and
are uncertain of the settlement of this rate case.
SNG Rate Case. In August 2004, SNG filed a rate case with
the FERC seeking an annual rate increase of $35 million, or
11 percent in jurisdictional rates and certain revisions to
its effective tariff regarding terms and conditions of service.
In April 2005, SNG reached a tentative settlement in principle
that would resolve all issues in our rate proceeding, and filed
the negotiated offer of settlement with the FERC on
April 29, 2005. SNG implemented the settlement rates on an
interim basis as of March 1, 2005 as negotiated rates with
all shippers which elected to be consenting parties under the
rate settlement. In an order issued in July 2005, the FERC
approved the settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, SNG
reduced the proposed increase in its base tariff rates by
approximately $21 million; reduced its fuel retention
percentage and agreed to an incentive sharing mechanism to
encourage additional fuel savings; received approval for capital
maintenance tracker that will allow it to recover costs through
its rates; adjusted the rates for its South Georgia facilities
and agreed to file its next general rate case no earlier than
March 1, 2009 and no later than March 31, 2010. The
settlement also provided for changes regarding SNGs terms
and conditions of service. We do not expect the settlement to
have a material impact on our future financial results. In
addition, as a result of the contract extensions required by the
settlement, the contract terms for firm service now average
approximately seven years.
Other Contingencies
Navajo Nation. Nearly 900 looped pipeline miles of the
north mainline of our EPNG pipeline system are located on
property inside the Navajo Nation. We currently pay
approximately $2 million per year for the real property
interests, such as easements, leases and rights-of-way located
on Navajo Nation trust lands. These real property interests are
scheduled to expire in October 2005. We are in negotiations
with the Navajo Nation to obtain their consent to renew these
interests, but the Navajo Nation has made a demand of more than
ten times the existing fee. We will continue to negotiate in
order to reach an agreement on a renewal, but we are also
exploring other options including potentially developing
collaborative projects to benefit the Navajo Nation in lieu of
cash payments. If we are unable to reach a new consent agreement
with the Navajo Nation (which is arguably required for renewal
of the U.S. Department of the Interiors extension of
EPNGs current easement across trust lands) the impact is
uncertain. Historically, we have continued renewal negotiations
with the Navajo Nation substantially beyond the prior
easements expiration, without litigation or interruption
to our operations. As our renewal efforts continue, we may incur
litigation and other costs and, ultimately, higher consent fees.
Although the FERC has rejected a request made in the rate case
filed on June 25, 2005 for a tracking mechanism that would
have provided an assurance of recovery of the cost of the Navajo
right-of-way, the FERC did invite EPNG to seek permission to
include the cost of the right-of-way in its pending rate case if
the final cost becomes known and measurable within a reasonable
time after the close of the test period on December 31,
2005.
Brazilian Matters. We own a number of interests in
various production properties, power and pipeline assets in
Brazil, including our Macae project discussed previously. Our
total investment in Brazil was approximately $1.3 billion
as of June 30, 2005. In a number of our assets and
investments, Petrobras either serves as a joint owner, a
customer or a shipper to the asset or project. Although we have
no material current disputes with Petrobras with regard to the
ownership or operation of our production and pipeline assets,
current disputes on the Macae power plant between us and
Petrobras may negatively impact these investments and the impact
could be material. In addition, although the Macae power plant
is currently dispatching only small quantities of electricity, a
recent rupture in the local distribution companys pipeline
that supplies it gas has resulted in the plant temporarily being
unable to generate electricity. We are currently assessing the
time it will take for the pipeline to be repaired. We also own
an investment in the Porto Velho power plant. The Porto Velho
project is in the process of negotiating certain provisions of
its power purchase agreements (PPA) with Eletronorte, including
the amount of installed capacity, energy prices, take or pay
levels, the term of the first PPA and other issues. In addition,
in October 2004, the project experienced an outage with a
steam turbine which resulted in a partial reduction in the
plants capacity. The project expects to repair the steam
F-25
turbine by the first quarter of 2006. We are uncertain what
impact this outage will have on the PPAs. Although the current
terms of the PPAs and the ongoing contract negotiations do not
indicate an impairment of our investment, we may be required to
write down the value of our investment if these negotiations are
resolved unfavorably. Our investment in Porto Velho was
approximately $316 million at June 30, 2005.
For each of our outstanding legal and other contingent matters,
we evaluate the merits of the case, our exposure to the matter,
possible legal or settlement strategies and the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome. If we determine that an unfavorable outcome
is probable and can be estimated, we establish the necessary
accruals. While the outcome of these matters cannot be predicted
with certainty and there are still uncertainties related to the
costs we may incur, based upon our evaluation and experience to
date, we believe we have established appropriate reserves for
these matters. However, it is possible that new information or
future developments could require us to reassess our potential
exposure related to these matters and adjust our accruals
accordingly. As of June 30, 2005, we had approximately
$172 million accrued, net of related insurance receivables,
for all outstanding legal and other contingent matters.
Environmental Matters
We are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations
governing environmental quality and pollution control. These
laws and regulations require us to remove or remedy the effect
on the environment of the disposal or release of specified
substances at current and former operating sites. As of
June 30, 2005, we had accrued approximately
$371 million, including approximately $358 million for
expected remediation costs and associated onsite, offsite and
groundwater technical studies, and approximately
$13 million for related environmental legal costs, which we
anticipate incurring through 2027. Of the $371 million
accrual, $100 million was reserved for facilities we
currently operate, and $271 million was reserved for
non-operating sites (facilities that are shut down or have been
sold) and Superfund sites.
Our reserve estimates range from approximately $371 million
to approximately $531 million. Our accrual represents a
combination of two estimation methodologies. First, where the
most likely outcome can be reasonably estimated, that cost has
been accrued ($82 million). Second, where the most likely
outcome cannot be estimated, a range of costs is established
($289 million to $449 million) and if no one amount in
that range is more likely than any other, the lower end of the
expected range has been accrued. By type of site, our reserves
are based on the following estimates of reasonably possible
outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2005 | |
|
|
| |
Sites |
|
Expected | |
|
High | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating
|
|
$ |
100 |
|
|
$ |
111 |
|
Non-operating
|
|
|
244 |
|
|
|
374 |
|
Superfund
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
371 |
|
|
$ |
531 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Below is a reconciliation of our accrued liability from
January 1, 2005, to June 30, 2005 (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of January 1, 2005
|
|
$ |
380 |
|
Additions/adjustments for remediation activities
|
|
|
15 |
|
Payments for remediation activities
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
Other changes, net
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of June 30, 2005
|
|
$ |
371 |
|
|
|
|
|
For the last six months of 2005, we estimate that our total
remediation expenditures will be approximately $43 million.
In addition, we expect to make capital expenditures for
environmental matters of approximately $92 million in the
aggregate for the years 2005 through 2009. These expenditures
primarily relate to compliance with clean air regulations.
F-26
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) Cost Recoveries.
Pursuant to a consent order executed by Tennessee Gas Pipeline
(TGP), our subsidiary, in May 1994, with the EPA, TGP has
been conducting various remediation activities at certain of its
compressor stations associated with the presence of PCBs, and
certain other hazardous materials. In May 1995, following
negotiations with its customers, TGP filed an agreement with the
FERC that established a mechanism for recovering a substantial
portion of the environmental costs identified in its PCB
remediation project. The agreement, which was approved by the
FERC in November 1995, provided for a PCB surcharge on firm
and interruptible customers rates to pay for eligible
remediation costs, with these surcharges to be collected over a
defined collection period. TGP has received approval from the
FERC to extend the collection period, which is now currently set
to expire in June 2006. The agreement also provided for
bi-annual audits of eligible costs. As of
June 30, 2005, TGP had pre-collected PCB costs by
approximately $129 million. The pre-collected amount will
be reduced by future eligible costs incurred for the remainder
of the remediation project. To the extent actual eligible
expenditures are less than the amounts pre-collected, TGP will
refund to its customers the difference, plus carrying charges
incurred up to the date of the refunds. As of June 30,
2005, TGP has recorded a regulatory liability (included in other
non-current liabilities on its balance sheet) of
$102 million for the estimated future refund obligations.
CERCLA Matters. We have received notice that we could be
designated, or have been asked for information to determine
whether we could be designated, as a Potentially Responsible
Party (PRP) with respect to 48 active sites under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) or state equivalents. We have sought to
resolve our liability as a PRP at these sites through
indemnification by third-parties and settlements which provide
for payment of our allocable share of remediation costs. As of
June 30, 2005, we have estimated our share of the
remediation costs at these sites to be between $27 million
and $46 million. Since the clean-up costs are estimates and
are subject to revision as more information becomes available
about the extent of remediation required, and because in some
cases we have asserted a defense to any liability, our estimates
could change. Moreover, liability under the federal CERCLA
statute is joint and several, meaning that we could be required
to pay in excess of our pro rata share of remediation costs. Our
understanding of the financial strength of other PRPs has been
considered, where appropriate, in estimating our liabilities.
Accruals for these issues are included in the previously
indicated estimates for Superfund sites.
It is possible that new information or future developments could
require us to reassess our potential exposure related to
environmental matters. We may incur significant costs and
liabilities in order to comply with existing environmental laws
and regulations. It is also possible that other developments,
such as increasingly strict environmental laws, regulations, and
orders of regulatory agencies, as well as claims for damages to
property and the environment or injuries to employees and other
persons resulting from our current or past operations, could
result in substantial costs and liabilities in the future. As
this information becomes available, or other relevant
developments occur, we will adjust our accrual amounts
accordingly. While there are still uncertainties related to the
ultimate costs we may incur, based upon our evaluation and
experience to date, we believe our reserves are adequate.
Guarantees
We are involved in various joint ventures and other ownership
arrangements that sometimes require additional financial support
that results in the issuance of financial and performance
guarantees. See our 2004 Notes to Consolidated Financial
Statements, Note 15, on page F-81, for a description
of these commitments. As of June 30, 2005, we had
approximately $28 million of both financial and performance
guarantees not otherwise reflected in our financial statements.
We also periodically provide indemnification arrangements
related to assets or businesses we have sold. As of
June 30, 2005, we had accrued $56 million related to
these arrangements.
F-27
11. Retirement Benefits
The components of net benefit cost for our pension and
postretirement benefit plans for the periods ended June 30
are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarters Ended June 30, | |
|
Six Months Ended June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Other | |
|
|
|
Other | |
|
|
Pension | |
|
Postretirement | |
|
Pension | |
|
Postretirement | |
|
|
Benefits | |
|
Benefits | |
|
Benefits | |
|
Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
(In millions) | |
Service cost
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
(42 |
) |
|
|
(47 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(84 |
) |
|
|
(95 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
Amortization of net actuarial loss
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Amortization of transition obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Amortization of prior service cost
(1)
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net benefit cost
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
13 |
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
As permitted, the amortization of any prior service cost is
determined using a straight-line amortization of the cost over
the average remaining service period of employees expected to
receive benefits under the plan. |
In 2004, we adopted FSP No. 106-2, Accounting and
Disclosure Requirements Related to the Medicare Prescription
Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. This
pronouncement required us to record the impact of the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 on
our postretirement benefit plans that provide drug benefits that
are covered by that legislation. The adoption of FSP
No. 106-2 decreased our accumulated postretirement benefit
obligation by $49 million. In addition, it reduced our net
periodic benefit cost by approximately $3 million for the
first six months of 2005. Our actual and expected
contributions for 2005 were not reduced by subsidies under this
legislation.
We made $33 million of cash contributions to our
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP) and other
postretirement plans during the six months ended June 30,
2005 and 2004. We expect to contribute an additional
$2 million to the SERP and $34 million to our other
postretirement plans for the remainder of 2005. Contributions to
our other retirement benefit plans will be less than
$1 million in 2005.
12. Capital Stock
Convertible Perpetual Preferred
Stock
In April 2005, we issued $750 million of convertible
perpetual preferred stock. Cash dividends on the preferred stock
are paid quarterly at the rate of 4.99% per annum. Each share of
the preferred stock is convertible at the holders option,
at any time, subject to adjustment, into 76.7754 shares of
our common stock under certain conditions. This conversion rate
represents an equivalent conversion price of approximately
$13.03 per share. The conversion rate is subject to
adjustment based on certain events which include, but are not
limited to, fundamental changes in our business such as mergers
or business combinations as well as distributions of our common
stock or adjustments to the current rate of dividends on our
common stock. We will be able to cause the preferred stock to be
converted into common stock after five years if our common stock
is trading at a premium of 130 percent to the conversion
price.
The net proceeds of $723 million from the issuance of the
preferred stock, together with cash on hand, was used to prepay
our Western Energy Settlement of approximately $442 million
in April 2005, and to pay the redemption price (an aggregate of
$300 million plus accrued dividends of $3 million) of
the 6,000,000 outstanding shares of 8.25% Series A
cumulative preferred stock of our subsidiary, El Paso
Tennessee Pipeline Co., (EPTP) in May 2005.
F-28
Dividends
During the six months ended June 30, 2005, we paid
dividends of approximately $51 million to common
stockholders. The dividends on our common stock were treated as
a reduction of additional paid-in-capital since we currently
have an accumulated deficit. We have also paid dividends of
approximately $26 million subsequent to June 30, 2005.
On July 28, 2005, the Board of Directors declared a
quarterly dividend of $0.04 per share on the companys
outstanding common stock. The dividend will be payable on
October 3, 2005 to shareholders of record on
September 2, 2005.
On May 26, 2005 and July 28, 2005, the Board of
Directors declared quarterly dividends of $10.53 and $12.47 per
share on our 4.99% convertible perpetual preferred stock. The
first dividend was paid on July 1, 2005 to stockholders of
record on June 15, 2005. The second dividend will be
payable on October 3, 2005 to stockholders of record on
September 15, 2005.
We expect dividends paid on our common and preferred stock in
2005 will be taxable to our stockholders because we anticipate
that these dividends will be paid out of current or accumulated
earnings and profits for tax purposes.
13. Business Segment Information
Our regulated business consists of our Pipelines segment, while
our non-regulated businesses consist of our Production,
Marketing and Trading, Power, and Field Services segments. Our
segments are strategic business units that provide a variety of
energy products and services. They are managed separately as
each segment requires different technology and marketing
strategies. Our corporate operations include our general and
administrative functions, as well as a telecommunications
business and various other contracts and assets, all of which
are immaterial. During the second quarter of 2005, we
reclassified our south Louisiana gathering and processing
assets, which were part of our Field Services segment, as
discontinued operations. Our operating results for the quarter
and six months ended June 30, 2005 reflect these
operations as discontinued. Prior period amounts have not been
adjusted as these operations were not material to prior period
results or historical trends.
We use earnings before interest expense and income taxes (EBIT)
to assess the operating results and effectiveness of our
business segments. We define EBIT as net income (loss) adjusted
for (i) items that do not impact our income (loss) from
continuing operations, such as extraordinary items, discontinued
operations and the impact of accounting changes,
(ii) income taxes, (iii) interest and debt expense and
(iv) distributions on preferred interests of consolidated
subsidiaries. Our business operations consist of both
consolidated businesses as well as substantial investments in
unconsolidated affiliates. We believe EBIT is useful to our
investors because it allows them to more effectively evaluate
the performance of all of our businesses and investments. Also,
we exclude interest and debt expense and distributions on
preferred interests of consolidated subsidiaries so that
investors may evaluate our operating results without regard to
our financing methods or capital structure. EBIT may not be
comparable to measures used by other companies. Additionally,
EBIT should be considered in conjunction with net income and
other performance measures such as operating income or operating
cash flow. Below is a reconciliation of our EBIT to our income
(loss) from continuing operations for the periods ended
June 30:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Six Months | |
|
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
Ended | |
|
|
June 30, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Total EBIT
|
|
$ |
59 |
|
|
$ |
498 |
|
|
$ |
511 |
|
|
$ |
818 |
|
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
(340 |
) |
|
|
(410 |
) |
|
|
(690 |
) |
|
|
(833 |
) |
Distributions on preferred interests of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
(58 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(233 |
) |
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
$ |
(131 |
) |
|
$ |
(85 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-29
The following tables reflect our segment results as of and for
the periods ended June 30:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated | |
|
Non-regulated | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marketing | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and | |
|
|
|
Field | |
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended June 30, |
|
Pipelines | |
|
Production | |
|
Trading | |
|
Power | |
|
Services | |
|
Corporate(1) | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues from external customers
|
|
$ |
634 |
|
|
$ |
171 |
(2) |
|
$ |
240 |
|
|
$ |
112 |
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
|
$ |
24 |
|
|
$ |
1,204 |
|
Intersegment revenues
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
281 |
(2) |
|
|
(261 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
20 |
(3) |
Operation and maintenance
|
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
438 |
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
108 |
|
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
294 |
|
(Gain) loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
361 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
360 |
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
$ |
262 |
|
|
$ |
175 |
|
|
$ |
(32 |
) |
|
$ |
(357 |
) |
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
|
$ |
(36 |
) |
|
$ |
7 |
|
Earnings (losses) from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(59 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
Other income, net
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
309 |
|
|
$ |
176 |
|
|
$ |
(30 |
) |
|
$ |
(381 |
) |
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
|
$ |
(12 |
) |
|
$ |
59 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues from external customers
|
|
$ |
595 |
|
|
$ |
144 |
(2) |
|
$ |
187 |
|
|
$ |
202 |
|
|
$ |
375 |
|
|
$ |
29 |
|
|
$ |
1,532 |
|
Intersegment revenues
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
286 |
(2) |
|
|
(328 |
) |
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
(75 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) (3) |
Operation and maintenance
|
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
373 |
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
263 |
|
(Gain) loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
17 |
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
$ |
260 |
|
|
$ |
202 |
|
|
$ |
(154 |
) |
|
$ |
56 |
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
370 |
|
Earnings from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
98 |
|
Other income (expense), net
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
308 |
|
|
$ |
204 |
|
|
$ |
(152 |
) |
|
$ |
102 |
|
|
$ |
27 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
498 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes eliminations of intercompany transactions. Our
intersegment revenues, along with our intersegment operating
expenses, were incurred in the normal course of business between
our operating segments. For the quarters ended June 30,
2005 and 2004, we recorded an intersegment revenue elimination
of $39 million and $75 million and an operations and
maintenance expense elimination of less than $1 million and
$1 million, which is included in the Corporate
column, to remove intersegment transactions. |
|
(2) |
Revenues from external customers include gains and losses
related to our hedging of price risk associated with our natural
gas and oil production. Intersegment revenues represent sales to
our Marketing and Trading segment, which is responsible for
marketing our production. |
|
(3) |
Relates to intercompany activities between our continuing
operations and our discontinued operations. |
F-30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulated | |
|
Non-regulated | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marketing | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and | |
|
|
|
Field | |
|
|
|
|
Six Months Ended June 30, |
|
Pipelines | |
|
Production | |
|
Trading | |
|
Power | |
|
Services | |
|
Corporate(1) | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues from external customers
|
|
$ |
1,382 |
|
|
$ |
302 |
(2) |
|
$ |
333 |
|
|
$ |
191 |
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
$ |
51 |
|
|
$ |
2,324 |
|
Intersegment revenues
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
589 |
(2) |
|
|
(529 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(63 |
) |
|
|
42 |
(3) |
Operation and maintenance
|
|
|
417 |
|
|
|
183 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
129 |
|
|
|
880 |
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
219 |
|
|
|
303 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
574 |
|
(Gain) loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
388 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
381 |
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
$ |
624 |
|
|
$ |
355 |
|
|
$ |
(218 |
) |
|
$ |
(395 |
) |
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
|
$ |
(127 |
) |
|
$ |
236 |
|
Earnings (losses) from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(87 |
) |
|
|
182 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
171 |
|
Other income, net
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
721 |
|
|
$ |
359 |
|
|
$ |
(215 |
) |
|
$ |
(431 |
) |
|
$ |
179 |
|
|
$ |
(102 |
) |
|
$ |
511 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues from external customers
|
|
$ |
1,293 |
|
|
$ |
277 |
(2) |
|
$ |
368 |
|
|
$ |
351 |
|
|
$ |
720 |
|
|
$ |
72 |
|
|
$ |
3,081 |
|
Intersegment revenues
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
599 |
(2) |
|
|
(668 |
) |
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
(163 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Operation and maintenance
|
|
|
352 |
|
|
|
162 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
774 |
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
201 |
|
|
|
271 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
538 |
|
(Gain) loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
255 |
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
$ |
608 |
|
|
$ |
405 |
|
|
$ |
(329 |
) |
|
$ |
(148 |
) |
|
$ |
17 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
559 |
|
Earnings from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
185 |
|
Other income (expense), net
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
694 |
|
|
$ |
408 |
|
|
$ |
(316 |
) |
|
$ |
(67 |
) |
|
$ |
63 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
818 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes eliminations of intercompany transactions. Our
intersegment revenues, along with our intersegment operating
expenses, were incurred in the normal course of business between
our operating segments. For the six months ended June 30,
2005 and 2004, we recorded an intersegment revenue elimination
of $103 million and $163 million and an operations and
maintenance expense elimination of less than $1 million and
$1 million, which is included in the Corporate
column, to remove intersegment transactions. |
|
(2) |
Revenues from external customers include gains and losses
related to our hedging of price risk associated with our natural
gas and oil production. Intersegment revenues represent sales to
our Marketing and Trading segment, which is responsible for
marketing our production. |
|
(3) |
Relates to intercompany activities between our continuing
operations and our discontinued operations. |
Total assets by segment are presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Regulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pipelines
|
|
$ |
16,056 |
|
|
$ |
15,988 |
|
Non-regulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
4,518 |
|
|
|
4,080 |
|
|
Marketing and Trading
|
|
|
2,718 |
|
|
|
2,404 |
|
|
Power
|
|
|
2,348 |
|
|
|
3,599 |
|
|
Field Services
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
686 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total segment assets
|
|
|
25,761 |
|
|
|
26,757 |
|
Corporate
|
|
|
3,722 |
|
|
|
4,520 |
|
Discontinued operations
|
|
|
193 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total consolidated assets
|
|
$ |
29,676 |
|
|
$ |
31,383 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-31
|
|
14. |
Investments in Unconsolidated Affiliates and Related Party
Transactions |
We hold investments in various unconsolidated affiliates which
are accounted for using the equity method of accounting. Our
principal equity method investees are international pipelines,
interstate pipelines and power generation plants. Our income
statement reflects our share of net earnings from unconsolidated
affiliates, which includes income or losses directly
attributable to the net income or loss of our equity investments
as well as impairments and other adjustments. In addition, for
investments we are in the process of selling, or for those that
have been previously impaired, we evaluate the income generated
by the investment and record an amount that we believe is
realizable. For losses, we assess whether such amounts have
already been considered in a related impairment. Our net
ownership interest and earnings (losses) from our unconsolidated
affiliates are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings | |
|
Earnings | |
|
|
|
|
(Losses) from | |
|
(Losses) from | |
|
|
|
|
Unconsolidated | |
|
Unconsolidated | |
|
|
|
|
Affiliates | |
|
Affiliates | |
|
|
Net | |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ownership | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest | |
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
Six Months Ended | |
|
|
| |
|
June 30, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
|
June 30, | |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Percent) | |
|
(In millions) | |
Domestic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enterprise Products Partners,
L.P.(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
183 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
GulfTerra Energy Partners,
L.P.(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
Citrus
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
Midland Cogeneration Venture
(MCV)(2)
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
|
Great Lakes Gas Transmission
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
Other Domestic Investments
|
|
|
various |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total domestic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asia
Investments(3)
|
|
|
various |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
(68 |
) |
|
|
41 |
|
|
Central American
Investments(4)
|
|
|
various |
|
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(49 |
) |
|
|
3 |
|
|
PPN(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Foreign Investments
|
|
|
various |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total foreign
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
(79 |
) |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total earnings from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(19 |
) |
|
$ |
98 |
|
|
$ |
171 |
|
|
$ |
185 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
In January 2005, we sold all of these remaining interests to
Enterprise and recognized a $183 million gain. |
(2) |
Our proportionate share of MCVs losses, after intercompany
eliminations, was $14 million during the second quarter of
2005. We did not record our remaining proportionate share of
MCVs losses as these losses resulted primarily from
changes in the fair value of their derivative contracts, which
we believe did not affect the value of our investment and would
not be realized. We did not recognize substantially all of our
proportionate share of MCVs earnings, after intercompany
eliminations, of approximately $58 million during the six
months ended June 30, 2005 for the same reasons. |
(3) |
Consists of our investments in 12 power plants, including Korea
Independent Energy Corporation, Meizhou Wan Generating,
Habibullah Power and Saba Power Company. Our proportionate share
of earnings reported by our Asia investments was
$19 million and $44 million, for the quarter and six
months ended June 30, 2005. We decreased our proportionate
share of equity earnings for our Asia investments by
$8 million and $19 million, for the quarter and six
months ended June 30, 2005, to reflect the amount of
earnings we believe will be realized. |
(4) |
Consists of our investments in 6 power plants. Our
proportionate share of earnings reported by our Central American
investments was $2 million and $8 million for the
quarter and six months ended June 30, 2005. We recorded an
impairment of $57 million during the quarter ended
June 30, 2005 related to these investments. |
(5) |
We sold our interest in March 2005 and recorded a
$22 million gain. |
F-32
The table below reflects our recognized impairment charges and
gains and losses on sales of equity investments that are
included in earnings (losses) from unconsolidated affiliates for
the periods ended June 30:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter | |
|
Six Months | |
|
|
Ended | |
|
Ended | |
Investment |
|
June 30, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Pre-tax Gain (Loss) | |
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asia power
investments(1)
|
|
$ |
(11 |
) |
|
$ |
(93 |
) |
|
Central American power
investments(1)
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
Other foreign
investments(1)
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
Midland Cogeneration
Venture(2)
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
Gain on sale of PPN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
Gain on sale of Enterprise
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
183 |
|
Other
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(87 |
) |
|
$ |
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Milford power
facility(1)
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
Power plants held for
sale(1)
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
(35 |
) |
Other
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(18 |
) |
|
$ |
(42 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
We impaired our interests in these investments based on
information received regarding the potential value we may
receive when we sell the investments. |
|
(2) |
We impaired our investment in this power facility due to delays
in the timing of expected cash flow receipts from this
investment. |
F-33
The summarized financial information below includes our
proportionate share of the operating results of our
unconsolidated affiliates, including affiliates in which we hold
a less than 50 percent interest as well as those in which
we hold a greater than 50 percent interest for the periods
ended June 30:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended June 30, | |
|
Six Months Ended June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
MCV | |
|
Other Investments | |
|
Total | |
|
MCV | |
|
Other Investments | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating results data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
62 |
|
|
$ |
342 |
|
|
$ |
404 |
|
|
$ |
127 |
|
|
$ |
625 |
|
|
$ |
752 |
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
277 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
384 |
|
|
|
418 |
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
209 |
|
|
Net income
(loss)(1)
|
|
|
(17 |
) (2) |
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
209 |
|
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating results data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
69 |
|
|
$ |
558 |
|
|
$ |
627 |
|
|
$ |
139 |
|
|
$ |
1,072 |
|
|
$ |
1,211 |
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
359 |
|
|
|
419 |
|
|
|
113 |
|
|
|
691 |
|
|
|
804 |
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
217 |
|
|
Net income
(loss)(1)
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
216 |
|
|
|
219 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes net income of $10 million and $7 million for
the quarters ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, and
$14 million and $21 million for the six months ended
June 30, 2005 and 2004, related to our proportionate share
of affiliates in which we hold a greater than 50 percent
interest. |
|
(2) |
Includes $3 million of losses during the second quarter of
2005 and $17 million of earnings during the six months
ended June 30, 2005 attributable to transactions with El
Paso which were eliminated. |
We received distributions and dividends from our investments of
$64 million and $72 million for each of the quarters
ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, and $147 million and
$168 million for the six months ended June 30, 2005
and 2004.
Related Party
Transactions
We enter into a number of transactions with our unconsolidated
affiliates in the ordinary course of conducting our business.
The following table shows the income statement impact on
transactions with our affiliates for the periods ended
June 30:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended | |
|
Six Months | |
|
|
June 30, | |
|
Ended June 30, | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating revenue
|
|
$ |
43 |
|
|
$ |
68 |
|
|
$ |
92 |
|
|
$ |
118 |
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
Reimbursement for operating expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
Other income
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
GulfTerra Energy Partners, L.P. |
Prior to the sale of our interests in GulfTerra to Enterprise in
September 30, 2004, our Field Services segment managed
GulfTerras daily operations and performed all of
GulfTerras administrative and operational activities under
a general and administrative services agreement or, in some
cases, separate operational agreements. GulfTerra contributed to
our income through our general partner interest and our
ownership of common and preference units. We did not have any
loans to or from GulfTerra.
F-34
In December 2003, GulfTerra and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Enterprise executed definitive agreements to merge and form the
second largest publicly traded energy partnership in the United
States. On July 29, 2004, GulfTerras unitholders
approved the adoption of its merger agreement with Enterprise
which was completed in September 2004. In January 2005, we sold
our remaining 9.9 percent interest in the general partner
of Enterprise and approximately 13.5 million common units
in Enterprise for $425 million, which resulted in a gain of
approximately $183 million. We also sold our membership
interest in two subsidiaries that own and operate natural gas
gathering systems and the Indian Springs processing facility to
Enterprise for $75 million, which resulted in a loss of
approximately $1 million.
During 2004, our segments conducted transactions in the ordinary
course of business with GulfTerra, including operational
services and sales of natural gas under transportation
contracts, the net financial impact of which are included in
revenues. We incurred losses on our transportation contracts
with GulfTerra, net of other revenues, of $4 million for
the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2004. Expenses
paid to GulfTerra were $36 million and $56 million and
reimbursements from GulfTerra were $23 million and
$45 million for the quarter and six months ended
June 30, 2004.
Contingent Matters that Could Impact Our
Investments
Economic Conditions in the Dominican Republic. We have
investments in power projects in the Dominican Republic with an
aggregate exposure of approximately $60 million. We own an
approximate 25 percent ownership interest in a 416 MW
power generating complex known as Itabo. We also own an
approximate 48 percent interest in a 67 MW heavy fuel
oil fired power project known as the CEPP project. The country
is emerging from an economic crisis that developed in 2003
resulting in a significant devaluation of the Dominican peso. As
a result of these economic conditions, combined with the high
prices on imported fuels, and due to their inability to pass
through these high fuel costs to their consumers, the local
distribution companies that purchase the electrical output of
these facilities were delinquent in their payments to CEPP and
Itabo, and to the other generating facilities in the Dominican
Republic. The government of the Dominican Republic has signed an
agreement with the IMF and World Bank that restores lending
programs and provides for the recovery of the power sector. This
led to the governments agreement to keep payments current
and address the arrears to the generating companies. In
addition, a recent local court decision has resulted in the
potential inability of CEPP to continue to receive payments for
its power sales, which may affect CEPPs ability to
operate. The local court decision has been stayed pending our
appeal to the Supreme Court of the Dominican Republic. We
continue to monitor the economic and payment situation in the
Dominican Republic and as new information becomes available or
future material developments arise, it is possible that future
impairments of these investments may occur.
Bolivia. We own an eight percent interest in the Bolivia
to Brazil pipeline in which we have approximately
$96 million of exposure, including guarantees, as of
June 30, 2005. During the second quarter of 2005, political
disputes in Bolivia related to pressure to nationalize the
energy industry led to the resignation of the president of
Bolivia. Additionally, recent changes in Bolivian law also
increased the combined rate of production taxes and royalties to
50 percent and required that existing exploration contracts be
renegotiated. Further deterioration of the political environment
in Bolivia could potentially lead to a disruption or cessation
of the supply of gas from Bolivia and impact the payments that
the Bolivia to Brazil pipeline receives from Petrobras. We
continue to monitor the political situation in Bolivia and as
new information becomes available or future material
developments arise, it is possible that a future impairment of
our investment may occur.
F-35
Berkshire Power Project. We own a 56 percent direct
equity interest in a 261 MW power plant, Berkshire Power,
located in Massachusetts. Berkshires lenders have asserted
that Berkshire is in default on its loan agreement (but no
remedies have been exercised at this point). We supply natural
gas to Berkshire under a fuel management agreement. Berkshire
had the ability to delay payment of 33 percent of the
amounts due to us under the fuel supply agreement, up to a
maximum of $49 million which Berkshire reached in March
2005. We reserved the cumulative amount of delayed payments
based on Berkshires inability to generate adequate cash
flows related to this agreement. We continue to supply fuel to
the plant under the fuel supply agreement and we may incur
losses if amounts owed on future fuel deliveries are not paid
for under this agreement because of Berkshires inability
to generate adequate cash flow and the uncertainty surrounding
their negotiations with their lenders.
Brazil. For contingent matters that could impact our
investments in Brazil, see Note 10.
Duke Litigation. Citrus Trading Corporation (CTC), a
direct subsidiary of Citrus Corp. (Citrus), in which we own a
50 percent equity interest, has filed suit against Duke
Energy LNG Sales, Inc. (Duke) and PanEnergy Corp., an affiliate
of Duke, seeking damages of $185 million for breach of a
gas supply contract and wrongful termination of that contract.
Duke sent CTC notice of termination of the gas supply contract
alleging failure of CTC to increase the amount of an outstanding
letter of credit as collateral for its purchase obligations.
Duke has filed in federal court an amended counter claim joining
Citrus and a cross motion for partial summary judgment,
requesting that the court find that Duke had a right to
terminate its gas sales contract with CTC due to the failure of
CTC to adjust the amount of the letter of credit supporting its
purchase obligations. CTC filed an answer to Dukes motion,
which is currently pending before the court. An unfavorable
outcome on this matter could impact the value of our investment
in Citrus.
F-36
Controls and Procedures
Material Weaknesses Previously Disclosed
As discussed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended,
and included on pages F-118 to F-120 of this prospectus, we
did not maintain effective controls as of December 31,
2004, over (1) access to financial application programs and data
in certain information technology environments, (2) account
reconciliations and (3) identification, capture and
communication of financial data used in accounting for
non-routine transactions or activities. The remedial actions
implemented in 2005 related to these material weaknesses are
described below.
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
As of June 30, 2005, we carried out an evaluation under the
supervision and with the participation of our management,
including our Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and our Chief
Financial Officer (CFO), as to the effectiveness, design and
operation of our disclosure controls and procedures (pursuant to
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act)). As discussed below, we
have made various changes in our internal controls which we
believe remediate the material weaknesses previously identified
by the company. We are relying on those changes in internal
controls as an integral part of our disclosure controls and
procedures. Based upon the results of the evaluation of our
disclosure controls and procedures and based upon our reliance
on these revised internal controls, management, including our
CEO and CFO, concluded that our disclosure controls and
procedures were effective as of June 30, 2005.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
During the first quarter of 2005, we implemented the following
changes in our internal control over financial reporting:
|
|
|
|
|
Implemented automated and manual controls for our primary
financial system to monitor unauthorized password changes; |
|
|
|
Developed a segregation of duties matrix for our primary
financial system that documents existing role assignments; |
|
|
|
Formalized and issued a company-wide account reconciliation
policy; |
|
|
|
Implemented an account reconciliation monitoring tool that also
allows for aggregation of unreconciled amounts; |
|
|
|
Provided additional training regarding the company-wide account
reconciliation policy and appropriate use of the account
reconciliation monitoring tool; |
|
|
|
Developed a process to improve communication between commercial
and accounting personnel to allow for complete and timely
communication of information to record non-routine transactions
related to divestiture activity; and |
|
|
|
Implemented an accounting policy that requires a higher level of
review of non-routine transactions. |
During the second quarter of 2005, we implemented the following
changes in our internal control over financial reporting:
|
|
|
|
|
Performed an in-depth analysis of the companys primary
financial accounting system to examine existing functional
access to identify any potentially incompatible duties. |
|
|
|
Enhanced the segregation of duties matrix for our primary
financial accounting system based on the in-depth analysis of
user access. |
|
|
|
Modified the primary financial accounting system to eliminate or
modify potentially conflicting functionality. |
F-37
|
|
|
|
|
Rewrote the computer programs for Marketing and Tradings
mark-to-market accounting system to significantly reduce the
number of different combinations of user access and to modify
remaining capabilities to eliminate potentially conflicting
duties. |
|
|
|
Implemented a process to evaluate all new user access requests
against segregation of duties matrices to ensure no new
conflicts are created for our applications described above. |
|
|
|
Separated security administration rights from system update
capabilities for our applications described above. |
|
|
|
Implemented monitoring procedures to monitor activities of
security administration roles for our applications described
above. |
|
|
|
Improved communications to establish the expectation that
non-routine transactions must be communicated to ensure timely
identification and thorough review of transactions. |
|
|
|
Established periodic business unit meetings to ensure relevant
information related to non-routine transactions is captured and
validated. |
|
|
|
Enhanced the Disclosure Committee Charter and meeting content to
better address areas impacted by non-routine transactions,
including discussion of impairments, significant estimates and
legal and regulatory changes. |
|
|
|
Established a more rigorous top-down review of the financial
statements at the management, corporate and Disclosure Committee
levels. |
We believe that the changes in our internal controls described
above have remediated the material weaknesses. Our testing and
an evaluation of the operating effectiveness and sustainability
of the changes in internal controls has not been completed at
this time. As a result, we may identify additional changes that
are required to remediate or improve our internal controls over
financial reporting.
F-38
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(In millions, except per common share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
(Restated) | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Operating revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pipelines
|
|
$ |
2,651 |
|
|
$ |
2,647 |
|
|
$ |
2,610 |
|
|
Production
|
|
|
1,735 |
|
|
|
2,141 |
|
|
|
1,931 |
|
|
Marketing and Trading
|
|
|
(508 |
) |
|
|
(635 |
) |
|
|
(1,324 |
) |
|
Power
|
|
|
795 |
|
|
|
1,176 |
|
|
|
1,672 |
|
|
Field Services
|
|
|
1,362 |
|
|
|
1,529 |
|
|
|
2,029 |
|
|
Corporate and eliminations
|
|
|
(161 |
) |
|
|
(190 |
) |
|
|
(37 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,874 |
|
|
|
6,668 |
|
|
|
6,881 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of products and services
|
|
|
1,363 |
|
|
|
1,818 |
|
|
|
2,468 |
|
|
Operation and maintenance
|
|
|
1,872 |
|
|
|
2,010 |
|
|
|
2,091 |
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
1,088 |
|
|
|
1,176 |
|
|
|
1,159 |
|
|
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
1,108 |
|
|
|
860 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
Western Energy Settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
899 |
|
|
Taxes, other than income taxes
|
|
|
253 |
|
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
254 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,684 |
|
|
|
6,263 |
|
|
|
7,052 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
405 |
|
|
|
(171 |
) |
Earnings (losses) from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
546 |
|
|
|
363 |
|
|
|
(214 |
) |
Other income
|
|
|
193 |
|
|
|
203 |
|
|
|
197 |
|
Other expenses
|
|
|
(99 |
) |
|
|
(202 |
) |
|
|
(239 |
) |
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
(1,607 |
) |
|
|
(1,791 |
) |
|
|
(1,297 |
) |
Distributions on preferred interests of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
|
(159 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes
|
|
|
(802 |
) |
|
|
(1,074 |
) |
|
|
(1,883 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
(479 |
) |
|
|
(641 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
|
(833 |
) |
|
|
(595 |
) |
|
|
(1,242 |
) |
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(114 |
) |
|
|
(1,279 |
) |
|
|
(425 |
) |
Cumulative effect of accounting changes, net of income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(208 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(947 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,883 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,875 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted loss per common share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(1.30 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.99 |
) |
|
$ |
(2.22 |
) |
|
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(0.18 |
) |
|
|
(2.14 |
) |
|
|
(0.76 |
) |
|
Cumulative effect of accounting changes, net of income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
(0.37 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(1.48 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.15 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.35 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
639 |
|
|
|
597 |
|
|
|
560 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
F-39
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(In millions, except share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
(Restated) | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
ASSETS |
Current assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
2,117 |
|
|
$ |
1,429 |
|
|
Accounts and notes receivable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer, net of allowance of $199 in 2004 and $273 in 2003
|
|
|
1,388 |
|
|
|
2,039 |
|
|
|
Affiliates
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
189 |
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
188 |
|
|
|
245 |
|
|
Inventory
|
|
|
168 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
Assets from price risk management activities
|
|
|
601 |
|
|
|
706 |
|
|
Margin and other deposits held by others
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
203 |
|
|
Assets held for sale and from discontinued operations
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
2,538 |
|
|
Restricted cash
|
|
|
180 |
|
|
|
590 |
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
418 |
|
|
|
593 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
179 |
|
|
|
210 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
5,632 |
|
|
|
8,923 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, at cost
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pipelines
|
|
|
19,418 |
|
|
|
18,563 |
|
|
Natural gas and oil properties, at full cost
|
|
|
14,968 |
|
|
|
14,689 |
|
|
Power facilities
|
|
|
1,550 |
|
|
|
1,660 |
|
|
Gathering and processing systems
|
|
|
171 |
|
|
|
334 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
882 |
|
|
|
998 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36,989 |
|
|
|
36,244 |
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
18,177 |
|
|
|
18,049 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
18,812 |
|
|
|
18,195 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
2,614 |
|
|
|
3,409 |
|
|
Assets from price risk management activities
|
|
|
1,584 |
|
|
|
2,338 |
|
|
Goodwill and other intangible assets, net
|
|
|
428 |
|
|
|
1,082 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2,313 |
|
|
|
2,996 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,939 |
|
|
|
9,825 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
31,383 |
|
|
$ |
36,943 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
F-40
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (Continued)
(In millions, except share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
(Restated) | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
Current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade
|
|
$ |
1,052 |
|
|
$ |
1,552 |
|
|
|
Affiliates
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
483 |
|
|
|
438 |
|
|
Short-term financing obligations, including current maturities
|
|
|
955 |
|
|
|
1,457 |
|
|
Liabilities from price risk management activities
|
|
|
852 |
|
|
|
734 |
|
|
Western Energy Settlement
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
633 |
|
|
Liabilities related to assets held for sale and discontinued
operations
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
933 |
|
|
Accrued interest
|
|
|
333 |
|
|
|
391 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
820 |
|
|
|
910 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
4,572 |
|
|
|
7,074 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term financing obligations, less current maturities
|
|
|
18,241 |
|
|
|
20,275 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities from price risk management activities
|
|
|
1,026 |
|
|
|
781 |
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
1,312 |
|
|
|
1,558 |
|
|
Western Energy Settlement
|
|
|
351 |
|
|
|
415 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2,076 |
|
|
|
2,047 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,765 |
|
|
|
4,801 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities of subsidiaries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
367 |
|
|
|
447 |
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, par value $3 per share; authorized
1,500,000,000 shares; issued 651,064,508 shares in 2004 and
639,299,156 shares in 2003
|
|
|
1,953 |
|
|
|
1,917 |
|
|
Additional paid-in capital
|
|
|
4,538 |
|
|
|
4,576 |
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(2,809 |
) |
|
|
(1,862 |
) |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
Treasury stock (at cost); 7,767,088 shares in 2004 and 7,097,326
shares in 2003
|
|
|
(225 |
) |
|
|
(222 |
) |
|
Unamortized compensation
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
3,438 |
|
|
|
4,346 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity
|
|
$ |
31,383 |
|
|
$ |
36,943 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
F-41
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(In millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
(Restated)(1) | |
|
(Restated)(1) | |
|
(Restated)(1) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Cash flows from operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(947 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,883 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,875 |
) |
|
Less loss from discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(114 |
) |
|
|
(1,279 |
) |
|
|
(425 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss before discontinued operations
|
|
|
(833 |
) |
|
|
(604 |
) |
|
|
(1,450 |
) |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash from operating
activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
1,088 |
|
|
|
1,176 |
|
|
|
1,159 |
|
|
|
Western Energy Settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
899 |
|
|
|
Deferred income tax benefit
|
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
(614 |
) |
|
|
(685 |
) |
|
|
Cumulative effect of accounting changes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
1,108 |
|
|
|
785 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
Losses (earnings) from unconsolidated affiliates, adjusted for
cash distributions
|
|
|
(211 |
) |
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
521 |
|
|
|
Other non-cash income items
|
|
|
447 |
|
|
|
399 |
|
|
|
255 |
|
|
|
Asset and liability changes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts and notes receivable
|
|
|
471 |
|
|
|
2,552 |
|
|
|
(629 |
) |
|
|
|
Inventory
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
248 |
|
|
|
|
Change in non-hedging price risk management activities, net
|
|
|
191 |
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
1,074 |
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
|
(295 |
) |
|
|
(2,127 |
) |
|
|
(114 |
) |
|
|
|
Broker and other margins on deposit with others
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
623 |
|
|
|
(257 |
) |
|
|
|
Broker and other margins on deposit with us
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
(647 |
) |
|
|
|
Western Energy Settlement liability
|
|
|
(626 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other asset and liability changes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(267 |
) |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
(301 |
) |
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
(139 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash provided by continuing activities
|
|
|
1,093 |
|
|
|
2,304 |
|
|
|
678 |
|
|
|
|
Cash provided by (used in) discontinued activities
|
|
|
223 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
(242 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
1,316 |
|
|
|
2,329 |
|
|
|
436 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flows from investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
(1,782 |
) |
|
|
(2,328 |
) |
|
|
(3,243 |
) |
|
Purchases of interests in equity investments
|
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
(299 |
) |
|
Cash paid for acquisitions, net of cash acquired
|
|
|
(47 |
) |
|
|
(1,078 |
) |
|
|
45 |
|
|
Net proceeds from the sale of assets and investments
|
|
|
1,927 |
|
|
|
2,458 |
|
|
|
2,779 |
|
|
Net change in restricted cash
|
|
|
578 |
|
|
|
(534 |
) |
|
|
(260 |
) |
|
Net change in notes receivable from affiliates
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash provided by (used in) continuing activities
|
|
|
761 |
|
|
|
(1,558 |
) |
|
|
(952 |
) |
|
|
|
Cash provided by (used in) discontinued activities
|
|
|
1,142 |
|
|
|
369 |
|
|
|
(303 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
|
|
1,903 |
|
|
|
(1,189 |
) |
|
|
(1,255 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Only individual line items in cash flows from operating
activities have been restated. Total cash flows from continuing
operating activities, investing activities, and financing
activities, as well as discontinued operations were unaffected
by our restatements. |
See accompanying notes.
F-42
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Continued)
(In millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
(Restated)(1) | |
|
(Restated)(1) | |
|
(Restated)(1) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Cash flows from financing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net proceeds from issuance of long-term debt
|
|
|
1,300 |
|
|
|
3,633 |
|
|
|
4,294 |
|
|
Payments to retire long-term debt and other financing obligations
|
|
|
(2,306 |
) |
|
|
(2,824 |
) |
|
|
(1,777 |
) |
|
Net borrowings/(repayments) under revolving and other short-term
credit facilities
|
|
|
(850 |
) |
|
|
(650 |
) |
|
|
154 |
|
|
Net proceeds from issuance of notes payable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repayment of notes payable
|
|
|
(214 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(94 |
) |
|
Payments to minority interest and preferred interest holders
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
(1,277 |
) |
|
|
(861 |
) |
|
Issuances of common stock
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
1,053 |
|
|
Dividends paid
|
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
(203 |
) |
|
|
(470 |
) |
|
Other
|
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
(177 |
) |
|
|
(476 |
) |
|
Contributions from (distributions to) discontinued operations
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
394 |
|
|
|
(1,106 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash provided by (used in) continuing activities
|
|
|
(1,166 |
) |
|
|
(908 |
) |
|
|
717 |
|
|
|
Cash provided by (used in) discontinued activities
|
|
|
(1,365 |
) |
|
|
(394 |
) |
|
|
555 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities
|
|
|
(2,531 |
) |
|
|
(1,302 |
) |
|
|
1,272 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
688 |
|
|
|
(162 |
) |
|
|
453 |
|
|
Less change in cash and cash equivalents related to discontinued
operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in cash and cash equivalents from continuing operations
|
|
|
688 |
|
|
|
(162 |
) |
|
|
443 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning of period
|
|
|
1,429 |
|
|
|
1,591 |
|
|
|
1,148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
End of period
|
|
$ |
2,117 |
|
|
$ |
1,429 |
|
|
$ |
1,591 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Cash Flow Information:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid, net of amounts capitalized
|
|
$ |
1,536 |
|
|
$ |
1,657 |
|
|
$ |
1,291 |
|
|
Income tax payments (refunds)
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
(106 |
) |
|
|
(1) |
Only individual line items in cash flows from operating
activities have been restated. Total cash flows from continuing
operating activities, investing activities, and financing
activities, as well as discontinued operations were unaffected
by our restatements. |
See accompanying notes.
F-43
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
(In millions except for per share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
(Restated) | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Shares | |
|
Amount | |
|
Shares | |
|
Amount | |
|
Shares | |
|
Amount | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Common stock, $3.00 par:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at beginning of year
|
|
|
639 |
|
|
$ |
1,917 |
|
|
|
605 |
|
|
$ |
1,816 |
|
|
|
538 |
|
|
$ |
1,615 |
|
|
Equity offering
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
155 |
|
|
Exchange of equity security units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Western Energy Settlement equity offerings
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year
|
|
|
651 |
|
|
|
1,953 |
|
|
|
639 |
|
|
|
1,917 |
|
|
|
605 |
|
|
|
1,816 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional paid-in capital:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at beginning of year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,576 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,444 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,130 |
|
|
Compensation related issuances
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
Tax effects of equity plans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
Equity offering
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
846 |
|
|
Exchange of equity security units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
189 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conversion of FELINE
PRIDESSM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
423 |
|
|
Western Energy Settlement equity offerings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends ($0.16 per share)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(104 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(96 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,538 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,576 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,444 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated deficit (Restated):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at beginning of year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,862 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,387 |
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(947 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,883 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,875 |
) |
|
Dividends ($0.87 per share)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(491 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,809 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,862 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at beginning of year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(235 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
Other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
195 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(217 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(235 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Treasury stock, at cost:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at beginning of year
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(222 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(201 |
) |
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(261 |
) |
|
Compensation related issuances
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(225 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(222 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(201 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unamortized compensation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at beginning of year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(95 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(187 |
) |
|
Issuance of restricted stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
Amortization of restricted stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
Forfeitures of restricted stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(23 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(95 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
643 |
|
|
$ |
3,438 |
|
|
|
632 |
|
|
$ |
4,346 |
|
|
|
599 |
|
|
$ |
5,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
F-44
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(In millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
(Restated) | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(947 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,883 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,875 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency translation adjustments (net of income tax of
$38 in 2004 and $51 in 2003)
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
108 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
Minimum pension liability accrual (net of income tax of $11 in
2004, $7 in 2003 and $20 in 2002)
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
Net gains (losses) from cash flow hedging activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized mark-to-market gains (losses) arising during period
(net of income tax of $8 in 2004, $50 in 2003 and $53
in 2002)
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
(90 |
) |
|
|
Reclassification adjustments for changes in initial value to
settlement date (net of income tax of $8 in 2004, $11
in 2003 and $40 in 2002)
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(73 |
) |
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
195 |
|
|
|
(217 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive loss
|
|
$ |
(906 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,688 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,092 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
F-45
EL PASO CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
1. Basis of Presentation and Significant Accounting
Policies
Basis of Presentation
Our consolidated financial statements include the accounts of
all majority-owned and controlled subsidiaries after the
elimination of all significant intercompany accounts and
transactions. Our results for all periods presented reflect our
Canadian and certain other international natural gas and oil
production operations, petroleum markets and coal mining
businesses as discontinued operations. Additionally, our
financial statements for prior periods include reclassifications
that were made to conform to the current year presentation.
Those reclassifications did not impact our reported net loss or
stockholders equity.
Restatements
Overview. The financial statements in this prospectus
have been restated for several matters. As originally filed in
our 2004 Form 10-K, our 2002 financial statements were
restated to reflect a correction in the manner in which we
adopted SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations,
and SFAS No. 142 Goodwill and Other Intangible
Assets. Our 2003 financial statements were initially
restated to record the tax benefit of our Canadian exploration
and production operations as discontinued operations rather than
continuing operations as originally presented. We further
restated our financial statements in 2003 and restated our
financial statements in 2004 to correct the accounting for
currency translation adjustments (CTA) and related income taxes.
Each of these restatements is explained more fully below.
Goodwill. During the completion of the financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2004, we
identified an error in the manner in which we had originally
adopted the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards (SFAS) No. 141, Business Combinations, and
SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, in
2002. Upon adoption of these standards, we incorrectly adjusted
the cost of investments in unconsolidated affiliates and the
cumulative effect of change in accounting principle for the
excess of our share of the affiliates fair value of net
assets over their original cost, which we believed was negative
goodwill. The amount originally recorded as a cumulative effect
of accounting change was $154 million and related to our
investments in Citrus Corporation, Portland Natural Gas, several
Australian investments and an investment in the Korea
Independent Energy Corporation. We subsequently determined that
the amounts we adjusted were not negative goodwill, but rather
amounts that should have been allocated to the long-lived assets
underlying our investments. As a result, we were required to
restate our 2002 financial statements to reverse the amount we
recorded as a cumulative effect of an accounting change on
January 1, 2002. This adjustment also impacted a related
deferred tax adjustment and an unrealized loss we recorded on
our Australian investments during 2002, requiring a further
restatement of that year. The restatements also affected the
investment, deferred tax liability and stockholders equity
balances we reported as of December 31, 2002 and 2003.
Below are the effects of our restatements:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended | |
|
|
December 31, 2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
As | |
|
As | |
|
|
Reported | |
|
Restated | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions except per | |
|
|
common share | |
|
|
amounts) | |
Income Statement:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings (losses) from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
$ |
(226 |
) |
|
$ |
(214 |
) |
|
Income taxes (benefit)
|
|
|
(621 |
) |
|
|
(641 |
) |
|
Cumulative effect of accounting changes, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
(208 |
) |
|
Net loss
|
|
|
(1,753 |
) |
|
|
(1,875 |
) |
|
Basic and diluted net loss per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect of accounting changes, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(0.10 |
) |
|
|
(0.37 |
) |
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
(3.13 |
) |
|
|
(3.35 |
) |
F-46
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of | |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2002 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
As | |
|
As | |
|
As | |
|
As | |
|
|
Reported | |
|
Restated | |
|
Reported | |
|
Restated | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Balance Sheet:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
$ |
4,891 |
|
|
$ |
4,749 |
|
|
$ |
3,551 |
|
|
$ |
3,409 |
|
|
Non-current deferred income tax liabilities
|
|
|
2,094 |
|
|
|
2,074 |
|
|
|
1,571 |
|
|
|
1,551 |
|
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
|
5,872 |
|
|
|
5,750 |
|
|
|
4,474 |
|
|
|
4,352 |
|
The restatement did not impact 2003 and 2004 reported income
amounts, except that we recorded an adjustment related to these
periods of $(19) million in the fourth quarter of 2004. The
components of this adjustment were immaterial to all previously
reported interim and annual periods.
Income Taxes. In our discontinued Canadian exploration
and production operations, we had previously recorded deferred
tax benefits of $82 million in continuing operations that
should have been reflected in discontinued operations. As a
result, we were required to restate our 2003 financial
statements, and related quarterly financial information, to
reclassify this amount from continuing operations to
discontinued operations. This restatement, which we originally
reported in Amendment No. 1 to our 2004 Form 10-K, did
not impact our reported net loss, balance sheet amounts or cash
flows as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003.
Cumulative Foreign Currency Translation Adjustments
(CTA). We determined that our CTA balances contained amounts
related to businesses and investments that had been previously
sold or abandoned. These businesses and investments primarily
included our discontinued Canadian exploration and production
operations and certain of our discontinued petroleum markets
activities, foreign plants in our Power segment, and certain
foreign operations in our Marketing and Trading segment and in
our corporate activities. The adjustment of these CTA balances
also affected losses we recorded in 2004 on several of these
assets and investments, including impairment charges.
In conjunction with the revisions for CTA, we also determined
that upon initially recognizing U.S. deferred income taxes on
investments in certain of our foreign operations, we did not
properly allocate taxes to CTA. As a result, we should have
allocated additional income tax amounts to CTA in 2003 and 2004
in our discontinued Canadian exploration and production
operations and on investments in Korea and Australia. These
allocated amounts then impacted losses recorded on the sale of
our Canadian operations and our Australian investment in 2004.
The overall impact of these adjustments for CTA and their
related tax impact was a $1 million reduction in our net
loss in 2004. In 2003, the overall impact of these adjustments
was a reduction in our net loss of $45 million. The income
effects in both years impacted the results of both continuing
and discontinued operations. As of December 31, 2004, the
effect of these adjustments to total stockholders equity
was a $1 million decrease, resulting from a decrease in
accumulated deficit of $46 million and a decrease in
accumulated other comprehensive income of $47 million.
F-47
Below are the effects of the restatements related to income
taxes and CTA on our income statements, balance sheets and
statements of comprehensive income. We have reflected the
effects of these restatements in Notes 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 21 and
22, on pages F-62, F-68, F-69, F-70, F-73, F-105 and F-110.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
As | |
|
As | |
|
As | |
|
As | |
|
As Further | |
|
|
Reported | |
|
Restated | |
|
Reported | |
|
Restated(1) | |
|
Restated(2) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except per share amounts) | |
Income Statement:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
$ |
1,092 |
|
|
$ |
1,108 |
|
|
$ |
860 |
|
|
$ |
860 |
|
|
$ |
860 |
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
206 |
|
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
405 |
|
|
|
405 |
|
|
|
405 |
|
|
Earnings from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
559 |
|
|
|
546 |
|
|
|
363 |
|
|
|
363 |
|
|
|
363 |
|
|
Other income
|
|
|
189 |
|
|
|
193 |
|
|
|
203 |
|
|
|
203 |
|
|
|
203 |
|
|
Loss before income taxes
|
|
|
(777 |
) |
|
|
(802 |
) |
|
|
(1,074 |
) |
|
|
(1,074 |
) |
|
|
(1,074 |
) |
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
(551 |
) |
|
|
(469 |
) |
|
|
(479 |
) |
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
|
(802 |
) |
|
|
(833 |
) |
|
|
(523 |
) |
|
|
(605 |
) |
|
|
(595 |
) |
|
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(146 |
) |
|
|
(114 |
) |
|
|
(1,396 |
) |
|
|
(1,314 |
) |
|
|
(1,279 |
) |
|
Net loss
|
|
|
(948 |
) |
|
|
(947 |
) |
|
|
(1,928 |
) |
|
|
(1,928 |
) |
|
|
(1,883 |
) |
|
Basic and diluted loss per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(1.25 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.30 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.87 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.01 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.99 |
) |
|
|
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(0.23 |
) |
|
|
(0.18 |
) |
|
|
(2.34 |
) |
|
|
(2.20 |
) |
|
|
(2.14 |
) |
|
|
Cumulative effect of accounting changes, net of income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(1.48 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.48 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.23 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.23 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statement of Comprehensive Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency translation adjustments
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
159 |
|
|
$ |
159 |
|
|
$ |
108 |
|
|
Other comprehensive income
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
246 |
|
|
|
246 |
|
|
|
195 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Amounts restated reflect the effects of reclassifying deferred
income tax benefits from continuing operations to discontinued
operations as originally reported in our Form 10-K/ A
(Amendment No. 1) filed on April 8, 2005. This
restatement is further described on page F-47 under the
heading Income Taxes. |
|
(2) |
Amounts further restated reflect the effects of adjusting CTA
and related income taxes on certain of our foreign investments
with CTA balances as further described on page F-47 under
the heading Cumulative Foreign Currency Translation Adjustments
(CTA). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
As Reported | |
|
As Restated | |
|
As Reported | |
|
As Restated | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Balance Sheet:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income tax assets, current
|
|
$ |
418 |
|
|
$ |
418 |
|
|
$ |
592 |
|
|
$ |
593 |
|
|
Deferred income tax liabilities, non-current
|
|
|
1,311 |
|
|
|
1,312 |
|
|
|
1,551 |
|
|
|
1,558 |
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(2,855 |
) |
|
|
(2,809 |
) |
|
|
(1,907 |
) |
|
|
(1,862 |
) |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
3,439 |
|
|
|
3,438 |
|
|
|
4,352 |
|
|
|
4,346 |
|
F-48
Principles of
Consolidation
We consolidate entities when we either (i) have the ability
to control the operating and financial decisions and policies of
that entity or (ii) are allocated a majority of the
entitys losses and/or returns through our variable
interests in that entity. The determination of our ability to
control or exert significant influence over an entity and if we
are allocated a majority of the entitys losses and/or
returns involves the use of judgment. We apply the equity method
of accounting where we can exert significant influence over, but
do not control, the policies and decisions of an entity and
where we are not allocated a majority of the entitys
losses and/or returns. We use the cost method of accounting
where we are unable to exert significant influence over the
entity. See Note 2, on page F-58, for a discussion of
our adoption of an accounting standard that impacted our
consolidation principles in 2004.
Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. requires
the use of estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts we
report as assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses and our
disclosures in these financial statements. Actual results can,
and often do, differ from those estimates.
Accounting for Regulated
Operations
Our interstate natural gas pipelines and storage operations are
subject to the jurisdiction of the FERC in accordance with the
Natural Gas Act of 1938 and the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978.
Of our regulated pipelines, TGP, EPNG, SNG, CIG, WIC, CPG and
MPC follow the regulatory accounting principles prescribed under
SFAS No. 71, Accounting for the Effects of Certain Types
of Regulation. ANR discontinued the application of SFAS
No. 71 in 1996. The accounting required by SFAS No. 71
differs from the accounting required for businesses that do not
apply its provisions. Transactions that are generally recorded
differently as a result of applying regulatory accounting
requirements include the capitalization of an equity return
component on regulated capital projects, postretirement employee
benefit plans, and other costs included in, or expected to be
included in, future rates. Effective December 31, 2004, ANR
Storage began re-applying the provisions of
SFAS No. 71.
We perform an annual review to assess the applicability of the
provisions of SFAS No. 71 to our financial statements, the
outcome of which could result in the re-application of this
accounting in some of our regulated systems or the
discontinuance of this accounting in others.
Cash and Cash
Equivalents
We consider short-term investments with an original maturity of
less than three months to be cash equivalents.
We maintain cash on deposit with banks and insurance companies
that is pledged for a particular use or restricted to support a
potential liability. We classify these balances as restricted
cash in other current or non-current assets in our balance sheet
based on when we expect this cash to be used. As of
December 31, 2004, we had $180 million of
restricted cash in current assets, and $180 million in
other non-current assets. As of December 31, 2003, we had
$590 million of restricted cash in current assets and
$349 million in other non-current assets. Of the 2003
amounts, $468 million was related to funds escrowed for our
Western Energy Settlement discussed in Note 17, on
page F-89.
Allowance for Doubtful
Accounts
We establish provisions for losses on accounts and notes
receivable and for natural gas imbalances due from shippers and
operators if we determine that we will not collect all or part
of the outstanding balance. We regularly review collectibility
and establish or adjust our allowance as necessary using the
specific identification method.
F-49
Inventory
Our inventory consists of spare parts, natural gas in storage,
optic fiber and power turbines. We classify all inventory as
current or non-current based on whether it will be sold or used
in the normal operating cycle of the assets, to which it
relates, which is typically within the next twelve months. We
use the average cost method to account for our inventories. We
value all inventory at the lower of its cost or market value.
Property, Plant and Equipment
Our property, plant and equipment is recorded at its original
cost of construction or, upon acquisition, at the fair value of
the assets acquired. For assets we construct, we capitalize
direct costs, such as labor and materials, and indirect costs,
such as overhead, interest and in our regulated businesses that
apply the provisions of SFAS No. 71, an equity return
component. We capitalize the major units of property
replacements or improvements and expense minor items. Included
in our pipeline property balances are additional acquisition
costs, which represent the excess purchase costs associated with
purchase business combinations allocated to our regulated
interstate systems. These costs are amortized on a straight-line
basis, and we do not recover these excess costs in our rates.
The following table presents our property, plant and equipment
by type, depreciation method and depreciable lives:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type |
|
Method |
|
Depreciable Lives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In years) |
Regulated interstate systems
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SFAS No. 71
|
|
|
Composite (1) |
|
|
|
1-63 |
|
|
Non-SFAS No. 71
|
|
|
Composite (1) |
|
|
|
1-64 |
|
Non-regulated systems
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission and storage facilities
|
|
|
Straight-line |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
Power facilities
|
|
|
Straight-line |
|
|
|
3-30 |
|
|
Gathering and processing systems
|
|
|
Straight-line |
|
|
|
3-33 |
|
|
Buildings and improvements
|
|
|
Straight-line |
|
|
|
5-40 |
|
|
Office and miscellaneous equipment
|
|
|
Straight-line |
|
|
|
1-10 |
|
|
|
(1) |
For our regulated interstate systems, we use the composite
(group) method to depreciate property, plant and equipment.
Under this method, assets with similar useful lives and other
characteristics are grouped and depreciated as one asset. We
apply the depreciation rate approved in our rate settlements to
the total cost of the group until its net book value equals its
salvage value. We re-evaluate depreciation rates each time we
redevelop our transportation rates when we file with the FERC
for an increase or decrease in rates. |
When we retire regulated property, plant and equipment, we
charge accumulated depreciation and amortization for the
original cost, plus the cost to remove, sell or dispose, less
its salvage value. We do not recognize a gain or loss unless we
sell an entire operating unit. We include gains or losses on
dispositions of operating units in income.
We capitalize a carrying cost on funds related to our
construction of long-lived assets. This carrying cost consists
of (i) an interest cost on our debt that could be
attributed to the assets, which applies to all of our regulated
transmission businesses and (ii) a return on our equity,
that could be attributed to the assets, which only applies to
regulated transmission businesses that apply
SFAS No. 71. The debt portion is calculated based on
the average cost of debt. Interest cost on debt amounts
capitalized during the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003
and 2002, were $39 million, $31 million and
$28 million. These amounts are included as a reduction of
interest expense in our income statements. The equity portion is
calculated using the most recent FERC approved equity rate of
return. Equity amounts capitalized during the years ended
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 were $22 million,
$19 million and $8 million. These amounts are included
as other non-operating income on our income statement.
Capitalized carrying costs for debt and equity-financed
construction are reflected as an increase in the cost of the
asset on our balance sheet.
F-50
Asset and Investment
Impairments
We apply the provisions of SFAS No. 144, Accounting for
the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, and
Accounting Principles Board Opinion (APB) No. 18, The
Equity Method of Accounting for Investments in Common Stock,
to account for asset and investment impairments. Under these
standards, we evaluate an asset or investment for impairment
when events or circumstances indicate that its carrying value
may not be recovered. These events include market declines that
are believed to be other than temporary, changes in the manner
in which we intend to use a long-lived asset, decisions to sell
an asset or investment and adverse changes in the legal or
business environment such as adverse actions by regulators. When
an event occurs, we evaluate the recoverability of our carrying
value based on either (i) the long-lived assets
ability to generate future cash flows on an undiscounted basis
or (ii) the fair value of our investment in unconsolidated
affiliates. If an impairment is indicated or if we decide to
exit or sell a long-lived asset or group of assets, we adjust
the carrying value of these assets downward, if necessary, to
their estimated fair value, less costs to sell. Our fair value
estimates are generally based on market data obtained through
the sales process or an analysis of expected discounted cash
flows. The magnitude of any impairments are impacted by a number
of factors, including the nature of the assets to be sold and
our established time frame for completing the sales, among other
factors. We also reclassify the asset or assets as either
held-for-sale or as discontinued operations, depending on, among
other criteria, whether we will have any continuing involvement
in the cash flows of those assets after they are sold.
Natural Gas and Oil
Properties
We use the full cost method to account for our natural gas and
oil properties. Under the full cost method, substantially all
costs incurred in connection with the acquisition, development
and exploration of natural gas and oil reserves are capitalized.
These capitalized amounts include the costs of unproved
properties, internal costs directly related to acquisition,
development and exploration activities, asset retirement costs
and capitalized interest. This method differs from the
successful efforts method of accounting for these activities.
The primary differences between these two methods are the
treatment of exploratory dry hole costs. These costs are
generally expensed under successful efforts when the
determination is made that measurable reserves do not exist.
Geological and geophysical costs are also expensed under the
successful efforts method. Under the full cost method, both dry
hole costs and geological and geophysical costs are capitalized
into the full cost pool, which is then periodically assessed for
recoverability as discussed below.
We amortize capitalized costs using the unit of production
method over the life of our proved reserves. Capitalized costs
associated with unproved properties are excluded from the
amortizable base until these properties are evaluated. Future
development costs and dismantlement, restoration and abandonment
costs, net of estimated salvage values, are included in the
amortizable base. Beginning January 1, 2003, we began
capitalizing asset retirement costs associated with proved
developed natural gas and oil reserves into our full cost pool,
pursuant to SFAS No. 143, Accounting for Asset
Retirement Obligations as discussed below.
Our capitalized costs, net of related income tax effects, are
limited to a ceiling based on the present value of future net
revenues using end of period spot prices discounted at
10 percent, plus the lower of cost or fair market value of
unproved properties, net of related income tax effects. If these
discounted revenues are not greater than or equal to the total
capitalized costs, we are required to write-down our capitalized
costs to this level. We perform this ceiling test calculation
each quarter. Any required write-downs are included in our
income statement as a ceiling test charge. Our ceiling test
calculations include the effects of derivative instruments we
have designated as, and that qualify as, cash flow hedges of our
anticipated future natural gas and oil production.
When we sell or convey interests (including net profits
interests) in our natural gas and oil properties, we reduce our
reserves for the amount attributable to the sold or conveyed
interest. We do not recognize a gain or loss on sales of our
natural gas and oil properties, unless those sales would
significantly alter the relationship between capitalized costs
and proved reserves. We treat sales proceeds on non-significant
sales as an adjustment to the cost of our properties.
F-51
Goodwill and Other
Intangible Assets
Our intangible assets consist of goodwill resulting from
acquisitions and other intangible assets. We apply
SFAS No. 141, Business Combinations, and
SFAS No. 142, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets,
to account for these intangibles. Under these standards,
goodwill and intangibles that have indefinite lives are not
amortized, but instead are periodically tested for impairment,
at least annually, and whenever an event occurs that indicates
that an impairment may have occurred. We amortize all other
intangible assets on a straight-line basis over their estimated
useful lives.
The net carrying amounts of our goodwill as of December 31,
2004 and 2003, and the changes in the net carrying amounts of
goodwill for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003 for
each of our segments are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Field | |
|
|
|
Corporate & | |
|
|
|
|
Pipelines | |
|
Services | |
|
Power | |
|
Other | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Balances as of January 1, 2003
|
|
$ |
413 |
|
|
$ |
483 |
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
205 |
|
|
$ |
1,104 |
|
|
Additions to goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
Impairments of goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(163 |
) |
|
|
(185 |
) |
|
Dispositions of goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(42 |
) |
|
|
(42 |
) |
|
Other changes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances as of December 31, 2003
|
|
|
413 |
|
|
|
480 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
896 |
|
|
Impairments of goodwill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(480 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(480 |
) |
|
Other changes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances as of December 31, 2004
|
|
$ |
413 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
413 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our Field Services impairments resulted from the sale of
substantially all of its interests in GulfTerra Energy Partners,
as well as certain processing assets in our Field Services
segment, to affiliates of Enterprise Products Partners L.P. As a
result of these sales, we determined that the remaining assets
in our Field Services segment could not support the goodwill in
this segment. See Note 22, on page F-110, for a
further discussion of the Enterprise transactions.
Our Power segment recorded $22 million of goodwill in May
2003 in connection with the acquisition of Chaparral. In
December 2003, we determined that we would sell substantially
all of Chaparrals power plants and, based on the bids
received, we determined that this goodwill was not recoverable
and we fully impaired this amount.
Our Corporate and Other impairments resulted from weak industry
conditions in our telecommunications operations. We also
disposed of $42 million of goodwill related to our
financial services businesses in 2003, which we had previously
impaired by $44 million in 2002 based on weak industry
conditions and our decision not to invest further capital in
those businesses.
In addition to our goodwill, we had a $181 million
intangible asset as of December 31, 2003, related to our
excess investment in our general partnership interest in
GulfTerra. We disposed of this asset as a part of the Enterprise
sales described above. We also had other intangible assets of
$15 million and $5 million as of December 31,
2004 and 2003, primarily related to customer lists and other
miscellaneous intangible assets.
Pension and Other
Postretirement Benefits
We maintain several pension and other postretirement benefit
plans. These plans require us to make contributions to fund the
benefits to be paid out under the plans. These contributions are
invested until the benefits are paid out to plan participants.
We record benefit expense related to these plans in our income
statement. This benefit expense is a function of many factors
including benefits earned during the year by plan participants
(which is a function of the employees salary, the level of
benefits provided under the plan,
F-52
actuarial assumptions, and the passage of time), expected return
on plan assets and recognition of certain deferred gains and
losses as well as plan amendments.
We compare the benefits earned, or the accumulated benefit
obligation, to the plans fair value of assets on an annual
basis. To the extent the plans accumulated benefit
obligation exceeds the fair value of plan assets, we record a
minimum pension liability in our balance sheet equal to the
difference in these two amounts. We do not record an additional
minimum liability if it is less than the liability already
accrued for the plan. If this difference is greater than the
pension liability recorded on our balance sheet, however, we
record an additional liability and an amount to other
comprehensive loss, net of income taxes, on our financial
statements.
In 2004, we adopted FASB Staff Position (FSP) No. 106-2,
Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of
2003. This pronouncement required us to record the impact of
the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization
Act of 2003 on our postretirement benefit plans that provide
drug benefits that are covered by that legislation. The adoption
of FSP No. 106-2 decreased our accumulated postretirement
benefit obligation by $49 million, which is deferred as an
actuarial gain in our postretirement benefit liabilities as of
December 31, 2004. We expect that the adoption of this
guidance will reduce our postretirement benefit expense by
approximately $6 million in 2005.
Revenue Recognition
Our business segments provide a number of services and sell a
variety of products. Our revenue recognition policies by segment
are as follows:
Pipelines revenues. Our Pipelines segment derives
revenues primarily from transportation and storage services. We
also derive revenue from sales of natural gas. For our
transportation and storage services, we recognize reservation
revenues on firm contracted capacity over the contract period
regardless of the amount that is actually used. For
interruptible or volumetric based services and for revenues
under natural gas sales contracts, we record revenues when we
complete the delivery of natural gas to the agreed upon delivery
point and when natural gas is injected or withdrawn from the
storage facility. Revenues in all services are generally based
on the thermal quantity of gas delivered or subscribed at a
price specified in the contract or tariff. We are subject to
FERC regulations and, as a result, revenues we collect may be
refunded in a final order of a pending or future rate proceeding
or as a result of a rate settlement. We establish reserves for
these potential refunds.
Production revenues. Our Production segment derives
revenues primarily through the physical sale of natural gas,
oil, condensate and natural gas liquids. Revenues from sales of
these products are recorded upon the passage of title using the
sales method, net of any royalty interests or other profit
interests in the produced product. When actual natural gas sales
volumes exceed our entitled share of sales volumes, an
overproduced imbalance occurs. To the extent the overproduced
imbalance exceeds our share of the remaining estimated proved
natural gas reserves for a given property, we record a
liability. Costs associated with the transportation and delivery
of production are included in cost of sales.
Field Services revenues. Our Field Services segment
derives revenues primarily from gathering and processing
services and through the sale of commodities that are retained
from providing these services. There are two general types of
services: fee-based and make-whole. For fee-based services we
recognize revenues at the time service is rendered based upon
the volume of gas gathered, treated or processed at the
contracted fee. For make-whole services, our fee consists of
retainage of natural gas liquids and other by-products that are
a result of processing, and we recognize revenues on these
services at the time we sell these products, which generally
coincides with when we provide the service.
Power and Marketing and Trading revenues. Our Power and
Marketing and Trading segments derive revenues from physical
sales of natural gas and power and the management of their
derivative contracts. Our derivative transactions are recorded
at their fair value, and changes in their fair value are
reflected in operating revenues. See a discussion of our income
recognition policies on derivatives below under Price Risk
F-53
Management Activities. Revenues on physical sales are
recognized at the time the commodity is delivered and are based
on the volumes delivered and the contractual or market price.
Corporate. Revenue producing activities in our corporate
operations primarily consist of revenues from our
telecommunications business. We recognize revenues for our metro
transport, collocation and cross-connect services in the month
that the services are actually used by the customer.
Environmental Costs and Other
Contingencies
We record liabilities when our environmental assessments
indicate that remediation efforts are probable, and the costs
can be reasonably estimated. We recognize a current period
expense for the liability when clean-up efforts do not benefit
future periods. We capitalize costs that benefit more than one
accounting period, except in instances where separate agreements
or legal or regulatory guidelines dictate otherwise. Estimates
of our liabilities are based on currently available facts,
existing technology and presently enacted laws and regulations
taking into consideration the likely effects of other societal
and economic factors, and include estimates of associated legal
costs. These amounts also consider prior experience in
remediating contaminated sites, other companies clean-up
experience and data released by the EPA or other organizations.
These estimates are subject to revision in future periods based
on actual costs or new circumstances and are included in our
balance sheet in other current and long-term liabilities at
their undiscounted amounts. We evaluate recoveries from
insurance coverage or government sponsored programs separately
from our liability and, when recovery is assured, we record and
report an asset separately from the associated liability in our
financial statements.
We recognize liabilities for other contingencies when we have an
exposure that, when fully analyzed, indicates it is both
probable that an asset has been impaired or that a liability has
been incurred and the amount of impairment or loss can be
reasonably estimated. Funds spent to remedy these contingencies
are charged against a reserve, if one exists, or expensed. When
a range of probable loss can be estimated, we accrue the most
likely amount or at least the minimum of the range of probable
loss.
Price Risk Management Activities
Our price risk management activities consist of the following
activities:
|
|
|
|
|
derivatives entered into to hedge the commodity, interest rate
and foreign currency exposures primarily on our natural gas and
oil production and our long-term debt; |
|
|
|
derivatives related to our power contract restructuring
business; and |
|
|
|
derivatives related to our trading activities that we
historically entered into with the objective of generating
profits from exposure to shifts or changes in market prices. |
We account for all derivative instruments under SFAS
No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and
Hedging Activities. Under SFAS No. 133, derivatives are
reflected in our balance sheet at their fair value as assets and
liabilities from price risk management activities. We classify
our derivatives as either current or non-current assets or
liabilities based on their anticipated settlement date. We net
derivative assets and liabilities for counterparties where we
have a legal right of offset. See Note 10, on
page F-73, for a further discussion of our price risk
management activities.
Prior to 2002, we also accounted for other non-derivative
contracts, such as transportation and storage capacity contracts
and physical natural gas inventories and exchanges, that were
used in our energy trading business at their fair values under
Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) Issue No. 98-10,
Accounting for Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk
Management Activities. In 2002, we adopted EITF Issue
No. 02-3, Issues Related to Accounting for Contracts
Involving Energy Trading and Risk Management Activities. As
a result, we adjusted the carrying value of these non-derivative
instruments to zero and now account for them on an accrual basis
of accounting. We also adjusted the physical natural gas
inventories used in our historical trading business to their
cost (which was lower than market) and our physical natural gas
exchanges to their expected settlement amounts and reclassified
these amounts to inventory and accounts
F-54
receivable and payable on our balance sheet. Upon our adoption
of EITF Issue No. 02-3, we recorded a net loss of
$343 million ($222 million net of income taxes) as a
cumulative effect of an accounting change in our income
statement, of which $118 million was the net adjustment to
our natural gas inventories and exchanges and $225 million
which was the net adjustment for our other non-derivative
instruments.
Our income statement treatment of changes in fair value and
settlements of derivatives depends on the nature of the
derivative instrument. Derivatives used in our hedging
activities are reflected as either revenues or expenses in our
income statements based on the nature and timing of the hedged
transaction. Derivatives related to our power contract
restructuring activities are reflected as either revenues (for
settlements and changes in the fair values of the power sales
contracts) or expenses (for settlements and changes in the fair
values of the power supply agreements). The income statement
presentation of our derivative contracts used in our historical
energy trading activities is reported in revenue on a net basis
(revenues net of the expenses of the physically settled
purchases).
In our cash flow statement, cash inflows and outflows associated
with the settlement of our derivative instruments are recognized
in operating cash flows, and any receivables and payables
resulting from these settlements are reported as trade
receivables and payables in our balance sheet.
During 2002, we also adopted Derivatives Implementation Group
(DIG) Issue No. C-16, Scope Exceptions: Applying the
Normal Purchases and Sales Exception to Contracts that Combine a
Forward Contract and Purchased Option Contract. DIG Issue
No. C-16 requires that if a fixed-price fuel supply
contract allows the buyer to purchase, at their option,
additional quantities at a fixed-price, the contract is a
derivative that must be recorded at its fair value. One of our
unconsolidated affiliates, the Midland Cogeneration Venture
Limited Partnership, recognized a gain on one of its fuel supply
contract upon adoption of these new rules, and we recorded our
proportionate share of this gain of $14 million, net of
income taxes, as a cumulative effect of an accounting change in
our income statement.
We record current income taxes based on our current taxable
income, and we provide for deferred income taxes to reflect
estimated future tax payments and receipts. Deferred taxes
represent the tax impacts of differences between the financial
statement and tax bases of assets and liabilities and carryovers
at each year end. We account for tax credits under the
flow-through method, which reduces the provision for income
taxes in the year the tax credits first become available. We
reduce deferred tax assets by a valuation allowance when, based
on our estimates, it is more likely than not that a portion of
those assets will not be realized in a future period. The
estimates utilized in recognition of deferred tax assets are
subject to revision, either up or down, in future periods based
on new facts or circumstances.
We maintain a tax accrual policy to record both regular and
alternative minimum taxes for companies included in our
consolidated federal and state income tax returns. The policy
provides, among other things, that (i) each company in a
taxable income position will accrue a current expense equivalent
to its federal and state income taxes, and (ii) each
company in a tax loss position will accrue a benefit to the
extent its deductions, including general business credits, can
be utilized in the consolidated returns. We pay all consolidated
U.S. federal and state income taxes directly to the appropriate
taxing jurisdictions and, under a separate tax billing
agreement, we may bill or refund our subsidiaries for their
portion of these income tax payments.
|
|
|
Foreign Currency Transactions and Translation |
We record all currency transaction gains and losses in income.
These gains or losses are classified in our income statement
based upon the nature of the transaction that gives rise to the
currency gain or loss. For sales and purchases of commodities or
goods, these gains or losses are included in operating revenue
or expense. These gains and losses were insignificant in 2004,
2003 and 2002. For gains and losses arising through equity
investees, we record these gains or losses as equity earnings.
For gains or losses on foreign denominated debt, we include
these gains or losses as a component of other expense. For the
years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, we recorded
net foreign currency losses of $13 million,
$100 million and $91 million primarily
F-55
related to currency losses on our Euro-denominated debt. The
U.S. dollar is the functional currency for the majority of
our foreign operations. For foreign operations whose functional
currency is deemed to be other than the U.S. dollar, assets
and liabilities are translated at year-end exchange rates and
the translation effects are included as a separate component of
accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) in
stockholders equity. The net cumulative currency
translation gain (loss) recorded in accumulated other
comprehensive income was $5 million and $(6) million
at December 31, 2004 and 2003. Revenues and expenses
are translated at average exchange rates prevailing during the
year.
We account for treasury stock using the cost method and report
it in our balance sheet as a reduction to stockholders
equity. Treasury stock sold or issued is valued on a first-in,
first-out basis. Included in treasury stock at both
December 31, 2004, and 2003, were approximately
1.6 million shares and 1.7 million shares of common
stock held in a trust under our deferred compensation programs.
We account for our stock-based compensation plans using the
intrinsic value method under the provisions of Accounting
Principles Board Opinion (APB) No. 25, Accounting for
Stock Issued to Employees, and its related interpretations.
We have both fixed and variable compensation plans, and we
account for these plans using fixed and variable accounting as
appropriate. Compensation expense for variable plans, including
restricted stock grants, is measured using the market price of
the stock on the date the number of shares in the grant becomes
determinable. This measured expense is amortized into income
over the period of service in which the grant is earned. Our
stock options are granted under a fixed plan at the market value
on the date of grant. Accordingly, no compensation expense is
recognized. Had we accounted for our stock-based compensation
using SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based
Compensation, rather than APB No. 25, the income (loss)
and per share impacts on our financial statements would have
been different. The following shows the impact on net loss and
loss per share had we applied SFAS No. 123:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
(Restated) | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except per common | |
|
|
share amounts) | |
Net loss, as reported
|
|
$ |
(947 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,883 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,875 |
) |
Add: Stock-based employee compensation expense included in
reported net loss, net of taxes
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
Deduct: Total stock-based employee compensation determined under
fair value-based method for all awards, net of taxes
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
(88 |
) |
|
|
(169 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro forma net loss
|
|
$ |
(968 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,933 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,997 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted, as reported
|
|
$ |
(1.48 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.15 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.35 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted, pro forma
|
|
$ |
(1.51 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.24 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.57 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations |
On January 1, 2003, we adopted SFAS No. 143,
which requires that we record a liability for retirement and
removal costs of long-lived assets used in our business. Our
asset retirement obligations are associated with our natural gas
and oil wells and related infrastructure in our Production
segment and our natural gas storage wells in our Pipelines
segment. We have obligations to plug wells when production on
those wells is exhausted, and we abandon them. We currently
forecast that these obligations will be met at various times,
generally over the next fifteen years, based on the
expected productive lives of the wells and the estimated timing
of plugging and abandoning those wells.
F-56
In estimating the liability associated with our asset retirement
obligations, we utilize several assumptions, including
credit-adjusted discount rates, projected inflation rates, and
the estimated timing and amounts of settling our obligations,
which are based on internal models and external quotes. The
following is a summary of our asset retirement liabilities and
the significant assumptions we used at December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except | |
|
|
for rates) | |
Current asset retirement liability
|
|
$ |
28 |
|
|
$ |
26 |
|
Non-current asset retirement
liability(1)
|
|
$ |
244 |
|
|
$ |
192 |
|
Discount rates
|
|
|
6-8 |
% |
|
|
8- 10 |
% |
Inflation rates
|
|
|
2.5 |
% |
|
|
2.5 |
% |
|
|
(1) |
We estimate that approximately 61 percent of our
non-current asset retirement liability as of December 31,
2004 will be settled in the next five years. |
Our asset retirement liabilities are recorded at their estimated
fair value utilizing the assumptions above, with a corresponding
increase to property, plant and equipment. This increase in
property, plant and equipment is then depreciated over the
remaining useful life of the long-lived asset to which that
liability relates. An ongoing expense is also recognized for
changes in the value of the liability as a result of the passage
of time, which we record in depreciation, depletion and
amortization expense in our income statement. In the first
quarter of 2003, we recorded a charge as a cumulative effect of
accounting change of approximately $9 million, net of
income taxes, related to our adoption of SFAS No. 143.
The net asset retirement liability as of December 31,
reported in other current and non-current liabilities in our
balance sheet, and the changes in the net liability for the year
ended December 31, were as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Net asset retirement liability at January 1
|
|
$ |
218 |
|
|
$ |
209 |
|
Liabilities settled
|
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
(39 |
) |
Accretion expense
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
Liabilities incurred
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
Changes in estimate
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net asset retirement liability at December 31
|
|
$ |
272 |
|
|
$ |
218 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our changes in estimate represent changes to the expected amount
and timing of payments to settle our asset retirement
obligations. These changes primarily result from obtaining new
information about the timing of our obligations to plug our
natural gas and oil wells and the costs to do so. Had we adopted
SFAS No. 143 as of January 1, 2002, our
aggregate current and non-current retirement liabilities on that
date would have been approximately $187 million and our
income from continuing operations and net income for the year
ended December 31, 2002 would have been lower by
$15 million. Basic and diluted earnings per share for the
year ended December 31, 2002 would not have been
materially affected.
|
|
|
Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with
Characteristics of both Liabilities and Equity |
In May 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
issued SFAS No. 150, Accounting for Certain
Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both Liabilities
and Equity. This statement provides guidance on the
classification of financial instruments as equity, as
liabilities, or as both liabilities and equity. In particular,
the standard requires that we classify all mandatorily
redeemable securities as liabilities in the balance sheet. On
July 1, 2003, we adopted the provisions of
SFAS No. 150, and reclassified $625 million of
our Capital Trust I and Coastal Finance I preferred
interests from preferred interests of consolidated subsidiaries
to long-term financing obligations in our balance sheet. We also
began classifying dividends accrued on these preferred interests
as interest and debt expense in our income statement. These
dividends were $40 million in both 2004 and 2003. These
dividends were recorded in interest and debt expense in 2004,
F-57
and $20 million of our 2003 dividends were recorded in
interest expense and $20 million were recorded as
distributions on preferred interests in our income statement in
2003.
|
|
|
New Accounting Pronouncements Issued But Not Yet Adopted |
As of December 31, 2004, there were several accounting
standards and interpretations that had not yet been adopted by
us. Below is a discussion of significant standards that may
impact us.
Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation. In
December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123R,
Share-Based Payment: an amendment of SFAS No. 123 and
95. This standard requires that companies measure and record
the fair value of their stock based compensation awards at fair
value on the date they are granted to employees. This fair value
is determined based on a variety of assumptions, including
volatility rates, forfeiture rates and the option pricing model
used (e.g. binomial or Black Scholes). These assumptions could
significantly differ from those we currently utilize in
determining the proforma compensation expense included in our
disclosures required under SFAS No. 123. This standard will
also impact the manner in which we recognize the income tax
impacts of our stock compensation programs in our financial
statements. This standard is effective for interim periods
beginning after June 15, 2005, at which time companies can
select whether they will apply the standard retroactively by
restating their historical financial statements or prospectively
for new stock-based compensation arrangements and the unvested
portion of existing arrangements. We will adopt this
pronouncement in the third quarter of 2005 and are currently
evaluating its impact on our consolidated financial statements.
Accounting for Deferred Taxes on Foreign Earnings. In
December 2004, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position (FSP)
No. 109-2, Accounting and Disclosure Guidance for the
Foreign Earnings Repatriation Provision within the American Jobs
Creation Act of 2004. FSP No. 109-2 clarified the
existing accounting literature that requires companies to record
deferred taxes on foreign earnings, unless they intend to
indefinitely reinvest those earnings outside the U.S. This
pronouncement will temporarily allow companies that are
evaluating whether to repatriate foreign earnings under the
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 to delay recognizing any
related taxes until that decision is made. This pronouncement
also requires companies that are considering repatriating
earnings to disclose the status of their evaluation and the
potential amounts being considered for repatriation. The U.S.
Treasury Department has not issued final guidelines for applying
the repatriation provisions of the American Jobs Creation Act.
We have not yet determined the potential range of our foreign
earnings that could be impacted by this legislation and FSP
No. 109-2, and we continue to evaluate whether we will
repatriate any foreign earnings and the impact, if any, that
this pronouncement will have on our financial statements.
2. Acquisitions and Consolidations
Acquisitions
During 2003, we acquired the remaining third party interests in
our Chaparral and Gemstone investments and began consolidating
them in the first and second quarters of 2003, respectively. We
historically accounted for these investments using the equity
method of accounting. Each of these acquisitions is discussed
below.
Chaparral. We entered into our Chaparral investment in
1999 to expand our domestic power generation business. Chaparral
owned or had interests in 34 power plants in the United
States that have a total generating capacity of
3,470 megawatts (based on Chaparrals interest in the
plants). These plants were primarily concentrated in the
Northeastern and Western United States. Chaparral also owned
several companies that own long-term derivative power agreements.
At December 31, 2002, we owned 20 percent of Chaparral
and the remaining 80 percent was owned by Limestone
Electron Trust (Limestone). During 2003, we paid
$1,175 million to acquire Limestones 80 percent
interest in Chaparral. Limestone used $1 billion of these
proceeds to retire notes that were previously guaranteed by us.
We have reflected Chaparrals results of operations in our
income statement as though we acquired it on
January 1, 2003. Had we acquired Chaparral effective
January 1, 2002, the net
F-58
increases (decreases) to our income statement for the year ended
December 31, 2002, would have been as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited) | |
Revenues
|
|
$ |
223 |
|
Operating income
|
|
|
(119 |
) |
Net income
|
|
|
19 |
|
Basic and diluted earnings per share
|
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
During the first quarter of 2003, we recorded an impairment of
our investment in Chaparral of $207 million before income
taxes as further discussed in Note 22, on page F-110.
The following table presents our allocation of the purchase
price of Chaparral to its assets and liabilities prior to its
consolidation and prior to the elimination of intercompany
transactions. This allocation reflects the allocation of
(i) our purchase price of $1,175 million;
(ii) the carrying value of our initial investment of
$252 million; and (iii) the impairment of
$207 million (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
$ |
312 |
|
|
Assets from price risk management activities, current
|
|
|
190 |
|
|
Investments in unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
1,366 |
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
519 |
|
|
Assets from price risk management activities, non-current
|
|
|
1,089 |
|
|
Goodwill
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
467 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
3,965 |
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
908 |
|
|
Liabilities from price risk management activities, current
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
Long-term debt, less current
maturities(1)
|
|
|
1,433 |
|
|
Liabilities from price risk management activities, non-current
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
Other liabilities
|
|
|
351 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
2,745 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets
|
|
$ |
1,220 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
This debt is recourse only to the project, contract or plant to
which it relates. |
Our allocation of the purchase price was based on valuations
performed by an independent third party consultant, which were
finalized in December 2003 with no significant changes to
the initial purchase price allocation. These valuations were
derived using discounted cash flow analyses and other valuation
methods. These valuations indicated that the fair value of the
net assets purchased from Chaparral was less than the purchase
price we paid for Chaparral by $22 million, which we
recorded as goodwill in our financial statements. See
Note 1, on page F-46, for a discussion of the
subsequent impairment of this goodwill.
Gemstone. We entered into the Gemstone investment in 2001
to finance five major power plants in Brazil. Gemstone had
investments in three power projects (Macae, Porto Velho and
Araucaria) and also owned a preferred interest in two of our
consolidated power projects, Rio Negro and Manaus. In 2003, we
acquired the third-party investors (Rabobank) interest in
Gemstone for approximately $50 million. Gemstones
results of operations have been included in our consolidated
financial statements since April 1, 2003. Had we
acquired Gemstone effective January 1, 2003, our net
income and basic and diluted earnings per share for the year
ended December 31, 2003 would not have been affected,
but our revenues and operating income would have been higher by
$58 million and $41 million (amounts unaudited). Had
the acquisition been effective January 1, 2002, our 2002
net income and our basic and diluted earnings per share
F-59
would not have been affected, but our revenues and operating
income would have been higher by $187 million and
$134 million (amounts unaudited).
Our allocation of the purchase price to the assets acquired and
liabilities assumed upon our consolidation of Gemstone was as
follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of assets acquired
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note and interest receivable
|
|
$ |
122 |
|
|
Investments in unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
892 |
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
1,017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of liabilities assumed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note and interest payable
|
|
|
967 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
967 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets acquired
|
|
$ |
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
Our allocation of the purchase price was based on valuations
performed by an independent third party consultant, which were
finalized in December 2003 with no significant changes to
the initial purchase price allocation. These valuations were
derived using discounted cash flow analyses and other valuation
methods.
Prior to our acquisitions of Chaparral and Gemstone, we had
other balances, including loans and notes with Chaparral and
Gemstone, which were eliminated upon consolidation. As a result,
the overall impact on our consolidated balance sheet from
acquiring these investments was different than the individual
assets and liabilities acquired. The overall impact of these
acquisitions on our consolidated balance sheet was an increase
in our consolidated assets of $2.1 billion, an increase in
our consolidated liabilities of approximately $2.4 billion
(including an increase in our consolidated debt of approximately
$2.2 billion) and a reduction of our preferred interests in
consolidated subsidiaries of approximately $0.3 billion.
Consolidations
Variable Interest Entities. In 2003, the FASB issued
Financial Interpretation (FIN) No. 46,
Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities, an
Interpretation of ARB No. 51. This interpretation
defines a variable interest entity as a legal entity whose
equity owners do not have sufficient equity at risk or a
controlling financial interest in the entity. This standard
requires a company to consolidate a variable interest entity if
it is allocated a majority of the entitys losses or
returns, including fees paid by the entity.
On January 1, 2004, we adopted this standard. Upon
adoption, we consolidated Blue Lake Gas Storage Company and
several other minor entities and deconsolidated a previously
consolidated entity, EMA Power Kft. The overall impact of these
actions is described in the following table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase/(Decrease) |
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) |
Restricted cash
|
|
$ |
34 |
|
Accounts and notes receivable from affiliates
|
|
|
(54 |
) |
Investments in unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
Property, plant, and equipment, net
|
|
|
37 |
|
Other current and non-current assets
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
Long-term financing obligations
|
|
|
15 |
|
Other current and non-current liabilities
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
Minority interest of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
Blue Lake Gas Storage owns and operates a 47 Bcf gas
storage facility in Michigan. One of our subsidiaries operates
the natural gas storage facility and we inject and withdraw all
natural gas stored in the facility. We own a 75 percent
equity interest in Blue Lake. This entity has $8 million of
third party debt as of
F-60
December 31, 2004 that is non-recourse to us. We
consolidated Blue Lake because we are allocated a majority of
Blue Lakes losses and returns through our equity interest
in Blue Lake.
EMA Power Kft owns and operates a 69 gross MW
dual-fuel-fired power facility located in Hungary. We own a
50 percent equity interest in EMA. Our equity partner has a
50 percent interest in EMA, supplies all of the fuel
consumed and purchases all of the power generated by the
facility. Our exposure to this entity is limited to our equity
interest in EMA, which was approximately $43 million as of
December 31, 2004. We deconsolidated EMA because our equity
partner is allocated a majority of EMAs losses and returns
through its equity interest and its fuel supply and power
purchase agreements with EMA.
We have significant interests in a number of other variable
interest entities. We were not required to consolidate these
entities under FIN No. 46 and, as a result, our method
of accounting for these entities did not change. As of
December 31, 2004, these entities consisted primarily of 20
equity and cost investments held in our Power segment that had
interests in power generation and transmission facilities with a
total generating capacity of approximately 7,300 gross MW.
We operate many of these facilities but do not supply a
significant portion of the fuel consumed or purchase a
significant portion of the power generated by these facilities.
The long-term debt issued by these entities is recourse only to
the power project. As a result, our exposure to these entities
is limited to our equity investments in and advances to the
entities ($1.1 billion as of December 31, 2004) and
our guarantees and other agreements associated with these
entities (a maximum of $80 million as of December 31,
2004).
During our adoption of FIN No. 46, we attempted to
obtain financial information on several potential variable
interest entities but were unable to obtain that information.
The most significant of these entities is the Cordova power
project which is the counterparty to our largest tolling
arrangement. Under this tolling arrangement, we supply on
average a total of 54,000 MMBtu of natural gas per day to
the entitys two 274 gross MW power facilities and are
obligated to market the power generated by those facilities
through 2019. In addition, we pay that entity a capacity charge
that ranges from $27 million to $32 million per year
related to its power plants. The following is a summary of the
financial statement impacts of our transactions with this entity
for the year ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, and as of
December 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
(36 |
) |
|
$ |
75 |
|
Current liabilities from price risk management activities
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
Non-current liabilities from price risk management activities
|
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
As of December 31, 2004, our financial statements included
two consolidated entities that own a 238 MW power facility
and a 158 MW power facility in Manaus, Brazil. In January
2005, we entered into agreements with Manaus Energia, under
which Manaus Energia will supply substantially all of the fuel
consumed and will purchase all of the power generated by the
projects through January 2008, at which time Manaus Energia will
assume ownership of the plants. We deconsolidated these two
entities in January 2005 because Manaus Energia will assume
ownership of the plants and since they will absorb a majority of
the potential losses of the entities under the new agreements.
The impact of this deconsolidation will be an increase in
investments in unconsolidated affiliates of $103 million, a
decrease in property, plant and equipment of $74 million
and a net decrease in other assets and liabilities of
$29 million in the first quarter of 2005.
Lakeside. In 2003, we amended an operating lease
agreement at our Lakeside Technology Center to add a guarantee
benefiting the party who had invested in the lessor and to allow
the third party and certain lenders to share in the collateral
package that was provided to the banks under our previous
$3 billion revolving credit facility. This guarantee
reduced the investors risk of loss of its investment,
resulting in our controlling the lessor. As a result, we
consolidated the lessor. The consolidation of Lakeside
Technology Center resulted in an increase in our property, plant
and equipment of approximately $275 million and an increase
in our long-term debt of approximately $275 million. In
2004, we repaid the $275 million that was scheduled to
mature in 2006. Additionally, upon its consolidation, we
recorded an asset impairment charge of
F-61
approximately $127 million representing the difference
between the facilitys estimated fair value and the
residual value guarantee under the lease. Prior to its
consolidation, this difference was being periodically expensed
as part of operating lease expense over the term of the lease.
Clydesdale. In 2003, we modified our Clydesdale financing
arrangement to convert a third-party investors (Mustang
Investors, L.L.C.) preferred ownership interest in one of our
consolidated subsidiaries into a term loan that matures in equal
quarterly installments through 2005. We also acquired a
$10 million preferred interest in Mustang and guaranteed
all of Mustangs equity holders obligations. As a
result, we consolidated Mustang which increased our long-term
debt by $743 million and decreased our preferred interests
of consolidated subsidiaries by $753 million. The
$10 million preferred interest we acquired in Mustang was
eliminated upon its consolidation. In December 2003, we repaid
the remaining Clydesdale debt obligation (see Notes 15 and
16, on pages F-81 and F-88).
|
|
|
Sales of Assets and Investments |
During 2004, 2003 and 2002, we completed and announced the sale
of a number of assets and investments in each of our business
segments. The following table summarizes the proceeds from these
sales:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Regulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pipelines
|
|
$ |
59 |
|
|
$ |
145 |
|
|
$ |
303 |
|
Non-regulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
673 |
|
|
|
1,248 |
|
|
Power
|
|
|
884 |
|
|
|
768 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
Field Services
|
|
|
1,029 |
|
|
|
753 |
|
|
|
1,513 |
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
continuing(1)
|
|
|
2,012 |
|
|
|
2,488 |
|
|
|
3,154 |
|
Discontinued
|
|
|
1,295 |
|
|
|
808 |
|
|
|
177 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
3,307 |
|
|
$ |
3,296 |
|
|
$ |
3,331 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Proceeds exclude returns of invested capital and cash
transferred with the assets sold and include costs incurred in
preparing assets for disposal. These items decreased our sales
proceeds by $85 million, $30 million, and
$25 million for the years ended December 31, 2004,
2003 and 2002. Proceeds also exclude any non-cash consideration
received in these sales, such as the receipt of
$350 million of Series C units in GulfTerra from the
sale of assets in our Field Services segment in 2002. |
F-62
The following table summarizes the significant assets sold:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 |
|
2003 |
|
2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pipelines |
|
Australian pipelines
Interest in gathering systems |
|
2.1% interest in Alliance pipeline
Equity interest in Portland Natural Gas Transmission
System
Horsham pipeline in Australia |
|
Natural gas and oil properties located in TX,
KS, and OK
12.3% equity interest in Alliance pipeline
Typhoon natural gas pipeline |
|
Production |
|
Brazilian exploration and production acreage |
|
Natural gas and oil properties in NM, TX, LA, OK and
the Gulf of Mexico |
|
Natural gas and oil properties located in TX,
CO and Utah |
|
Power |
|
Utility Contract Funding
31 domestic power plants and several turbines |
|
Interest in CE Generation L.L.C.
Mt. Carmel power plant
CAPSA/CAPEX investments
East Coast Power |
|
40% equity interest in Samalayuca Power II
power project in Mexico |
|
Field Services |
|
Remaining general partnership interest, common units
and Series C units in GulfTerra
South TX processing plants
Dauphin Island and Mobile Bay investments |
|
Gathering systems located in WY
Midstream assets in the north LA and Mid-Continent
regions
Common and Series B preference units in
GulfTerra
50% of GulfTerra General Partnership |
|
TX & NM midstream assets
Dragon Trail gas processing plant
San Juan basin gathering, treating and
processing assets
Gathering facilities in Utah |
|
Corporate |
|
Aircraft |
|
Aircraft
Enerplus Global Energy Management Company and
its financial operations
EnCap funds management business and its investments |
|
None |
|
Discontinued |
|
Natural gas and oil production properties in Canada
and other international production assets
Aruba and Eagle Point refineries and other
petroleum assets |
|
Corpus Christi refinery
Florida petroleum terminals
Louisiana lease crude
Coal reserves
Canadian natural gas and oil properties
Asphalt facilities |
|
Coal reserves and properties and petroleum
assets
Natural gas and oil properties located in
Western Canada |
See Note 5, on page F-68, for a discussion of gains, losses
and asset impairments related to the sales above.
During 2005, we have either completed or announced the following
sales:
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining 9.9% membership interest in the general partner of
Enterprise and approximately 13.5 million units in
Enterprise for $425 million; |
|
|
|
Interests in Cedar Brakes I and II for
$94 million; |
|
|
|
Interest in a paraxylene plant for $74 million; |
|
|
|
Interest in a natural gas gathering system and processing
facility for $75 million; |
|
|
|
Pipeline facilities for $31 million; |
|
|
|
Interest in an Indian power plant for $20 million; |
|
|
|
MTBE processing facility for $5 million; |
|
|
|
Eagle Point power facility for $3 million; and |
|
|
|
Interest in the Rensselaer power facility and its obligations. |
Under SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment
or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets, we classify assets to be
disposed of as held for sale or, if appropriate, discontinued
operations when they have received appropriate approvals by our
management or Board of Directors and when they meet other
criteria. These assets consist of certain of our domestic power
plants and natural gas gathering and processing assets in our
Field Services segment. As of December 31, 2004, we had
assets held for sale of $75 million related to our Indian
Springs natural gas gathering and processing facility, which was
sold in January 2005, and four domestic power assets, which were
impaired in previous years and which we expect to sell within
the next
F-63
twelve months. The following table details the items which are
reflected as current assets and liabilities held for sale in our
balance sheet as of December 31, 2003 (in millions).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets Held for Sale
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
$ |
46 |
|
Investments in unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
480 |
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
477 |
|
Other assets
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
1,139 |
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
$ |
54 |
|
Long-term debt, less current maturities
|
|
|
169 |
|
Other liabilities
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
$ |
236 |
|
|
|
|
|
International Natural Gas and Oil Production Operations.
During 2004, our Canadian and certain other international
natural gas and oil production operations were approved for
sale. As of December 31, 2004, we have completed the sale
of all of our Canadian operations and substantially all of our
operations in Indonesia for total proceeds of approximately
$389 million. During 2004, we recognized approximately
$22 million in losses based on our decision to sell these
assets. We expect to complete the sale of the remainder of these
properties by mid-2005.
Petroleum Markets. During 2003, the sales of our
petroleum markets businesses and operations were approved. These
businesses and operations consisted of our Eagle Point and Aruba
refineries, our asphalt business, our Florida terminal, tug and
barge business, our lease crude operations, our Unilube blending
operations, our domestic and international terminalling
facilities and our petrochemical and chemical plants. Based on
our intent to dispose of these operations, we were required to
adjust these assets to their estimated fair value. As a result,
we recognized pre-tax impairment charges during 2003 of
approximately $1.5 billion related to these assets. These
impairments were based on a comparison of the carrying value of
these assets to their estimated fair value, less selling costs.
We also recorded realized gains of approximately
$59 million in 2003 from the sale of our Corpus Christi
refinery, our asphalt assets and our Florida terminalling and
marine assets.
In 2004, we completed the sales of our Aruba and Eagle Point
refineries for $880 million and used a portion of the
proceeds to repay $370 million of debt associated with the
Aruba refinery. We recorded realized losses of approximately
$32 million in 2004, primarily from the sale of our Aruba
and Eagle Point refineries. In addition, in 2004, we
reclassified our petroleum ship charter operations from
discontinued operations to continuing operations in our
financial statements based on our decision to retain these
operations. Our financial statements for all periods presented
reflect this change.
Coal Mining. In 2002, our Board of Directors authorized
the sale of our coal mining operations and we recorded an
impairment of $185 million. These operations consisted of
fifteen active underground and two surface mines located in
Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia. The sale of these
operations was completed in 2003 for $92 million in cash
and $24 million in notes receivable, which were settled in
the second quarter of 2004. We did not record a significant gain
or loss on these sales.
F-64
The petroleum markets, coal mining and our other international
natural gas and oil production operations discussed above, are
classified as discontinued operations in our financial
statements for all of the historical periods presented. All of
the assets and liabilities of these discontinued businesses are
classified as current assets and liabilities as of
December 31, 2004. The summarized financial results and
financial position data of our discontinued operations were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
International | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Oil | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum | |
|
Production | |
|
Coal |
|
|
|
|
Markets | |
|
Operations | |
|
Mining |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating Results Data |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2004
(Restated)(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
787 |
|
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
818 |
|
Costs and expenses
|
|
|
(839 |
) |
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(892 |
) |
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(58 |
) |
Other income
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes
|
|
|
(76 |
) |
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(119 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
$ |
(78 |
) |
|
$ |
(36 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(114 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2003
(Restated)(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
5,652 |
|
|
$ |
88 |
|
|
$ |
27 |
|
|
$ |
5,767 |
|
Costs and expenses
|
|
|
(5,793 |
) |
|
|
(129 |
) |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
(5,935 |
) |
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
(1,404 |
) |
|
|
(89 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(1,502 |
) |
Other income
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
(1,566 |
) |
|
|
(126 |
) |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
(1,686 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
(262 |
) |
|
|
(150 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(407 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (loss) from discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
$ |
(1,304 |
) |
|
$ |
24 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
(1,279 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, 2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
4,788 |
|
|
$ |
71 |
|
|
$ |
309 |
|
|
$ |
5,168 |
|
Costs and expenses
|
|
|
(4,916 |
) |
|
|
(172 |
) |
|
|
(327 |
) |
|
|
(5,415 |
) |
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
(97 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(184 |
) |
|
|
(285 |
) |
Other income
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes
|
|
|
(217 |
) |
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
(197 |
) |
|
|
(515 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
(73 |
) |
|
|
(90 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
$ |
(233 |
) |
|
$ |
(68 |
) |
|
$ |
(124 |
) |
|
$ |
(425 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
For 2004, amounts related to Petroleum Markets and Canadian
Natural Gas and Oil Production Operations were restated. For
2003, amounts related to Canadian Natural Gas and Oil Production
Operations were restated. See Note 1, on page F-46, to the
consolidated financial statements for a further discussion of
the restatements. |
F-65
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
International | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Oil | |
|
|
|
|
Petroleum | |
|
Production | |
|
|
|
|
Markets | |
|
Operations | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Financial Position Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets of discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts and notes receivable
|
|
$ |
39 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
41 |
|
|
|
Inventory
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
106 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities of discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
Other non-current liabilities
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets of discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts and notes receivable
|
|
$ |
259 |
|
|
$ |
22 |
|
|
$ |
281 |
|
|
|
Inventory
|
|
|
385 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
388 |
|
|
|
Other current assets
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
139 |
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
521 |
|
|
|
399 |
|
|
|
920 |
|
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
1,366 |
|
|
$ |
438 |
|
|
$ |
1,804 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities of discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$ |
172 |
|
|
$ |
39 |
|
|
$ |
211 |
|
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
374 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
374 |
|
|
|
Other non-current liabilities
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
$ |
658 |
|
|
$ |
42 |
|
|
$ |
700 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a result of actions taken in 2002, 2003, and 2004, we
incurred certain organizational restructuring costs included in
operation and maintenance expense. On January 1, 2003, we
adopted the provisions of SFAS No. 146, Accounting for
Costs Associated with Exit or Disposal Activities, and
recognized restructuring costs applying the provisions of that
standard. Prior to this date, we had recognized restructuring
costs according to the provisions of EITF Issue
No. 94-3, Liability Recognition for Certain Employee
Termination Benefits and
F-66
Other Costs to Exit an Activity. By segment, our
restructuring costs for the years ended December 31, were
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marketing | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and | |
|
|
|
Field | |
|
Corporate | |
|
|
|
|
Pipelines | |
|
Production | |
|
Trading | |
|
Power | |
|
Services | |
|
and Other | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee severance, retention and transition costs
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
38 |
|
Office relocation and consolidation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
91 |
|
|
$ |
118 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee severance, retention and transition costs
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
47 |
|
|
$ |
76 |
|
Contract termination and other costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
91 |
|
|
$ |
124 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employee severance, retention and transition costs
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
37 |
|
Transaction costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
14 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
51 |
|
|
$ |
77 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the period from 2002 to 2004, we incurred substantial
restructuring charges as part of our ongoing liquidity
enhancement and cost reduction efforts. Below is a summary of
these costs:
Employee severance, retention, and transition costs.
During 2002, 2003, and 2004, we incurred employee severance
costs, which included severance payments and costs for pension
benefits settled under existing benefit plans. During this
period, we eliminated approximately 1,900 full-time positions
from our continuing business and approximately 1,200 positions
related to businesses we discontinued in 2004, 900 full-time
positions from our continuing businesses and approximately 1,800
positions related to businesses we discontinued in 2003, and 900
full-time positions through terminations in 2002. As of December
31, 2004, all but $15 million of the total employee
severance, retention and transition costs had been paid.
Office relocation and consolidation. In May 2004, we
announced that we would begin consolidating our Houston-based
operations into one location. This consolidation was
substantially completed by the end of 2004. As a result, as of
December 31, 2004, we had established an accrual totaling
$80 million to record the discounted liability, net of
estimated sub-lease rentals, for our obligations under our
existing lease terms. These leases expire at various times
through 2014. Of the approximate 888,000 square feet of office
space that we lease, we have vacated approximately 741,000
square feet as of December 31, 2004. In addition, we have
subleased approximately 238,000 square feet of this space in the
third and fourth quarters of 2004. Actual moving expenses
related to the relocation were insignificant and were expensed
in the period that they were incurred. All amounts related to
the relocation are expensed in our corporate operations.
Other. In 2003, our contract termination and other costs
included charges of approximately $44 million related to
amounts paid for canceling or restructuring our obligations to
transport LNG from supply areas to domestic and international
market centers. In 2002, we incurred and paid fees of
$40 million to eliminate stock price and credit rating
triggers related to our Chaparral and Gemstone investments.
F-67
5. Loss on Long-Lived Assets
Loss on long-lived assets from continuing operations consists of
realized gains and losses on sales of long-lived assets and
impairments of long-lived assets including goodwill and other
intangibles. During each of the three years ended
December 31, our losses on long-lived assets were as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
2002 | |
|
|
(Restated) | |
|
2003 | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Net realized (gain) loss
|
|
$ |
(16 |
) |
|
$ |
69 |
|
|
$ |
(259 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset impairments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Power
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic assets and restructured power contract entities
|
|
|
397 |
|
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
International assets
|
|
|
213 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Turbines
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
162 |
|
|
Field Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South Texas processing assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
167 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North Louisiana gathering facility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
Indian Springs processing assets
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill impairment
|
|
|
480 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Telecommunications assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
396 |
|
|
|
168 |
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total asset impairments
|
|
|
1,124 |
|
|
|
791 |
|
|
|
440 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
1,108 |
|
|
|
860 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
(Gain) loss on investments in unconsolidated affiliates
(1)
|
|
|
(124 |
) |
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
612 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on assets and investments
|
|
$ |
984 |
|
|
$ |
1,036 |
|
|
$ |
793 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
See Note 22, on page F-110, for a further description
of these gains and losses. |
Our 2004 net realized gain was primarily related to
$10 million of gains in our Power segment and
$8 million of gains in our Corporate operations from the
disposition of assets offset by the $11 million loss on the
sale of our South Texas assets in our Field Services segment.
Our 2003 net realized loss was primarily related to a
$74 million loss on an agreement to reimburse GulfTerra for
a portion of future pipeline integrity costs on previously sold
assets. We reduced this accrual by $9 million in 2004 (see
Note 22, on page F-110). We also recorded a
$67 million gain on the release of our purchase obligation
for the Chaco facility and a $14 million gain on the sale
of our north Louisiana and Mid-Continent midstream assets in our
Field Services segment as well as a $75 million loss on and
the termination of our Energy Bridge contracts in the Corporate
and other segment and a $10 million loss on the sale of
Mohawk River Funding I in our Power segment.
Our 2002 net realized gain was primarily related to
$245 million of net gains on the sales of our San Juan
gathering assets, our Natural Buttes and Ouray gathering
systems, our Dragon Trail gas processing plant and our Texas and
New Mexico assets in our Field Services segment. See
Note 3, on page F-62, for a further discussion of
these divestitures.
F-68
Our impairment charges for the years ended December 31,
2004, 2003 and 2002, were recorded primarily in connection with
our intent to dispose of, or reduce our involvement in, a number
of assets.
Our 2004 Power segment charges include a $227 million
impairment on the sale of our domestic equity interests in Cedar
Brakes I and II, which closed in the first quarter of 2005,
a $183 million impairment of our Manaus and Rio Negro power
facilities in Brazil as a result of renegotiating and extending
their power purchase agreements, and a $30 million
impairment on our consolidated Asian assets in connection with
our decision to sell these assets. In addition, in 2004, we
impaired UCF prior to its sale by $98 million and recorded
impairments of $73 million related to the sales of various
other power assets and turbines. Our 2003 and 2002 Power segment
impairment charges were primarily a result of our planned sale
of domestic power assets (including our turbines classified in
long-term assets).
Our Field Services charges include a $480 million
impairment of the goodwill associated with the Enterprise sale
in 2004 on which we realized an offsetting pretax gain of
$507 million recorded in earnings from unconsolidated
affiliates, a $24 million impairment on the sales or
abandonment of assets in 2004, an impairment of our south Texas
processing facilities of $167 million in 2003 based on our
planned sale of these facilities to Enterprise (see
Note 22, on page F-110), and a $66 million
impairment that resulted from our decision to sell our north
Louisiana gathering facilities in 2002.
Our corporate telecommunications charge includes an impairment
of our investment in the wholesale metropolitan transport
services, primarily in Texas, of $269 million in 2003
(including a writedown of goodwill of $163 million) and a
2003 impairment of our Lakeside Technology Center facility of
$127 million based on an estimate of what the asset could
be sold for in the current market. In 2002, we incurred
$168 million of corporate telecommunication charges related
to the impairment of our long-haul fiber network and
right-of-way assets.
For additional asset impairments on our discontinued operations
and investments in unconsolidated affiliates, see Notes 3
and 22 on pages F-62 and F-110. For additional discussion
on goodwill and other intangibles, see Note 1, on
page F-46.
6. Other Income and Other Expenses
The following are the components of other income and other
expenses from continuing operations for each of the three years
ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Restated) | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Other Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
$ |
93 |
|
|
$ |
83 |
|
|
$ |
84 |
|
|
Allowance for funds used during construction
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
Development, management and administrative services fees on
power projects from affiliates
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
Re-application of SFAS No. 71 (CIG and WIC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net foreign currency gain
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Favorable resolution of non-operating contingent obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
Gain on early extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
193 |
|
|
$ |
203 |
|
|
$ |
197 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-69
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Restated) | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Other Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net foreign currency
losses(1)
|
|
$ |
26 |
|
|
$ |
112 |
|
|
$ |
91 |
|
|
Loss on early extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on exchange of equity security units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment of cost basis
investment(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
Minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
99 |
|
|
$ |
202 |
|
|
$ |
239 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Amounts in 2004, 2003 and 2002 were primarily related to losses
on our Euro-denominated debt. |
(2) |
We impaired our investment in our Costañera power plant in
2002. |
7. Income Taxes
The historical financial information in this note has been
restated, as further described in Note 1, on page F-46, of
the consolidated financial statements.
Our pretax loss from continuing operations is composed of the
following for each of the three years ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
U.S.
|
|
$ |
(721 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,330 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,282 |
) |
Foreign
|
|
|
(81 |
) |
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
399 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(802 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,074 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,883 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table reflects the components of income tax
expense (benefit) included in loss from continuing operations
for each of the three years ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Current
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
|
State
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
(566 |
) |
|
|
(679 |
) |
|
State
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
Foreign
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(32 |
) |
|
|
(614 |
) |
|
|
(685 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income taxes
|
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
$ |
(479 |
) |
|
$ |
(641 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-70
Our income taxes, included in loss from continuing operations,
differs from the amount computed by applying the statutory
federal income tax rate of 35 percent for the following
reasons for each of the three years ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except rates) | |
Income taxes at the statutory federal rate of 35%
|
|
$ |
(281 |
) |
|
$ |
(376 |
) |
|
$ |
(659 |
) |
Increase (decrease)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abandonments and sales of foreign investments
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Valuation allowances
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
44 |
|
|
Foreign income taxed at different rates
|
|
|
152 |
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
6 |
|
|
Earnings from unconsolidated affiliates where we anticipate
receiving dividends
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
Non-deductible dividends on preferred stock of subsidiaries
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
State income taxes, net of federal income tax effect
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
Non-conventional fuel tax credits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
Non-deductible goodwill impairments
|
|
|
139 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
$ |
(479 |
) |
|
$ |
(641 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective tax rate
|
|
|
(4 |
)% |
|
|
45 |
% |
|
|
34 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following are the components of our net deferred tax
liability related to continuing operations as of
December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Deferred tax liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
$ |
2,590 |
|
|
$ |
2,112 |
|
|
Investments in unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
410 |
|
|
|
757 |
|
|
Employee benefits and deferred compensation
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
126 |
|
|
Price risk management activities
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory and other assets
|
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
193 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax liability
|
|
|
3,327 |
|
|
|
3,188 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net operating loss and tax credit carryovers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. federal
|
|
|
1,194 |
|
|
|
814 |
|
|
|
State
|
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
146 |
|
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
Western Energy Settlement
|
|
|
144 |
|
|
|
400 |
|
|
Environmental liability
|
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
206 |
|
|
Price risk management activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
Debt
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
Inventory
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
Deferred federal tax on deferred state income tax liability
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
Lease liabilities
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
388 |
|
|
|
235 |
|
|
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax asset
|
|
|
2,433 |
|
|
|
2,292 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax liability
|
|
$ |
894 |
|
|
$ |
896 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2004, Congress proposed but failed to enact legislation which
would disallow deductions for certain settlements made to or on
behalf of governmental entities. It is possible Congress will
reintroduce similar legislation in 2005. If enacted, this tax
legislation could impact the deductibility of the Western Energy
Settlement and could result in a write-off of some or all of the
associated tax benefits. In such event, our tax
F-71
expense would increase. Our total tax benefits related to the
Western Energy Settlement were approximately $400 million
as of December 31, 2004.
Historically, we have not recorded U.S. deferred tax liabilities
on book versus tax basis differences in our Asian power
investments because it was our historical intent to indefinitely
reinvest the earnings from these projects outside the U.S. In
2004, our intent on these assets changed such that we now intend
to use the proceeds from the sale within the U.S. As a result,
we recorded deferred tax liabilities which, as of
December 31, 2004 were $39 million, representing those
instances where the book basis in our investments in the Asian
power projects exceeded the tax basis. At this time, however,
due to uncertainties as to the manner, timing and approval of
the sales, we have not recorded deferred tax assets for those
instances where the tax basis of our investments exceeded the
book basis, except in instances where we believe the realization
of the asset is assured. As of December 31, 2004, total
deferred tax assets recorded on our Asian investments was
$6 million.
Cumulative undistributed earnings from the remainder of our
foreign subsidiaries and foreign corporate joint ventures
(excluding our Asian power assets discussed above) have been or
are intended to be indefinitely reinvested in foreign
operations. Therefore, no provision has been made for any U.S.
taxes or foreign withholding taxes that may be applicable upon
actual or deemed repatriation. At December 31, 2004, the
portion of the cumulative undistributed earnings from these
investments on which we have not recorded U.S. income taxes was
approximately $534 million. If a distribution of these
earnings were to be made, we might be subject to both foreign
withholding taxes and U.S. income taxes, net of any allowable
foreign tax credits or deductions. However, an estimate of these
taxes is not practicable. For these same reasons, we have not
recorded a provision for U.S. income taxes on the foreign
currency translation adjustments recorded in accumulated other
comprehensive income other than $8 million included in the
deferred tax liability we recorded related to our investment in
our Asian power projects.
The tax effects associated with our employees
non-qualified dispositions of employee stock purchase plan
stock, the exercise of non-qualified stock options and the
vesting of restricted stock, as well as restricted stock
dividends are included in additional paid-in-capital in our
balance sheets.
As of December 31, 2004, we have U.S. federal
alternative minimum tax credits of $283 million and state
alternative minimum assessment tax credits of $1 million
that carryover indefinitely, $1 million of general business
credit carryovers for which the carryover periods end at various
times in the years 2012 through 2021, capital loss carryovers of
$87 million and charitable contributions carryovers of
$2 million for which the carryover periods end in 2008. The
table below presents the details of our federal and state net
operating loss carryover periods as of December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carryover Period | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2005 | |
|
2006-2010 | |
|
2011-2015 | |
|
2016-2024 | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
U.S. federal net operating loss
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
7 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3,113 |
|
|
$ |
3,120 |
|
State net operating loss
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
849 |
|
|
|
412 |
|
|
|
987 |
|
|
|
2,256 |
|
We also had $103 million of foreign net operating loss
carryovers that carryover indefinitely. Usage of our
U.S. federal carryovers is subject to the limitations
provided under Sections 382 and 383 of the Internal Revenue
Code as well as the separate return limitation year rules of IRS
regulations.
We record a valuation allowance to reflect the estimated amount
of deferred tax assets which we may not realize due to the
uncertain availability of future taxable income or the
expiration of net operating loss and tax credit carryovers. As
of December 31, 2004, we maintained a valuation allowance
of $37 million related to state net operating loss
carryovers, $7 million related to our estimated ability to
realize state tax benefits from the deduction of the charge we
took related to the Western Energy Settlement, $5 million
related to foreign deferred tax assets for book impairments and
ceiling test charges, $1 million related to a general
business credit carryover and $1 million related to other
carryovers. As of December 31, 2003, we maintained a
valuation allowance of $5 million related to state tax
benefits of the Western Energy Settlement, $1 million
related to state net operating loss carryovers, $1 million
related to foreign deferred tax assets for ceiling test
F-72
charges and $1 million related to a general business credit
carryover and $1 million related to other carryovers. The
change in our valuation allowances from December 31, 2003
to December 31, 2004 is primarily related to an additional
valuation allowance for State of New Jersey legislation that
limited use of net operating loss carryovers, an increase in
valuation allowances on foreign impairments of assets and an
increase in the state valuation allowance related to the Western
Energy Settlement.
We are currently under audit by the IRS and other taxing
authorities, and our audits are in various stages of completion.
The tax years for 1995-2000 are pending with the IRS Appeals
Office related to The Coastal Corporation, with which we merged
in 2001. We anticipate that the Appeals proceedings for
1995-1997 will be finalized within 12 months, while the
other years will take longer to complete. The IRS has completed
its examination of El Pasos tax years through 2000.
The 2001-2002 tax years are currently under examination, which
we anticipate will be completed within 12 months. There may
be additional proceedings in the IRS Appeals Office with respect
to this examination. We maintain a reserve for tax contingencies
that management believes is adequate, and as audits are
finalized we will make appropriate adjustments to those
estimates.
8. Earnings Per Share
We incurred losses from continuing operations during the three
years ended December 31, 2004. Accordingly, we excluded a
number of securities for the years ended December 2004, 2003,
and 2002, from the determination of diluted earnings per share
due to their antidilutive effect on loss per common share. These
included stock options, restricted stock, trust preferred
securities, equity security units, and convertible debentures.
Additionally, in 2003, we excluded shares related to our
remaining stock obligation under the Western Energy Settlement
(see Note 17, on page F-89, for further information). For a
further discussion of these instruments, see Notes 15 and
20, on pages F-81 and F-103.
9. Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The following table presents the carrying amounts and estimated
fair values of our financial instruments as of December 31,
2004 and 2003.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Carrying | |
|
|
|
Carrying | |
|
|
|
|
Amount | |
|
Fair Value | |
|
Amount | |
|
Fair Value | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Long-term financing obligations, including current maturities
|
|
$ |
19,189 |
|
|
$ |
19,829 |
|
|
$ |
21,724 |
|
|
$ |
21,166 |
|
Commodity-based price risk management derivatives
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
1,406 |
|
|
|
1,406 |
|
Interest rate and foreign currency hedging derivatives
|
|
|
239 |
|
|
|
239 |
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
123 |
|
Investments
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, our carrying amounts of
cash and cash equivalents, short-term borrowings, and trade
receivables and payables represented fair value because of the
short-term nature of these instruments. The fair value of
long-term debt with variable interest rates approximates its
carrying value because of the market-based nature of the
interest rate. We estimated the fair value of debt with fixed
interest rates based on quoted market prices for the same or
similar issues. See Note 10, on page F-73, for a discussion
of our methodology of determining the fair value of the
derivative instruments used in our price risk management
activities.
10. Price Risk Management Activities
The following table summarizes the carrying value of the
derivatives used in our price risk management activities as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003. In the table, derivatives
designated as hedges consist of instruments used to hedge our
natural gas and oil production as well as instruments to hedge
our interest rate and currency risks on long-term debt.
Derivatives from power contract restructuring activities relate
to power
F-73
purchase and sale agreements that arose from our activities in
that business and other commodity-based derivative contracts
relate to our historical energy trading activities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Net assets (liabilities)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives designated as
hedges(1)
|
|
$ |
(536 |
) |
|
$ |
(31 |
) |
|
Derivatives from power contract restructuring activities
(2)
|
|
|
665 |
|
|
|
1,925 |
|
|
Other commodity-based derivative
contracts(1)
|
|
|
(61 |
) |
|
|
(488 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total commodity-based derivatives
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
1,406 |
|
|
Interest rate and foreign currency hedging derivatives
|
|
|
239 |
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net assets from price risk management
activities(3)
|
|
$ |
307 |
|
|
$ |
1,529 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
In December 2004, we designated other commodity-based derivative
contracts with a fair value loss of $592 million as hedges
of our 2005 and 2006 natural gas production. As a result, we
reclassified this amount to derivatives designated as hedges
beginning in the fourth quarter of 2004. |
(2) |
Includes derivative contracts with a fair value of
$596 million as of December 31, 2004 that we sold in
connection with the sale of Cedar Brakes I and II in the
first quarter of 2005, and $942 million as of
December 31, 2003 that we sold in connection with the sales
of UCF and Mohawk River Funding IV in 2004. |
(3) |
Included in both current and non-current assets and liabilities
from price risk management activities on the balance sheet. |
Our derivative contracts are recorded in our financial
statements at fair value. The best indication of fair value is
quoted market prices. However, when quoted market prices are not
available, we estimate the fair value of those derivatives. Due
to major industry participants exiting or reducing their trading
activities in 2002 and 2003, the availability of reliable
commodity pricing data from market-based sources that we used in
estimating the fair value of our derivatives was significantly
limited for certain locations and for longer time periods.
Consequently, we now use an independent pricing source for a
substantial amount of our forward pricing data beyond the
current two-year period. For forward pricing data within two
years, we use commodity prices from market-based sources such as
the New York Mercantile Exchange. For periods beyond two years,
we use a combination of commodity prices from market-based
sources and other forecasted settlement prices from an
independent pricing source to develop price curves, which we
then use to estimate the value of settlements in future periods
based on the contractual settlement quantities and dates.
Finally, we discount these estimated settlement values using a
LIBOR curve, except as described below for our restructured
power contracts. Additionally, contracts denominated in foreign
currencies are converted to U.S. dollars using
market-based, foreign exchange spot rates.
We record valuation adjustments to reflect uncertainties
associated with the estimates we use in determining fair value.
Common valuation adjustments include those for market liquidity
and those for the credit-worthiness of our contractual
counterparties. To the extent possible, we use market-based data
together with quantitative methods to measure the risks for
which we record valuation adjustments and to determine the level
of these valuation adjustments.
The above valuation techniques are used for valuing derivative
contracts that have historically been accounted for as trading
activities, as well as for those that are used to hedge our
natural gas and oil production. We have adjusted this method to
determine the fair value of our restructured power contracts.
Our restructured power derivatives use the same methodology
discussed above for determining the forward settlement prices
but are discounted using a risk free interest rate, adjusted for
the individual credit spread for each counterparty to the
contract. Additionally, no liquidity valuation adjustment is
provided on these derivative contracts since they are intended
to be held through maturity.
Derivatives
Designated as Hedges
We engage in two types of hedging activities: hedges of cash
flow exposure and hedges of fair value exposure. Hedges of cash
flow exposure, which primarily relate to our natural gas and oil
production hedges and foreign currency and interest rate risks
on our long-term debt, are designed to hedge forecasted sales
transactions or limit the variability of cash flows to be
received or paid related to a recognized asset or liability.
F-74
Hedges of fair value exposure are entered into to protect the
fair value of a recognized asset, liability or firm commitment.
When we enter into the derivative contract, we designate the
derivative as either a cash flow hedge or a fair value hedge.
Our hedges of our foreign currency exposure are designated as
either cash flow hedges or fair value hedges based on whether
the interest on the underlying debt is converted to either a
fixed or floating interest rate. Changes in derivative fair
values that are designated as cash flow hedges are deferred in
accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) to the extent that
they are effective and are not included in income until the
hedged transactions occur and are recognized in earnings. The
ineffective portion of a cash flow hedges change in value
is recognized immediately in earnings as a component of
operating revenues in our income statement. Changes in the fair
value of derivatives that are designated as fair value hedges
are recognized in earnings as offsets to the changes in fair
values of the related hedged assets, liabilities or firm
commitments.
We formally document all relationships between hedging
instruments and hedged items, as well as our risk management
objectives, strategies for undertaking various hedge
transactions and our methods for assessing and testing
correlation and hedge ineffectiveness. All hedging instruments
are linked to the hedged asset, liability, firm commitment or
forecasted transaction. We also assess whether these derivatives
are highly effective in offsetting changes in cash flows or fair
values of the hedged items. We discontinue hedge accounting
prospectively if we determine that a derivative is no longer
highly effective as a hedge or if we decide to discontinue the
hedging relationship.
A discussion of each of our hedging activities is as follows:
Cash Flow Hedges. A majority of our commodity sales and
purchases are at spot market or forward market prices. We use
futures, forward contracts and swaps to limit our exposure to
fluctuations in the commodity markets with the objective of
realizing a fixed cash flow stream from these activities. We
also have fixed rate foreign currency denominated debt that
exposes us to changes in exchange rates between the foreign
currency and U.S. dollar. We use currency swaps to convert the
fixed amounts of foreign currency due under foreign currency
denominated debt to U.S. dollar amounts. As of December 31,
2004 and 2003, we have swaps that convert approximately
275 million
of our debt to $255 million, substantially all of which
were cancelled with the payoff of the underlying hedged debt in
March 2005. A summary of the impacts of our cash flow hedges
included in accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of income
taxes, as of December 31, 2004 and 2003 follows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive | |
|
Estimated | |
|
|
|
|
Income (Loss) | |
|
Income (Loss) | |
|
Final | |
|
|
| |
|
Reclassification | |
|
Termination | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
in 2005(1) | |
|
Date | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Commodity cash flow hedges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Held by consolidated entities
|
|
$ |
(23 |
) |
|
$ |
(72 |
) |
|
$ |
24 |
|
|
|
2012 |
|
|
Held by unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total commodity cash flow hedges
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
(59 |
) |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency cash flow hedges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed
rate(2)
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
81 |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
Undesignated(3)
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total foreign currency cash flow hedges
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total(4)
|
|
$ |
42 |
|
|
$ |
(10 |
) |
|
$ |
105 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Reclassifications occur upon the physical delivery of the hedged
commodity and the corresponding expiration of the hedge or if
the forecasted transaction is no longer probable. |
(2) |
Substantially all of these amounts were reclassified into income
with the repurchase of approximately
528 million
of debt in March 2005. |
(3) |
In December 2002, we removed the hedging designation on these
derivatives related to our Euro-denominated debt. |
(4) |
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) also includes
$5 million and $(6) million of net cumulative currency
translation adjustments and $(46) million and
$(24) million of additional minimum pension liability as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003. All amounts are net of taxes. |
In December 2004, we designated a number of our other
commodity-based derivative contracts with a fair value loss of
$592 million as hedges of our 2005 and 2006 natural gas
production. As a result, we
F-75
reclassified this amount to derivatives designated as hedges,
specifically cash flow hedges, beginning in the fourth quarter
of 2004.
For the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, we
recognized net losses of $1 million, $2 million and
$4 million, net of income taxes, in our loss from
continuing operations related to the ineffective portion of all
cash flow hedges.
Fair Value Hedges. We have fixed rate U.S. dollar
and foreign currency denominated debt that exposes us to paying
higher than market rates should interest rates decline. We use
interest rate swaps to effectively convert the fixed amounts of
interest due under the debt agreements to variable interest
payments based on LIBOR plus a spread. As of December 31,
2004 and 2003, these derivatives had a net fair value of
$117 million and $33 million. Specifically, we had
derivatives with fair value losses of $20 million and
$19 million as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, that
converted the interest rate on $440 million and
$350 million of our U.S. dollar denominated debt to a
floating weighted average interest rate of LIBOR plus 4.2%.
Additionally, we had derivatives with fair values of
$137 million and $52 million as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003, that converted
approximately
450 million
and
350 million
of our debt to $511 million and $390 million. These
derivatives also converted the interest rate on this debt to a
floating weighted average interest rate of LIBOR plus 3.9% as of
December 31, 2004, and LIBOR plus 3.7% as of
December 31, 2003. We have recorded the fair value of those
derivatives as a component of long-term debt and the related
accrued interest. For the year ended December 31, 2002, the
net financial statement impact of our fair value hedges was
immaterial.
In March 2005, we repurchased approximately
528 million
of debt, of which approximately
100 million
were hedged with fair value hedges. As a result of the
repurchase, we removed the hedging designation on, and
subsequently cancelled, these derivative contracts.
In December 2002, we reduced the volumes of foreign currency
exchange risk that we have hedged for our debt, and we removed
the hedging designation on derivatives that had a net fair value
gain of $3 million and $6 million at December 31,
2004 and 2003. These amounts, which are reflected in long-term
debt, will be reclassified to income as the interest and
principal on the debt are paid through 2009.
|
|
|
Power Contract Restructuring Activities |
During 2001 and 2002, we conducted power contract restructuring
activities that involved amending or terminating power purchase
contracts at existing power facilities. In a restructuring
transaction, we would eliminate the requirement that the plant
provide power from its own generation to the customer of the
contract (usually a regulated utility) and replace that
requirement with a new contract that gave us the ability to
provide power to the customer from the wholesale power market.
In conjunction with these power restructuring activities, our
Marketing and Trading segment generally entered into additional
market-based contracts with third parties to provide the power
from the wholesale power market, which effectively locked
in our margin on the restructured transaction as the
difference between the contracted rate in the restructured sales
contract and the wholesale market rates on the purchase contract
at the time.
Prior to a restructuring, the power plant and its related power
purchase contract were accounted for at their historical cost,
which was either the cost of construction or, if acquired, the
acquisition cost. Revenues and expenses prior to the
restructuring were, in most cases, accounted for on an accrual
basis as power was generated and sold from the plant.
Following a restructuring, the accounting treatment for the
power purchase agreement changed since the restructured contract
met the definition of a derivative. In addition, since the power
plant no longer had the exclusive obligation to provide power
under the original, dedicated power purchase contract, it
operated as a peaking merchant facility, generating power only
when it was economical to do so. Because of this significant
change in its use, the plants carrying value was typically
written down to its estimated fair value. These changes also
often required us to terminate or amend any related fuel supply
and/or steam agreements, and enter into other third party and
intercompany contracts such as transportation agreements,
associated with operating the merchant facility. Finally, in
many cases power contract restructuring activities also involved
F-76
contract terminations that resulted in cash payments by the
customer to cancel the underlying dedicated power contract.
In 2002, we completed a power contract restructuring on our
consolidated Eagle Point power facility and applied the
accounting described above to that transaction. We also employed
the principles of our power contract restructuring business in
reaching a settlement of a dispute under our Nejapa power
contract which included a cash payment to us. We recorded these
payments as operating revenues in our Power segment. We also
terminated a power contract at our consolidated Mount Carmel
facility in exchange for a $50 million cash payment. For
the year ended December 31, 2002, our consolidated power
restructuring activities had the following effects on our
consolidated financial statements (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets from | |
|
Liabilities from | |
|
Property, Plant | |
|
|
|
|
|
Increase | |
|
|
Price Risk | |
|
Price Risk | |
|
and Equipment | |
|
|
|
|
|
(Decrease) | |
|
|
Management | |
|
Management | |
|
and Intangible | |
|
Operating | |
|
Operating | |
|
in Minority | |
|
|
Activities | |
|
Activities | |
|
Assets | |
|
Revenues | |
|
Expenses | |
|
Interest(1) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Initial gain on restructured contracts
|
|
$ |
978 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,118 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
172 |
|
Write-down of power plants and intangibles and other fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(352 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
476 |
|
|
|
(109 |
) |
Change in value of restructured contracts during 2002
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(96 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
Change in value of third-party wholesale power supply contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
Purchase of power under power supply contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
Sale of power under restructured contracts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
986 |
|
|
$ |
18 |
|
|
$ |
(352 |
) |
|
$ |
1,115 |
|
|
$ |
523 |
|
|
$ |
57 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
In our restructuring activities, third-party owners also held
ownership interests in the plants and were allocated a portion
of the income or loss. |
As a result of our credit downgrade and economic changes in the
power market, we are no longer pursuing additional power
contract restructuring activities and are actively seeking to
sell or otherwise dispose of our existing restructured power
contracts. In 2004, we completed the sales of UCF (which is the
restructured Eagle Point power contract) and Mohawk River
Funding IV. (See Note 3, on page F-62, for a
discussion of these sales.) Mohawk River Funding, III
(MRF III) had a prior purchase agreement
(USGen PPA) with USGen New England, Inc.
(USGen). USGen filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection and the USGen PPA was terminated automatically
as a result of the bankruptcy filing. MRF III filed a proof
of claim in the bankruptcy case and the bankruptcy court issued
an order resolving the claim. The order is not final at this
time and may be subject to change which could result in a final
award that is either more or less than the receivable that has
been recorded. Additionally, in March 2005, we completed the
sale of Cedar Brakes I and II and the related restructured
derivative power contracts.
|
|
|
Other Commodity-Based Derivatives |
Our other commodity-based derivatives primarily relate to our
historical trading activities, which include the services we
provide in the energy sector that we entered into with the
objective of generating profits on or benefiting from movements
in market prices, primarily related to the purchase and sale of
energy commodities. Our derivatives in our trading portfolio had
a fair value liability of $61 million and $488 million
as of December 31, 2004 and 2003. In December 2004, we
designated a number of our other commodity-based derivative
contracts with a fair value loss of $592 million as hedges
of our 2005 and 2006 natural gas production. As a result, we
reclassified this amount to derivatives designated as hedges
beginning in the fourth quarter of 2004.
We are subject to credit risk related to our financial
instrument assets. Credit risk relates to the risk of loss that
we would incur as a result of non-performance by counterparties
pursuant to the terms of their
F-77
contractual obligations. We measure credit risk as the estimated
replacement costs for commodities we would have to purchase or
sell in the future, plus amounts owed from counterparties for
delivered and unpaid commodities. These exposures are netted
where we have a legally enforceable right of setoff. We maintain
credit policies with regard to our counterparties in our price
risk management activities to minimize overall credit risk.
These policies require (i) the evaluation of potential
counterparties financial condition (including credit
rating), (ii) collateral under certain circumstances
(including cash in advance, letters of credit, and guarantees),
(iii) the use of margining provisions in standard
contracts, and (iv) the use of master netting agreements
that allow for the netting of positive and negative exposures of
various contracts associated with a single counterparty.
We use daily margining provisions in our financial contracts,
most of our physical power agreements and our master netting
agreements, which require a counterparty to post cash or letters
of credit when the fair value of the contract exceeds the daily
contractual threshold. The threshold amount is typically tied to
the published credit rating of the counterparty. Our margining
collateral provisions also allow us to terminate a contract and
liquidate all positions if the counterparty is unable to provide
the required collateral. Under our margining provisions, we are
required to return collateral if the amount of posted collateral
exceeds the amount of collateral required. Collateral received
or returned can vary significantly from day to day based on the
changes in the market values and our counterpartys credit
ratings. Furthermore, the amount of collateral we hold may be
more or less than the fair value of our derivative contracts
with that counterparty at any given period.
The following table presents a summary of our counterparties in
which we had net financial instrument asset exposure as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Financial Instrument Asset Exposure | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Below | |
|
Not | |
|
|
Counterparty |
|
Investment Grade(1) | |
|
Investment Grade(1) | |
|
Rated(1) | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy marketers
|
|
$ |
440 |
|
|
$ |
44 |
|
|
$ |
35 |
|
|
$ |
519 |
|
Natural gas and electric utilities
|
|
|
424 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
515 |
|
Other
|
|
|
245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net financial instrument assets
(2)
|
|
|
1,109 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
1,286 |
|
|
Collateral held by us
|
|
|
(349 |
) |
|
|
(39 |
) |
|
|
(81 |
) |
|
|
(469 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net exposure from financial instrument assets
|
|
$ |
760 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
52 |
|
|
$ |
817 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy marketers
|
|
$ |
425 |
|
|
$ |
43 |
|
|
$ |
53 |
|
|
$ |
521 |
|
Natural gas and electric utilities
|
|
|
1,755 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78 |
|
|
|
1,833 |
|
Other
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
182 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net financial instrument assets
(2)
|
|
|
2,286 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
206 |
|
|
|
2,536 |
|
|
Collateral held by us
|
|
|
(132 |
) |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(83 |
) |
|
|
(225 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net exposure from financial instrument assets
|
|
$ |
2,154 |
|
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
$ |
123 |
|
|
$ |
2,311 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Investment Grade and Below Investment
Grade are determined using publicly available credit
ratings. Investment Grade includes counterparties
with a minimum Standard & Poors rating of BBB- or
Moodys rating of Baa3. Below Investment Grade
includes counterparties with a public credit rating that do not
meet the criteria of Investment Grade. Not
Rated includes counterparties that are not rated by any
public rating service. |
(2) |
Net asset exposure from financial instrument assets primarily
relates to our assets and liabilities from price risk management
activities. These exposures have been prepared by netting assets
against liabilities on counterparties where we have a
contractual right to offset. The positions netted include both
current and non-current amounts and do not include amounts
already billed or delivered under the derivative contracts,
which would be netted against these exposures. |
F-78
We have approximately 125 counterparties, most of which are
energy marketers. Although most of our counterparties are not
currently rated as below investment grade, if one of our
counterparties fails to perform, such as in the case of Enron
(see Note 17, on page F-89, for a further discussion of the
Enron Bankruptcy), we may recognize an immediate loss in our
earnings, as well as additional financial impacts in the future
delivery periods to the extent a replacement contract at the
same prices and quantities cannot be established.
One electric utility customer, Public Service Electric and Gas
Company (PSEG), comprised 42 percent and 66 percent of
our net financial instrument asset exposure as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003. Our net financial instrument
asset exposure to PSEG was eliminated with the sale of our
interests in Cedar Brakes I and II in the first quarter of
2005. This concentration of counterparties may impact our
overall exposure to credit risk, either positively or
negatively, in that the counterparties may be similarly affected
by changes in economic, regulatory or other conditions.
11. Inventory
We have the following current inventory as of December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Materials and supplies and other
|
|
$ |
130 |
|
|
$ |
145 |
|
NGL and natural gas in storage
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current inventory
|
|
$ |
168 |
|
|
$ |
181 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We also have the following non-current inventory that is
included in other assets in our balance sheets as of December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Dark fiber
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
Turbines
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-current inventory
|
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
$ |
103 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12. Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
Our regulatory assets and liabilities are included in other
current and non-current assets and liabilities in our balance
sheets. These balances are presented in our balance sheets on a
gross basis. Below are the details of our regulatory assets and
liabilities for our regulated interstate systems that apply the
provisions of SFAS No. 71 as of December 31, which are
recoverable over various periods:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Current regulatory
assets(1)
|
|
$ |
3 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-current regulatory assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grossed-up deferred taxes on capitalized funds used during
construction(1)
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
Postretirement
benefits(1)
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
Unamortized net loss on reacquired
debt(1)
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
Under-collected state income
tax(1)
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
Other(1)
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-current regulatory assets
|
|
|
155 |
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total regulatory assets
|
|
$ |
158 |
|
|
$ |
145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current regulatory liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cashout imbalance
settlement(1)
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
$ |
9 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-79
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Description |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Non-current regulatory liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental
liability(1)
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
Cost of removal of offshore assets
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
Property and plant depreciation
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
Postretirement
benefits(1)
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
Plant regulatory
liability(1)
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
Excess deferred income taxes
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-current regulatory liabilities
|
|
|
228 |
|
|
|
203 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total regulatory liabilities
|
|
$ |
237 |
|
|
$ |
214 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Some of these amounts are not included in our rate base on which
we earn a current return. |
13. Other Assets and Liabilities
Below is the detail of our other current and non-current assets
and liabilities on our balance sheets as of December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Other current assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid expenses
|
|
$ |
132 |
|
|
$ |
146 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
179 |
|
|
$ |
210 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other non-current assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension assets (Note 18, page F-99)
|
|
$ |
933 |
|
|
$ |
962 |
|
|
Notes receivable from affiliates
|
|
|
287 |
|
|
|
349 |
|
|
Restricted cash (Note 1, page F-46)
|
|
|
180 |
|
|
|
349 |
|
|
Unamortized debt expenses
|
|
|
192 |
|
|
|
246 |
|
|
Regulatory assets (Note 12, page F-79)
|
|
|
155 |
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
Long-term receivables
|
|
|
343 |
|
|
|
108 |
|
|
Notes receivable
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
113 |
|
|
Turbine inventory (Note 11, page F-79)
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
Other investments
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
Assets of discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
405 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
2,313 |
|
|
$ |
2,996 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-80
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued taxes, other than income
|
|
$ |
136 |
|
|
$ |
156 |
|
|
Broker margin and other amounts on deposit with us
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
|
155 |
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
|
80 |
|
|
|
132 |
|
|
Environmental, legal and rate reserves (Note 17,
page F-89)
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
Deposits
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
Obligations under swap agreement (Note 15, page F-81)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
Other postretirement benefits (Note 18, page F-99)
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
Asset retirement obligations (Note 1, page F-46)
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
Dividends payable
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
Accrued liabilities
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
820 |
|
|
$ |
910 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other non-current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Environmental and legal reserves (Note 17, page F-89)
|
|
$ |
763 |
|
|
$ |
450 |
|
|
Other postretirement and employment benefits (Note 18,
page F-99)
|
|
|
248 |
|
|
|
272 |
|
|
Obligations under swap agreement (Note 15, page F-81)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
Regulatory liabilities (Note 12, page F-79)
|
|
|
228 |
|
|
|
203 |
|
|
Asset retirement obligations (Note 1, page F-46)
|
|
|
244 |
|
|
|
192 |
|
|
Other deferred credits
|
|
|
126 |
|
|
|
157 |
|
|
Accrued lease obligations
|
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
Insurance reserves
|
|
|
125 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
Deferred gain on sale of assets to GulfTerra (Note 17,
page F-89)
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
Deferred compensation
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
Pipeline integrity liability (Note 22, page F-110)
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
Liabilities of discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
2,076 |
|
|
$ |
2,047 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14. Property, Plant and Equipment
At December 31, 2004 and 2003, we had approximately
$0.8 billion and $1.0 billion of construction
work-in-progress included in our property, plant
and equipment.
As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, TGP, EPNG and ANR have
excess purchase costs associated with their acquisition. Total
excess costs on these pipelines were approximately
$5 billion and accumulated depreciation was approximately
$1.3 billion. These excess costs are being amortized over
the life of the related pipeline assets, and our amortization
expense during the three years ended December 31, 2004,
2003, and 2002 was approximately $76 million,
$74 million and $71 million. The adoption of SFAS
No. 142 did not impact these amounts since they were
included as part of our property, plant and equipment, rather
than as goodwill. We do not currently earn a return on these
excess purchase costs from our rate payers.
15. Debt, Other Financing Obligations and Other Credit
Facilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Short-term financing obligations, including current maturities
|
|
$ |
955 |
|
|
$ |
1,457 |
|
Long-term financing obligations
|
|
|
18,241 |
|
|
|
20,275 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
19,196 |
|
|
$ |
21,732 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-81
Our debt and other credit facilities consist of both short and
long-term borrowings with third parties and notes with our
affiliated companies. During 2004, we entered into a new
$3 billion credit agreement and sold entities with debt
obligations. A summary of our actions is as follows (in
millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debt obligations as of December 31, 2003
|
|
$ |
21,732 |
|
Principal amounts
borrowed(1)
|
|
|
1,513 |
|
Repayment of
principal(2)
|
|
|
(3,370 |
) |
Sale of
entities(3)
|
|
|
(887 |
) |
Other
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total debt as of December 31, 2004
|
|
$ |
19,196 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes proceeds from a $1.25 billion term loan under our new
$3 billion credit agreement. |
(2) |
Includes $850 million of repayments under our previous revolving
credit facility. |
(3) |
Consists of $815 million of debt related to Utility
Contract Funding, L.L.C. and $72 million of debt related to
Mohawk River Funding IV. |
Short-Term Financing
Obligations
We had the following short-term borrowings and other financing
obligations as of December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Current maturities of long-term debt and other financing
obligations
|
|
|
$948 |
|
|
$ |
1,449 |
|
Short-term financing obligation
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$955 |
|
|
$ |
1,457 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-Term Financing
Obligations
Our long-term financing obligations outstanding consisted of the
following as of December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Long-term debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANR Pipeline Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debentures and senior notes, 7.0% through 9.625%, due 2010
through 2025
|
|
$ |
800 |
|
|
$ |
800 |
|
|
|
Notes, 13.75% due 2010
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
Colorado Interstate Gas Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debentures, 6.85% through 10.0%, due 2005 and 2037
|
|
|
280 |
|
|
|
280 |
|
|
El Paso CGP Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior notes, 6.2% through 7.75%, due 2004 through 2010
|
|
|
930 |
|
|
|
1,305 |
|
|
|
Senior debentures, 6.375% through 10.75%, due 2004 through 2037
|
|
|
1,357 |
|
|
|
1,395 |
|
|
El Paso Corporation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior notes, 5.75% through 7.125%, due 2006 through 2009
|
|
|
1,956 |
|
|
|
1,817 |
|
|
|
Equity security units, 6.14% due 2007
|
|
|
272 |
|
|
|
272 |
|
|
|
Notes, 6.625% through 7.875%, due 2005 through 2018
|
|
|
1,952 |
|
|
|
2,002 |
|
|
|
Medium-term notes, 6.95% through 9.25%, due 2004 through 2032
|
|
|
2,784 |
|
|
|
2,812 |
|
|
|
Zero coupon convertible debentures due 2021
|
|
|
822 |
|
|
|
895 |
|
|
|
$3 billion revolver, LIBOR plus 3.5% due June 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
850 |
|
|
|
$1.25 billion term loan, LIBOR plus 2.75% due 2009
|
|
|
1,245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
El Paso Natural Gas Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes, 7.625% and 8.375%, due 2010 and 2032
|
|
|
655 |
|
|
|
655 |
|
|
|
Debentures, 7.5% and 8.625%, due 2022 and 2026
|
|
|
460 |
|
|
|
460 |
|
|
El Paso Production Holding Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior notes, 7.75%, due 2013
|
|
|
1,200 |
|
|
|
1,200 |
|
F-82
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
Power
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-recourse senior notes, 7.75% through 9.875%, due 2008
through 2014
|
|
|
666 |
|
|
|
770 |
|
|
|
Non-recourse notes, variable rates, due 2007 and 2008
|
|
|
320 |
|
|
|
361 |
|
|
|
Recourse notes, 7.27% and 8.5%, due 2005 and 2016
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
85 |
|
|
|
Gemstone notes, 7.71% due 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
950 |
|
|
|
Non-recourse financingUCF, 7.944%, due 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
829 |
|
|
Southern Natural Gas Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes and senior notes, 6.125% through 8.875%, due 2007 through
2032
|
|
|
1,200 |
|
|
|
1,200 |
|
|
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Debentures, 6.0% through 7.625%, due 2011 through 2037
|
|
|
1,386 |
|
|
|
1,386 |
|
|
|
Notes, 8.375%, due 2032
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
137 |
|
|
|
404 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,714 |
|
|
|
20,981 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other financing obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital Trust I
|
|
|
325 |
|
|
|
325 |
|
|
Coastal Finance I
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
300 |
|
|
Lakeside Technology Center lease financing loan due 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
275 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
625 |
|
|
|
900 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtotal
|
|
|
19,339 |
|
|
|
21,881 |
|
Less:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unamortized discount and premium on long-term debt
|
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
157 |
|
|
Current maturities
|
|
|
948 |
|
|
|
1,449 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term financing obligations, less current maturities
|
|
$ |
18,241 |
|
|
$ |
20,275 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-83
During 2004 and to date in 2005, we had the following changes in
our long-term financing obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Company |
|
Type |
|
Interest Rate |
|
Principal | |
|
Due Date | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
|
Issuances and other increases
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macae
|
|
Non-recourse note |
|
LIBOR + 4.25% |
|
$ |
50 |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
|
Blue Lake Gas
Storage(1)
|
|
Non-recourse term loan |
|
LIBOR + 1.2% |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
El
Paso(2)
|
|
Notes |
|
6.50% |
|
|
213 |
|
|
|
2005 |
|
|
El
Paso(3)
|
|
Term loan |
|
LIBOR + 2.75% |
|
|
1,250 |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increases
through December 31, 2004 |
|
$ |
1,527 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colorado Interstate Gas Company
|
|
Senior Notes |
|
5.95% |
|
|
200 |
|
|
|
2015 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increases
through March 25, 2005 |
|
$ |
1,727 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repayments, repurchases and other retirements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
El Paso CGP
|
|
Note |
|
LIBOR + 3.5% |
|
$ |
200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
El Paso
|
|
Revolver |
|
LIBOR + 3.5% |
|
|
850 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
El Paso CGP
|
|
Note |
|
6.2% |
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mohawk River Funding IV
(4)
|
|
Non-recourse note |
|
7.75% |
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Utility Contract Funding
(4)
|
|
Non-recourse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
senior notes |
|
7.944% |
|
|
815 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gemstone
|
|
Notes |
|
7.71% |
|
|
950 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lakeside
|
|
Note |
|
LIBOR + 3.5% |
|
|
275 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
El Paso CGP
|
|
Senior Debentures |
|
10.25% |
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
El
Paso(2)
|
|
Notes |
|
6.50% |
|
|
213 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
El
Paso(5)
|
|
Zero coupon debenture |
|
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
El Paso
|
|
Notes |
|
Various |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
El Paso CGP
|
|
Notes |
|
Various |
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
El Paso
|
|
Medium-term notes |
|
Various |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
Various |
|
|
283 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decreases
through December 31, 2004 |
|
|
4,257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
El
Paso(5)
|
|
Zero coupon debenture |
|
|
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cedar
Brakes I(4)
|
|
Non-recourse notes |
|
8.5% |
|
|
286 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cedar
Brakes II(4)
|
|
Non-recourse notes |
|
9.88% |
|
|
380 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
El Paso(6)
|
|
Euros |
|
5.75% |
|
|
715 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
Long-term debt |
|
Various |
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decreases
through March 25, 2005 |
|
$ |
5,919 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
This debt was consolidated as a result of adopting FIN
No. 46 (see Note 2, on page F-58). |
|
(2) |
In the fourth quarter of 2004, we entered into an agreement with
Enron that liquidated two derivative swap agreements of
approximately $221 million in exchange for approximately
$213 million of 6.5% one year notes. Subsequent to the
closing of our new credit agreement, these notes were paid in
full. |
|
(3) |
Proceeds from the $1.25 billion term loan under the new
credit agreement entered into in November 2004. |
|
(4) |
The remaining balance of these debt obligations was eliminated
when we sold our interests in Mohawk River Funding IV, UCF
and Cedar Brakes I and II. |
|
(5) |
In December 2004 and January 2005, we repurchased these 4%
yield-to-maturity zero-coupon debentures. The amount shown as
principal is the carrying value on the date the debt was retired
as compared to its maturity value in 2021 of $206 million
in December 2004, and $351 million in
January 2005. |
|
(6) |
In March 2005, we repaid debt with a principal balance of
528 million,
which had a carrying value of $724 million in long-term
debt on our balance sheet as of December 31, 2004. In
conjunction with this repayment, we also terminated derivative
contracts with a fair value of $152 million as of
December 31, 2004 that hedged this debt. The total net
payment was $579 million. See Note 10, on
page F-73, for additional information on the repurchase of
the derivative contracts. |
F-84
Aggregate maturities of the principal amounts of long-term
financing obligations for the next 5 years and in total
thereafter are as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
$ |
948 |
|
2006(1)
|
|
|
1,155 |
|
2007
|
|
|
835 |
|
2008
|
|
|
733 |
|
2009
|
|
|
2,637 |
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
13,031 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term financing obligations, including current
maturities
|
|
$ |
19,339 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Excludes $0.8 billion of zero coupon debentures as
discussed below. |
Included above in 2005 is $320 million of debt associated
with our Macae project in Brazil, as a result of an event of
default on Macaes non-recourse debt. (See Note 17, on
page F-89, for additional details on the event of default.)
Also included in 2005 are approximately $114 million of
notes and debentures that holders have the option to redeem in
2005, prior to their stated maturities. Of this amount,
$75 million is eligible for redemption solely in 2005 and,
if not redeemed, will be reclassified to long-term debt in 2006.
Included in the thereafter line of the table above
are $600 million of other debentures that holders have an
option to redeem in 2007 prior to their stated maturities and
$822 million of zero coupon convertible debentures. The
zero-coupon debentures have a maturity value of
$1.6 billion, are due 2021 and have a yield to maturity of
4 percent. The holders can cause us to repurchase these
debentures at their option in years 2006, 2011 and 2016, should
they make this election, we can choose to settle in cash or
common stock at a price which approximates market. These
debentures are convertible into 7,468,726 shares of our
common stock, which is based on a conversion rate of
4.7872 shares per $1,000 principal amount at maturity.
This rate is equal to a conversion price of $94.604 per
share of our common stock.
Credit Facilities
In November 2004, we replaced our previous $3 billion
revolving credit facility, which was scheduled to mature in June
2005, with a new $3 billion credit agreement with a group
of lenders. This $3 billion credit agreement consists of a
$1.25 billion five-year term loan; a $1 billion
three-year revolving credit facility; and a $750 million,
five-year letter of credit facility. Certain of our
subsidiaries, EPNG, TGP, ANR and CIG, also continue to be
eligible borrowers under the new credit agreement. Additionally,
El Paso and certain of its subsidiaries have guaranteed
borrowings under the new credit agreement, which is
collateralized by our interests in EPNG, TGP, ANR, CIG, WIC, ANR
Storage Company and Southern Gas Storage Company.
As of December 31, 2004, we had $1.25 billion
outstanding under the term loan and had utilized approximately
all of the $750 million letter of credit facility and
approximately $0.4 billion of the $1 billion revolving
credit facility to issue letters of credit. The term loan
accrues interest at LIBOR plus 2.75 percent, matures in
November 2009, and will be repaid in increments of
$5 million per quarter with the unpaid balance due at
maturity. Under the new revolving credit facility, which matures
in November 2007, we can borrow funds at LIBOR plus
2.75 percent or issue letters of credit at
2.75 percent plus a fee of 0.25 percent of the amount
issued. We pay an annual commitment fee of 0.75 percent on
any unused capacity under the revolving credit facility. The
terms of the new $750 million letter of credit facility
provides us the ability to issue letters of credit or borrow any
unused capacity under the letter of credit facility as revolving
loans with a maturity in November 2009. We pay LIBOR plus
2.75 percent on any amounts borrowed under the letter of
credit facility, and 2.85 percent on letters of credit and
unborrowed funds.
Our restrictive covenants includes restrictions on debt levels,
restrictions on liens securing debt and guarantees, restrictions
on mergers and on the sales of assets, capitalization
requirements, dividend restrictions, cross default and
cross-acceleration and prepayment of debt provisions. A breach
of any of these
F-85
covenants could result in acceleration of our debt and other
financial obligations and that of our subsidiaries. Under our
new credit agreement the significant debt covenants and cross
defaults are:
|
|
|
|
(a) |
El Pasos ratio of Debt to Consolidated EBITDA, each
as defined in the new credit agreement, shall not exceed 6.50 to
1.0 at any time prior to September 30, 2005, 6.25 to 1.0 at
any time on or after September 30, 2005 and prior to
June 30, 2006, and 6.00 to 1.0 at any time on or after
June 30, 2006 until maturity; |
|
|
(b) |
El Pasos ratio of Consolidated EBITDA, as defined in
the new credit agreement, to interest expense plus dividends
paid shall not be less than 1.60 to 1.0 prior to
March 31, 2006, 1.75 to 1.0 on or after March 31,
2006 and prior to March 31, 2007, and 1.80 to 1.0 on
or after March 31, 2007 until maturity; |
|
|
(c) |
EPNG, TGP, ANR, and CIG cannot incur incremental Debt if the
incurrence of this incremental Debt would cause their Debt to
Consolidated EBITDA ratio, each as defined in the new credit
agreement, for that particular company to exceed 5 to 1; |
|
|
(d) |
the proceeds from the issuance of Debt by our pipeline company
borrowers can only be used for maintenance and expansion capital
expenditures or investments in other FERC-regulated assets, to
fund working capital requirements, or to refinance existing
debt; and |
|
|
(e) |
the occurrence of an event of default and after the expiration
of any applicable grace period, with respect to Debt in an
aggregate principal amount of $200 million or more. |
In addition to the above restrictions and default provisions, we
and/or our subsidiaries are subject to a number of additional
restrictions and covenants. These restrictions and covenants
include limitations of additional debt at some of our
subsidiaries; limitations on the use of proceeds from borrowing
at some of our subsidiaries; limitations, in some cases, on
transactions with our affiliates; limitations on the occurrence
of liens; potential limitations on the abilities of some of our
subsidiaries to declare and pay dividends and potential
limitations on some of our subsidiaries to participate in our
cash management program, and limitations on our ability to
prepay debt.
We also issued various guarantees securing financial obligations
of our subsidiaries and unaudited affiliates with similar
covenants as the above facilities.
With respect to guarantees issued by our subsidiaries, the most
significant debt covenant, in addition to the covenants
discussed above, is that El Paso CGP must maintain a minimum net
worth of $850 million. If breached, the amounts guaranteed
by its guaranty agreements could be accelerated. The guaranty
agreements also have a $30 million cross-acceleration
provision.
In addition, three of our subsidiaries have indentures
associated with their public debt that contain $5 million
cross-acceleration provisions. These indentures state that
should an event of default occur resulting in the acceleration
of other debt obligations of such subsidiaries in excess of
$5 million, the long-term debt obligations containing such
provisions could be accelerated. The acceleration of our debt
would adversely affect our liquidity position and in turn, our
financial condition.
Other Financing
Arrangements
Capital Trust I. In March 1998, we formed El Paso Energy
Capital Trust I, a wholly owned subsidiary, which issued
6.5 million of 4.75 percent trust convertible
preferred securities for $325 million. We own all of the
Common Securities of Trust I. Trust I exists for the
sole purpose of issuing preferred securities and investing the
proceeds in 4.75 percent convertible subordinated
debentures we issued due 2028, their sole asset.
Trust Is sole source of income is interest earned on
these debentures. This interest income is used to pay the
obligations on Trust Is preferred securities. We
provide a full and unconditional guarantee of
Trust Is preferred securities.
Trust Is preferred securities are non-voting (except in
limited circumstances), pay quarterly distributions at an annual
rate of 4.75 percent, carry a liquidation value of $50 per
security plus accrued and unpaid
F-86
distributions and are convertible into our common shares at any
time prior to the close of business on March 31, 2028, at
the option of the holder at a rate of 1.2022 common shares for
each Trust I preferred security (equivalent to a conversion
price of $41.59 per common share). During 2003, the outstanding
amounts of these securities were reclassified as long-term debt
from preferred interests in our subsidiaries as a result of a
new accounting standard.
Coastal Finance I. Coastal Finance I is an indirect
wholly owned business trust formed in May 1998. Coastal
Finance I completed a public offering of 12 million
mandatory redemption preferred securities for $300 million.
Coastal Finance I holds subordinated debt securities issued
by our wholly owned subsidiary, El Paso CGP, that it purchased
with the proceeds of the preferred securities offering.
Cumulative quarterly distributions are being paid on the
preferred securities at an annual rate of 8.375 percent of
the liquidation amount of $25 per preferred security. Coastal
Finance Is only source of income is interest earned
on these subordinated debt securities. This interest income is
used to pay the obligations on Coastal Finance Is
preferred securities. The preferred securities are mandatorily
redeemable on the maturity date, May 13, 2038, and may be
redeemed at our option on or after May 13, 2003. The
redemption price to be paid is $25 per preferred security, plus
accrued and unpaid distributions to the date of redemption. El
Paso CGP provides a guarantee of the payment of obligations of
Coastal Finance I related to its preferred securities to
the extent Coastal Finance I has funds available. We have
no obligation to provide funds to Coastal Finance I for the
payment of or redemption of the preferred securities outside of
our obligation to pay interest and principal on the subordinated
debt securities. During 2003, the amounts outstanding of these
securities were reclassified as long-term debt from preferred
interests in our subsidiaries as a result of a new accounting
standard.
Equity Security Units. In June 2002, we issued
11.5 million, 9 percent equity security units. Equity
security units consist of two securities: i) a purchase
contract on which we pay quarterly contract adjustment payments
at an annual rate of 2.86 percent and that requires its
holder to buy our common stock on a stated settlement date of
August 16, 2005, and ii) a senior note due
August 16, 2007, with a principal amount of $50 per unit,
and on which we pay quarterly interest payments at an annual
rate of 6.14 percent. The senior notes we issued had a
total principal value of $575 million and are pledged to
secure the holders obligation to purchase shares of our
common stock under the purchase contracts. In December 2003, we
completed a tender offer to exchange 6,057,953 of the
outstanding equity security units, which represented
approximately 53 percent of the total units outstanding. In
the exchange, we issued a total of 15,182,972 shares of our
common stock that had a total market value of $119 million,
and paid $59 million in cash.
When the remaining purchase contracts are settled in 2005, the
contract provides for us to issue common stock. At that time,
the proceeds will be allocated between common stock and
additional paid-in capital. The number of common shares issued
will depend on the prior consecutive 20-trading day average
closing price of our common stock determined on the third
trading day immediately prior to the stock purchase date. We
will issue a minimum of approximately 11 million shares and
up to a maximum of approximately 14 million shares on the
settlement date, depending on our average stock price.
Non-Recourse Project Financings. Many of our power
subsidiaries and investments have borrowed a material portion of
the costs to acquire or construct their domestic and
international power assets. Such borrowings are made with
recourse only to the project company and assets (i.e. without
recourse to El Paso). On occasion, events have occurred in
connection with several of our projects that have either
constituted an event of default under the loan agreements or
could constitute an event of default upon delivery of a notice
from the lenders and the failure of the subsidiary or investee
to cure the event during an applicable grace period. Currently,
we have one consolidated subsidiary, Macae, where the power off
taker to the project, Petrobras, has not paid all amounts owed
under its contract with the plant. This non-payment has created
an event of default on that project under its loan agreements.
Accordingly, we classified approximately $320 million as
current debt as of December 31, 2004. (See Note 17, on
page F-89, for additional information on our investment in
Macae.) In addition, we have several other projects that we
account for as equity investments that are in default under
their loan agreements, including Saba, Berkshire and East Asia
Power. We have written off all of our investment in both the
Berkshire and East Asia Power facilities and have a
$9 million interest in Saba. There is no recourse to
El Paso under the loans at these investments. In addition,
we have had events of default or other events that could lead to
an event of default upon notice from the
F-87
lenders on other projects, but we do not believe any of these
defaults will have a material impact on our or our
subsidiaries financial statements.
Letters of Credit
We enter into letters of credit in the ordinary course of our
operating activities. As of December 31, 2004, we had
outstanding letters of credit of approximately
$1.3 billion, of which $107 million was supported with
cash collateral, and $1.2 billion were issued under our
credit agreement. Included in this amount were $0.9 billion
of letters of credit securing our recorded obligations related
to price risk management activities.
Available Capacity Under Shelf Registration Statements
We maintain a shelf registration statement with the SEC that
allows us to issue a combination of debt, equity and other
instruments, including trust preferred securities of two wholly
owned trusts, El Paso Capital Trust II and
El Paso Capital Trust III. If we issue securities from
these trusts, we would be required to issue full and
unconditional guarantees on these securities. As of
December 31, 2004, we had $926 million remaining
capacity under this shelf registration statement; however, we
are unable to access this capacity until January 2006, due to
the untimely filing of our 2003 annual and quarterly 2004
financial statements.
16. Preferred Interests of Consolidated Subsidiaries
In the past, we entered into financing transactions that have
been accomplished through the sale of preferred interests in
consolidated subsidiaries. During 2003, we repaid approximately
$2 billion of these preferred interests, reclassified
$625 million to long-term financing obligations as a result
of adopting SFAS No. 150 (see Note 1, on
page F-46) and eliminated $300 million in
consolidation because we acquired the holder of those preferred
interests. Our remaining preferred interest is discussed below.
El Paso Tennessee Preferred Stock. In 1996, El Paso
Tennessee Pipeline Co. (EPTP) issued 6 million shares of
publicly registered 8.25 percent cumulative preferred stock
with a par value of $50 per share for $300 million. The
preferred stock is redeemable, at our option, at a redemption
price equal to $50 per share, plus accrued and unpaid
dividends, at any time. EPTP indirectly owns our marketing and
trading businesses, substantially all of our domestic and
international power businesses, and TGP. While not required, the
following financial information is intended to provide
additional information of EPTP to its preferred security holders:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
|
(unaudited) | |
Operating results data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
812 |
|
|
$ |
1,459 |
|
|
$ |
1,132 |
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
1,131 |
|
|
|
1,865 |
|
|
|
2,268 |
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
|
(399 |
) |
|
|
(377 |
) |
|
|
(1,288 |
) |
|
Net loss
|
|
|
(399 |
) |
|
|
(377 |
) |
|
|
(1,510 |
) |
F-88
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
|
(unaudited) | |
Financial position data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
$ |
2,783 |
|
|
$ |
4,217 |
|
|
Non-current assets
|
|
|
9,001 |
|
|
|
9,892 |
|
|
Short-term debt
|
|
|
402 |
|
|
|
1,111 |
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
4,693 |
|
|
|
5,409 |
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
2,183 |
|
|
|
2,545 |
|
|
Other non-current liabilities
|
|
|
2,580 |
|
|
|
2,642 |
|
|
Securities of subsidiaries
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
Equity in net assets
|
|
|
1,923 |
|
|
|
2,374 |
|
|
|
17. |
Commitments and Contingencies |
Legal Proceedings
Western Energy Settlement. In June 2004, our master
settlement agreement, along with other separate settlement
agreements, became effective with a number of public and private
claimants, including the states of California, Washington,
Oregon and Nevada. This resolves the principal litigation,
investigations, claims and regulatory proceedings arising out of
the sale or delivery of natural gas and/or electricity to the
western U.S. (the Western Energy Settlement). As part of the
Western Energy Settlement, we admitted no wrongdoing but agreed,
among other things, to make various cash payments and modify an
existing power supply contract. We also entered into a Joint
Settlement Agreement or JSA where we agreed, subject to the
limitations in the JSA, to (1) make 3.29 Bcf/d of
capacity available to California to the extent shippers sign
firm contracts for that capacity, (2) maintain facilities
sufficient to physically deliver 3.29 Bcf/d to California;
(3) construct facilities which we completed in 2004,
(4) clarify certain shippers recall rights on the
system and (5) bar any of our affiliated companies from
obtaining additional firm capacity on our EPNG pipeline system
during a five year period from the effective date of the
settlement.
In June 2003, El Paso, the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC), Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern
California Edison Company, and the City of Los Angeles filed the
JSA described above with the FERC. In November 2003, the FERC
approved the JSA with minor modifications. Our east of
California shippers filed requests for rehearing, which were
denied by the FERC on March 30, 2004. Certain shippers have
appealed the FERCs ruling to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia, where this matter is
pending. We expect this appeal to be fully briefed by the summer
of 2005.
During the fourth quarter of 2002, we recorded an
$899 million pretax charge related to the Western Energy
Settlement. During 2003, we recorded additional pretax charges
of $104 million based upon reaching definitive settlement
agreements. Charges and expenses associated with the Western
Energy Settlement are included in operations and maintenance
expense in our consolidated statements of income. When the
settlement became effective in June 2004, $602 million was
released to the settling parties. This amount is shown as a
reduction of our cash flows from operations in the second
quarter of 2004. Of the amount released, $568 million had
been previously held in an escrow account pending final approval
of the settlement. The release of these restricted funds is
included as an increase in our cash flows from investing
activities. Our remaining obligation as of December 31,
2004 under the Western Energy Settlement consists of a
discounted 20-year cash payment obligation of $395 million
and a price reduction under a power supply contract, which is
included in our price risk management activities. In connection
with the Western Energy Settlement, we provided collateral in
the form of natural gas and oil properties to secure our
remaining cash payment obligation. The collateral requirement is
being reduced as payments under the 20 year obligation are
made. For an issue regarding the potential tax deductibility of
our Western Energy Settlement charges, see Note 7, on
page F-70.
F-89
Shareholder/Derivative/ERISA
Litigation
|
|
|
Shareholder Litigation. Since 2002, twenty-nine purported
shareholder class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal
securities laws have been filed against us and several of our
current and former officers and directors. One of these lawsuits
has been dismissed and the remaining 28 lawsuits have been
consolidated in federal court in Houston, Texas. The
consolidated lawsuit generally challenges the accuracy or
completeness of press releases and other public statements made
during the class period from 2001 through early 2004, related to
wash trades, mark-to-market accounting, off-balance sheet debt,
overstatement of oil and gas reserves and manipulation of the
California energy market. The consolidated lawsuit is currently
stayed. |
|
|
Derivative Litigation. Since 2002, five shareholder
derivative actions have also been filed. Three of the actions
allege the same claims as in the consolidated shareholder class
action suit described above, with one of the actions including a
claim for compensation disgorgement against certain individuals.
These actions are currently stayed. Two actions are now
consolidated in state court in Houston, Texas and generally
allege that manipulation of California gas prices exposed us to
claims of antitrust conspiracy, FERC penalties and erosion of
share value. |
|
|
ERISA Class Action Suits. In December 2002, a purported
class action lawsuit entitled William H. Lewis, III v.
El Paso Corporation, et al. was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas alleging generally that
our direct and indirect communications with participants in the
El Paso Corporation Retirement Savings Plan included
misrepresentations and omissions that caused members of the
class to hold and maintain investments in El Paso stock in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA). That lawsuit was subsequently amended to include
allegations relating to our reporting of natural gas and oil
reserves. This lawsuit has been stayed. |
|
|
We and our representatives have insurance coverages that are
applicable to each of these shareholder, derivative and ERISA
lawsuits. There are certain deductibles and co-pay obligations
under some of those insurance coverages for which we have
established certain accruals we believe are adequate. |
Cash Balance Plan Lawsuit. In December 2004, a lawsuit
entitled Tomlinson, et al. v. El Paso Corporation and El Paso
Corporation Pension Plan was filed in U.S. District Court
for Denver, Colorado. The lawsuit seeks class action status and
alleges that the change from a final average earnings formula
pension plan to a cash balance pension plan, the accrual of
benefits under the plan, and the communications about the change
violate the ERISA and/or the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act. Our costs and legal exposure related to this lawsuit are
not currently determinable.
Retiree Medical Benefits Matters. We currently serve as
the plan administrator for a medical benefits plan that covers a
closed group of retirees of the Case Corporation who retired on
or before June 30, 1994. Case was formerly a subsidiary of
Tenneco, Inc. that was spun off prior to our acquisition of
Tenneco in 1996. In connection with the Tenneco-Case
Reorganization Agreement of 1994, Tenneco assumed the obligation
to provide certain medical and prescription drug benefits to
eligible retirees and their spouses. We assumed this obligation
as a result of our merger with Tenneco. However, we believe that
our liability for these benefits is limited to certain maximums,
or caps, and costs in excess of these maximums are assumed by
plan participants. In 2002, we and Case were sued by individual
retirees in federal court in Detroit, Michigan in an action
entitled Yolton et al. v. El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Company
and Case Corporation. The suit alleges, among other things,
that El Paso violated ERISA, and that Case should be required to
pay all amounts above the cap. Although such amounts will vary
over time, the amounts above the cap have recently been
approximately $1.8 million per month. Case further filed
claims against El Paso asserting that El Paso is obligated to
indemnify, defend, and hold Case harmless for the amounts it
would be required to pay. In February 2004, a judge ruled that
Case would be required to pay the amounts incurred above the
cap. Furthermore, in September 2004, a judge ruled that pending
resolution of this matter, El Paso must indemnify and reimburse
Case for the monthly amounts above the cap. Our motion for
reconsideration of these orders was denied in November 2004.
These rulings have been appealed. In the meantime, El Paso will
indemnify Case for any payments Case makes above the cap. While
we believe we have meritorious defenses to the
F-90
plaintiffs claims and to Cases crossclaim, if we
were required to ultimately pay for all future amounts above the
cap, and if Case were not found to be responsible for these
amounts, our exposure could be as high as $400 million, on
an undiscounted basis.
Natural Gas Commodities Litigation. Beginning in August
2003, several lawsuits were filed against El Paso and El
Paso Marketing L.P. (EPM), formerly El Paso Merchant Energy
L.P., our affiliate, in which plaintiffs alleged, in part, that
El Paso, EPM and other energy companies conspired to
manipulate the price of natural gas by providing false price
reporting information to industry trade publications that
published gas indices. Those cases, all filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, are
as follows: Cornerstone Propane Partners, L.P. v. Reliant
Energy Services Inc., et al.; Roberto E. Calle
Gracey v. American Electric Power Company, Inc., et al.; and
Dominick Viola v. Reliant Energy Services Inc., et al. In
December 2003, those cases were consolidated with others into a
single master file in federal court in New York for all
pre-trial purposes. In September 2004, the court dismissed El
Paso from the master litigation. EPM and approximately 27 other
energy companies remain in the litigation. In January 2005 a
purported class action lawsuit styled Leggett et al. v Duke
Energy Corporation et al. was filed against El Paso, EPM and
a number of other energy companies in the Chancery Court of
Tennessee for the Twenty-Fifth Judicial District at Somerville
on behalf of the all residential and commercial purchasers of
natural gas in the state of Tennessee during the past three
years. Plaintiffs allege the defendants conspired to manipulate
the price of natural gas by providing false price reporting
information to industry trade publications that published gas
indices. The Company has also had similar claims asserted by
individual commercial customers. Our costs and legal exposure
related to these lawsuits and claims are not currently
determinable.
Grynberg. A number of our subsidiaries were named
defendants in actions filed in 1997 brought by Jack Grynberg on
behalf of the U.S. Government under the False Claims Act.
Generally, these complaints allege an industry-wide conspiracy
to underreport the heating value as well as the volumes of the
natural gas produced from federal and Native American lands,
which deprived the U.S. Government of royalties. The plaintiff
in this case seeks royalties that he contends the government
should have received had the volume and heating value been
differently measured, analyzed, calculated and reported,
together with interest, treble damages, civil penalties,
expenses and future injunctive relief to require the defendants
to adopt allegedly appropriate gas measurement practices. No
monetary relief has been specified in this case. These matters
have been consolidated for pretrial purposes (In re: Natural
Gas Royalties Qui Tam Litigation, U.S. District Court for
the District of Wyoming, filed June 1997). Motions to dismiss
have been filed on behalf of all defendants. Our costs and legal
exposure related to these lawsuits and claims are not currently
determinable.
Will Price (formerly Quinque). A number of our
subsidiaries are named as defendants in Will Price, et al. v.
Gas Pipelines and Their Predecessors, et al., filed in 1999
in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas. Plaintiffs
allege that the defendants mismeasured natural gas volumes and
heating content of natural gas on non-federal and non-Native
American lands and seek to recover royalties that they contend
they should have received had the volume and heating value of
natural gas produced from their properties been differently
measured, analyzed, calculated and reported, together with
prejudgment and postjudgment interest, punitive damages, treble
damages, attorneys fees, costs and expenses, and future
injunctive relief to require the defendants to adopt allegedly
appropriate gas measurement practices. No monetary relief has
been specified in this case. Plaintiffs motion for class
certification of a nationwide class of natural gas working
interest owners and natural gas royalty owners was denied in
April 2003. Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a Fourth
Amended Petition, which narrows the proposed class to royalty
owners in wells in Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado and removes
claims as to heating content. A second class action has since
been filed as to the heating content claims. The plaintiffs have
filed motions for class certification in both proceedings and
the defendants have filed briefs in opposition thereto. Our
costs and legal exposure related to these lawsuits and claims
are not currently determinable.
Bank of America. We are a named defendant, along with
Burlington Resources, Inc., in two class action lawsuits styled
as Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Company, et
al., and Deane W. Moore, et al. v. Burlington Northern,
Inc., et al., each filed in 1997 in the District Court of
Washita County, State of Oklahoma and subsequently consolidated
by the court. The plaintiffs seek an accounting and damages for
alleged royalty underpayments from 1982 to the present on
natural gas produced from specified wells in
F-91
Oklahoma, plus interest from the time such amounts were
allegedly due, as well as punitive damages. The court has
certified the plaintiff classes of royalty and overriding
royalty interest owners, and the parties have completed
discovery. The plaintiffs have filed expert reports alleging
damages in excess of $1 billion. Pursuant to a recent
summary judgment decision, the court ruled that claims
previously released by the settlement of Altheide v.
Meridian, a nation-wide royalty class action against
Burlington and its affiliates are barred from being reasserted
in this action. We believe that this ruling eliminates a
material, but yet unquantified portion of the alleged class
damages. While Burlington accepted our tender of the defense of
these cases in 1997, pursuant to the spin-off agreement entered
into in 1992 between EPNG and Burlington Resources, Inc., and
had been defending the matter since that time, at the end of
2003 it asserted contractual claims for indemnity against us. A
third action, styled Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso
Natural Gas and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company,
was filed in October 2003 in the District Court of Kiowa
County, Oklahoma asserting similar claims as to specified
shallow wells in Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico. Defendants
succeeded in transferring this action to Washita County. A class
has not been certified. We have filed an action styled El
Paso Natural Gas Company v. Burlington Resources, Inc. and
Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company, L.P. against
Burlington in state court in Harris County relating to the
indemnity issues between Burlington and us. That action is
currently stayed. We believe we have substantial defenses to the
plaintiffs claims as well as to the claims for indemnity
by Burlington. Our costs and legal exposure related to these
lawsuits and claims are not currently determinable.
Araucaria. We own a 60 percent interest in a 484 MW
gas-fired power project known as the Araucaria project located
near Curitiba, Brazil. The Araucaria project has a 20-year power
purchase agreement (PPA) with a government-controlled
regional utility. In December 2002, the utility ceased making
payments to the project and, as a result, the Araucaria project
and the utility are currently involved in international
arbitration over the PPA. A Curitiba court has ruled that the
arbitration clause in the PPA is invalid, and has enjoined the
project company from prosecuting its arbitration under penalty
of approximately $173,000 in daily fines. The project company is
appealing this ruling, and has obtained a stay order in any
imposition of daily fines pending the outcome of the appeal. Our
investment in the Araucaria project was $186 million at
December 31, 2004. We have political risk insurance that
covers a portion of our investment in the project. Based on the
future outcome of our dispute under the PPA and depending on our
ability to collect amounts from the utility or under our
political risk insurance policies, we could be required to write
down the value of our investment.
Macae. We own a 928 MW gas-fired power plant known
as the Macae project located near the city of Macae, Brazil with
property, plant and equipment having a net book value of
$700 million as of December 31, 2004. The Macae
project revenues are derived from sales to the spot market,
bilateral contracts and minimum capacity and revenue payments.
The minimum capacity and energy revenue payments of the Macae
project are paid by Petrobras until August 2007 under a
participation agreement. Petrobras failed to make any payments
that were due under the participation agreement for December
2004 and January 2005. In 2005, Petrobras obtained a ruling from
a Brazilian court directing Petrobras to deposit one-half of the
payments to a court account and to pay us the other half. We are
appealing this ruling. Petrobras has also failed to make any
payments required under the court order. As of December 31,
2004, our accounts receivable balance is approximately
$20 million. Petrobras has also filed a notice of
arbitration with an international arbitration institution that
effectively seeks rescission of the participation agreement and
reimbursement of a portion of the capacity payments that it has
made. If such claim were successful, it would result in a
termination of the minimum revenue payments as well as
Petrobrass obligation to provide a firm gas supply to the
project through 2012. We believe we have substantial defenses to
the claims of Petrobras and will vigorously defend our legal
rights. In addition, we will continue to seek reasonable
negotiated settlements of this dispute, including the
restructuring of the participation agreement or the sale of the
plant. Macae has non-recourse debt of approximately
$320 million at December 31, 2004, and Petrobras
non-payment has created an event of default under the applicable
loan agreements. As a result, we have classified the entire
$320 million of debt as current. We also have restricted
cash balances of approximately $76 million as of
December 31, 2004, which are reflected in current assets,
related to required debt service reserve balances, debt service
payment accounts and funds held for future distribution by
Macae. We have also issued cash collateralized letters of credit
of approximately $47 million as part of funding the
required debt service reserve accounts. The
F-92
restricted cash related to these letters of credit has also been
classified as a current asset. In light of the default of
Petrobras under the participation agreement and the potential
inability of Macae to continue to make ongoing payments under
its loan agreements, one or more of the lenders could exercise
certain remedies under the loan agreements in the future, one of
which could be an acceleration of the amounts owed under the
loan agreements which could ultimately result in the lenders
foreclosing on the Macae project.
In light of the pending arbitration proceedings, we have
evaluated whether any impairment of our investment in the
project is required at December 31, 2004. Based upon our
review of the possible outcomes of the arbitration and potential
settlements of the dispute, we do not believe that an impairment
of our investment is required at this time. However, if our
assessment of the potential outcomes of the arbitration or
settlement opportunities changes, we may be required to write
down some or all of our investment in the project. In the event
that the lenders call the loans and ultimately foreclose on the
project, our loss would be approximately $500 million as of
December 31, 2004. As new information becomes available or
future material developments occur, we will reassess our
carrying value of this investment.
MTBE. In compliance with the 1990 amendments to the Clean
Air Act, we used the gasoline additive methyl tertiary-butyl
ether (MTBE) in some of our gasoline. We have also
produced, bought, sold and distributed MTBE. A number of
lawsuits have been filed throughout the U.S. regarding
MTBEs potential impact on water supplies. We and some of
our subsidiaries are among the defendants in over 60 such
lawsuits. As a result of a ruling issued on March 16, 2004,
these suits have been or are in the process of being
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in multi-district litigation
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The plaintiffs, certain state attorneys general and
various water districts, seek remediation of their groundwater,
prevention of future contamination, a variety of compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, and court
costs. Our costs and legal exposure related to these lawsuits
are not currently determinable.
Wise Arbitration. William Wise, our former Chief
Executive Officer, initiated an arbitration proceeding alleging
that we breached employment and other agreements by failing to
make certain payments to him following his departure from El
Paso in 2003. Discovery is underway, with a hearing scheduled in
the summer of 2005.
Government Investigations
Power Restructuring. In October 2003, we announced that
the SEC had authorized the staff of the Fort Worth Regional
Office to conduct an investigation of certain aspects of our
periodic reports filed with the SEC. The investigation appears
to be focused principally on our power plant contract
restructurings and the related disclosures and accounting
treatment for the restructured power contracts, including in
particular the Eagle Point restructuring transaction completed
in 2002. We have cooperated with the SEC investigation.
Wash Trades. In June 2002, we received an informal
inquiry from the SEC regarding the issue of round trip trades.
Although we do not believe any round trip trades occurred, we
submitted data to the SEC in July 2002. In July 2002, we
received a federal grand jury subpoena for documents concerning
round trip or wash trades. We have complied with those requests.
We have also cooperated with the U.S. Attorney regarding an
investigation of specific transactions executed in connection
with hedges of our natural gas and oil production and the
restatement of such hedges.
Price Reporting. In October 2002, the FERC issued data
requests regarding price reporting of transactional data to the
energy trade press. We provided information to the FERC, the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the U.S.
Attorney in response to their requests. In the first quarter of
2003, we announced a settlement with the CFTC of the price
reporting matter providing for the payment of a civil monetary
penalty by EPM of $20 million, $10 million of which is
payable in 2006, without admitting or denying the CFTC holdings
in the order. We are continuing to cooperate with the U.S.
Attorneys investigation of this matter.
Reserve Revisions. In March 2004, we received a subpoena
from the SEC requesting documents relating to our
December 31, 2003 natural gas and oil reserve revisions. We
have also received federal grand
F-93
jury subpoenas for documents with regard to these reserve
revisions. We are cooperating with the SECs and the U.S.
Attorneys investigations of this matter.
Storage Reporting. In November 2004, ANR and TGP received
a data request from the FERC in connection with its
investigation into the weekly storage withdrawal number reported
by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) for the
eastern region on November 24, 2004, that was subsequently
revised downward by the EIA. Specifically, ANR and TGP provided
information on their weekly EIA submissions for two weeks in
November 2004. Neither ANR nor TGPs submissions to the EIA
were revised subsequent to their original submissions. Although
ANR made a correction to one daily posting on its electronic
bulletin board during this period, those postings are unrelated
to EIA submissions. In December 2004, ANR received a similar
data request from the CFTC and ANR provided the requested
information. On December 17, 2004, the FERC held a press
conference in which they disclosed that their inquiry had
determined that an unaffiliated third party was the source of
the downward revision.
Iraq Oil Sales. In September 2004, The Coastal
Corporation (now known as El Paso CGP Company, which we acquired
in January 2001) received a subpoena from the grand jury of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to
produce records regarding the United Nations Oil for Food
Program governing sales of Iraqi oil. The subpoena seeks various
records relating to transactions in oil of Iraqi origin during
the period from 1995 to 2003. In November 2004, we received an
order from the SEC to provide a written statement in connection
with Coastal and El Pasos participation in the Oil for
Food Program. We have also received informal requests for
information and documents from the United States Senates
Permanent Subcommittee of Investigations and the House of
Representatives International Relations Committee related to
Coastals purchases of Iraqi crude under the Oil for Food
Program. We are cooperating with the U.S. Attorneys, the
SECs, the Senate Subcommittees, and the House
Committees investigations of this matter.
Carlsbad. In August 2000, a main transmission line owned
and operated by EPNG ruptured at the crossing of the Pecos River
near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Twelve individuals at the site were
fatally injured. In June 2001, the U.S. Department of
Transportations Office of Pipeline Safety issued a Notice
of Probable Violation and Proposed Civil Penalty to EPNG. The
Notice alleged five violations of DOT regulations, proposed
fines totaling $2.5 million and proposed corrective
actions. EPNG has fully accrued for these fines. In October
2001, EPNG filed a response with the Office of Pipeline Safety
disputing each of the alleged violations. In December 2003, the
matter was referred to the Department of Justice.
After a public hearing conducted by the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) on its investigation into the Carlsbad
rupture, the NTSB published its final report in April 2003. The
NTSB stated that it had determined that the probable cause of
the August 2000 rupture was a significant reduction in pipe wall
thickness due to severe internal corrosion, which occurred
because EPNGs corrosion control program failed to
prevent, detect, or control internal corrosion in the
pipeline. The NTSB also determined that ineffective federal
preaccident inspections contributed to the accident by not
identifying deficiencies in EPNGs internal corrosion
control program.
In November 2002, EPNG received a federal grand jury subpoena
for documents related to the Carlsbad rupture and cooperated
fully in responding to the subpoena. That subpoena has since
expired. In December 2003 and January 2004, eight current and
former employees were served with testimonial subpoenas issued
by the grand jury. Six individuals testified in March 2004. In
April 2004, we and EPNG received a new federal grand jury
subpoena requesting additional documents. We have responded
fully to this subpoena. Two additional employees testified
before the grand jury in June 2004.
A number of civil actions were filed against EPNG in connection
with the rupture which have now been settled or should be fully
covered by insurance.
In addition to the above matters, we and our subsidiaries and
affiliates are named defendants in numerous lawsuits and
governmental proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of
our business. There are also other regulatory rules and orders
in various stages of adoption, review and/or implementation,
none of which we believe will have a material impact on us.
F-94
Rates and Regulatory Matters
Pipeline Integrity Costs. In November 2004, the FERC
issued a proposed accounting release that may impact certain
costs our interstate pipelines incur related to their pipeline
integrity programs. If the release is enacted as written, we
would be required to expense certain future pipeline integrity
costs instead of capitalizing them as part of our property,
plant and equipment. Although we continue to evaluate the impact
of this potential accounting release, we currently estimate that
if the release is enacted as written, we would be required to
expense an additional amount of pipeline integrity expenditures
in the range of approximately $25 million to
$41 million annually over the next eight years.
Inquiry Regarding Income Tax Allowances. In December
2004, the FERC issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in response to a
recent D.C. Circuit decision that held the FERC had not
adequately justified its policy of providing a certain oil
pipeline limited partnership with an income tax allowance equal
to the proportion of its limited partnership interests owned by
corporate partners. The FERC sought comments on whether the
courts reasoning should be applied to other partnerships
or other ownership structures. We own interests in non-taxable
entities that could be affected by this ruling. We cannot
predict what impact this inquiry will have on our interstate
pipelines, including those pipelines which are jointly owned
with unaffiliated parties.
Selective Discounting Notice of Inquiry. In November
2004, the FERC issued a NOI seeking comments on its policy
regarding selective discounting by natural gas pipelines. The
FERC seeks comments regarding whether its practice of permitting
pipelines to adjust their ratemaking throughput downward in rate
cases to reflect discounts given by pipelines for competitive
reasons is appropriate when the discount is given to meet
competition from another natural gas pipeline. Our pipelines
filed comments on the NOI. Neither the final outcome of this
inquiry nor the impact on our pipelines can be predicted with
certainty.
Other Contingencies
Enron Bankruptcy. In December 2001, Enron Corp. and a
number of its subsidiaries, including Enron North America Corp.
(ENA) and Enron Power Marketing, Inc. (EPMI) filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in New York. We had
various contracts with Enron marketing and trading entities, and
most of the trading-related contracts were terminated due to the
bankruptcy. In October 2002, we filed proofs of claims against
the Enron trading entities totaling approximately
$317 million.
|
|
|
Enron Trading Claims. We have largely sold or settled all
of our original claims of our trading entities with Enron. In
particular, on June 24, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court approved
a settlement agreement with Enron that resolved most of our
trading or merchant issues between the parties for which final
payments were made in the third quarter of 2004. The only
remaining trading claims involve our European trading
businesses, claims against Enron Capital and Trade Resources
Limited, which are subject to separate proceedings in the United
Kingdom, in addition to a corresponding claim against Enron
Corp. based on a corporate guarantee. After considering the
valuation and setoff arguments and the reserves we have
established, we believe our overall remaining trading exposure
to Enron is $3 million. |
|
|
Enron Pipeline Claims. In addition, various Enron
subsidiaries had transportation contracts on several of our
pipeline systems. Most of these transportation contracts were
rejected, and our pipeline subsidiaries filed proofs of claim
totaling approximately $137 million. EPNG filed the largest
proof of claim in the amount of approximately $128 million,
which included $18 million for amounts due for services provided
through the date the contracts were rejected and
$110 million for damage claims arising from the rejection
of its transportation contracts. EPNG expects that Enron will
vigorously contest these claims. Our remaining pipeline
claimants, ANR TGP and WIC, are in various stages of attempting
to resolve their claims with Enron. Given the uncertainty of the
bankruptcy process, the results are uncertain. We have fully
reserved for the amounts due through the date the contracts were
rejected, and we have not recognized any amounts under these
contracts since that time. |
F-95
Brazilian Matters. We own a number of interests in
various production properties, power and pipeline assets in
Brazil. Our total investment in Brazil was approximately
$1.6 billion as of December 31, 2004. Although
economic conditions have generally improved over the last year,
Brazil has experienced high interest rates on local debt and has
experienced restrictions on the availability of foreign funds
and investment. In addition, in a number of our assets and
investments, Petrobras either serves as a joint owner, a
customer or a shipper to the asset or project. Although we have
no material current disputes with Petrobras with regard to the
ownership or operation of our production and pipeline assets,
current disputes on the Macae power plant between us and
Petrobras may negatively impact these investments and the impact
could be material. We also own an investment in a power plant in
Brazil called Porto Velho. The Porto Velho project is in the
process of negotiating certain provisions of its PPAs with
Eletronorte, including the amount of installed capacity, energy
prices, take or pay levels, the term of the first PPA and other
issues. In addition, in October 2004, the project experienced an
outage with a steam turbine which resulted in a partial
reduction in the plants capacity. The project expects to
replace or repair the steam turbine by the first quarter of
2006. We are uncertain what impact this outage will have on the
PPAs. Although the current terms of the PPAs and the proposed
amendments do not indicate an impairment of our investment, we
may be required to write down the value of our investment if
these negotiations are resolved unfavorably. Our investment in
Porto Velho was $292 million at December 31, 2004.
For each of our outstanding legal and other contingent matters,
we evaluate the merits of the item, our exposure to the matter,
possible legal or settlement strategies and the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome. If we determine that an unfavorable outcome
is probable and can be estimated, then we establish the
necessary accruals. While the outcome of these matters cannot be
predicted with certainty and there are still uncertainties
related to the costs we may incur, based upon our evaluation and
experience to date, we believe we have established appropriate
reserves for these matters. However, it is possible that new
information or future developments could require us to reassess
our potential exposure related to these matters and adjust our
accruals accordingly. As of December 31, 2004, we had
approximately $592 million net of related insurance
receivables accrued for our outstanding legal and other
contingencies, including amounts accrued for our Western Energy
Settlement.
Environmental Matters
We are subject to federal, state and local laws and regulations
governing environmental quality and pollution control. These
laws and regulations require us to remove or remedy the effect
on the environment of the disposal or release of specified
substances at current and former operating sites. As of December
31, 2004, we had accrued approximately $380 million,
including approximately $373 million for expected
remediation costs and associated onsite, offsite and groundwater
technical studies, and approximately $7 million for related
environmental legal costs, which we anticipate incurring through
2027. Of the $380 million accrual, $100 million was
reserved for facilities we currently operate, and
$280 million was reserved for non-operating sites
(facilities that are shut down or have been sold) and Superfund
sites.
Our reserve estimates range from approximately $380 million
to approximately $547 million. Our accrual represents a
combination of two estimation methodologies. First, where the
most likely outcome can be reasonably estimated, that cost has
been accrued ($82 million). Second, where the most likely
outcome cannot be estimated, a range of costs is established
($298 million to $465 million) and if no one amount in
that range is more likely than any other, the lower end of the
expected range has been accrued. By type of site, our reserves
are based on the following estimates of reasonably possible
outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
| |
Sites |
|
Expected | |
|
High | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating
|
|
$ |
100 |
|
|
$ |
111 |
|
Non-operating
|
|
|
249 |
|
|
|
384 |
|
Superfund
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
380 |
|
|
$ |
547 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-96
Below is a reconciliation of our accrued liability from
January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2004 (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of January 1, 2004
|
|
$ |
412 |
|
Additions/adjustments for remediation activities
|
|
|
17 |
|
Payments for remediation activities
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
Other changes, net
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Balance as of December 31, 2004
|
|
$ |
380 |
|
|
|
|
|
For 2005, we estimate that our total remediation expenditures
will be approximately $64 million. In addition, we expect
to make capital expenditures for environmental matters of
approximately $62 million in the aggregate for the years
2005 through 2009. These expenditures primarily relate to
compliance with clean air regulations.
Internal PCB Remediation Project. Since 1988, TGP, our
subsidiary, has been engaged in an internal project to identify
and address the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
other substances, including those on the EPA List of Hazardous
Substances (HSL), at compressor stations and other facilities it
operates. While conducting this project, TGP has been in
frequent contact with federal and state regulatory agencies,
both through informal negotiation and formal entry of consent
orders. TGP executed a consent order in 1994 with the EPA,
governing the remediation of the relevant compressor stations,
and is working with the EPA and the relevant states regarding
those remediation activities. TGP is also working with the
Pennsylvania and New York environmental agencies regarding
remediation and post-remediation activities at its Pennsylvania
and New York stations.
PCB Cost Recoveries. In May 1995, following negotiations
with its customers, TGP filed an agreement with the FERC that
established a mechanism for recovering a substantial portion of
the environmental costs identified in its internal remediation
project. The agreement, which was approved by the FERC in
November 1995, provided for a PCB surcharge on firm and
interruptible customers rates to pay for eligible
remediation costs, with these surcharges to be collected over a
defined collection period. TGP has received approval from the
FERC to extend the collection period, which is now currently set
to expire in June 2006. The agreement also provided for
bi-annual audits of eligible costs. As of December 31,
2004, TGP had pre-collected PCB costs by approximately
$125 million. This pre-collected amount will be reduced by
future eligible costs incurred for the remainder of the
remediation project. To the extent actual eligible expenditures
are less than the amounts pre-collected, TGP will refund to its
customers the difference, plus carrying charges incurred up to
the date of the refunds. As of December 31, 2004, TGP has
recorded a regulatory liability (included in other non-current
liabilities on its balance sheet) of $97 million for
estimated future refund obligations.
CERCLA Matters. We have received notice that we could be
designated, or have been asked for information to determine
whether we could be designated, as a Potentially Responsible
Party (PRP) with respect to 61 active sites under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) or state equivalents. We have sought to resolve our
liability as a PRP at these sites through indemnification by
third-parties and settlements which provide for payment of our
allocable share of remediation costs. As of December 31,
2004, we have estimated our share of the remediation costs at
these sites to be between $31 million and $52 million.
Since the clean-up costs are estimates and are subject to
revision as more information becomes available about the extent
of remediation required, and because in some cases we have
asserted a defense to any liability, our estimates could change.
Moreover, liability under the federal CERCLA statute is joint
and several, meaning that we could be required to pay in excess
of our pro rata share of remediation costs. Our understanding of
the financial strength of other PRPs has been considered, where
appropriate, in estimating our liabilities. Accruals for these
issues are included in the previously indicated estimates for
Superfund sites.
It is possible that new information or future developments could
require us to reassess our potential exposure related to
environmental matters. We may incur significant costs and
liabilities in order to comply with existing environmental laws
and regulations. It is also possible that other developments,
such as
F-97
increasingly strict environmental laws and regulations and
claims for damages to property, employees, other persons and the
environment resulting from our current or past operations, could
result in substantial costs and liabilities in the future. As
this information becomes available, or other relevant
developments occur, we will adjust our accrual amounts
accordingly. While there are still uncertainties relating to the
ultimate costs we may incur, based upon our evaluation and
experience to date, we believe our current environmental
reserves are adequate.
Commitments and Purchase Obligations
Operating Leases. We maintain operating leases in the
ordinary course of our business activities. These leases include
those for office space and operating facilities and office and
operating equipment, and the terms of the agreements vary from
2005 until 2053. As of December 31, 2004, our total
commitments under operating leases were approximately
$442 million. Minimum annual rental commitments under our
operating leases at December 31, 2004, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ending December 31, |
|
Operating Leases | |
|
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
2005
|
|
$ |
79 |
|
2006
|
|
|
66 |
|
2007
|
|
|
51 |
|
2008
|
|
|
43 |
|
2009
|
|
|
40 |
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
442 |
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate minimum commitments have not been reduced by minimum
sublease rentals of approximately $28 million due in the
future under noncancelable subleases. Rental expense on our
operating leases for the years ended December 31, 2004,
2003 and 2002 was $101 million, $113 million and
$116 million.
In May 2004, we announced we would consolidate our Houston-based
operations into one location. This consolidation was
substantially completed by the end of 2004. As a result, as of
December 31, 2004 we have established an accrual totaling
$80 million to record the liability, net of sublease
rentals, for our obligations under our existing lease terms. We
currently lease approximately 888,000 square feet of office
space in the buildings we are vacating under various leases with
lease terms expiring through 2014. See Note 4, on
page F-66, for additional information regarding these lease
terminations.
Guarantees. We are involved in various joint ventures and
other ownership arrangements that sometimes require additional
financial support that results in the issuance of financial and
performance guarantees. In a financial guarantee, we are
obligated to make payments if the guaranteed party fails to make
payments under, or violates the terms of, the financial
arrangement. In a performance guarantee, we provide assurance
that the guaranteed party will execute on the terms of the
contract. If they do not, we are required to perform on their
behalf. We also periodically provide indemnification
arrangements related to assets or businesses we have sold. These
arrangements include indemnification for income taxes, the
resolution of existing disputes, environmental matters, and
necessary expenditures to ensure the safety and integrity of the
assets sold.
We evaluate at the time a guarantee or indemnity arrangement is
entered into and in each period thereafter whether a liability
exists and, if so, if it can be estimated. We record accruals
when both these criteria are met. As of December 31, 2004,
we had accrued $70 million related to these arrangements.
As of December 31, 2004, we had approximately
$40 million of financial and performance guarantees, and
indemnification arrangements not otherwise reflected in our
financial statements.
Other Commercial Commitments. We have various other
commercial commitments and purchase obligations that are not
recorded on our balance sheet. At December 31, 2004, we had
firm commitments under tolling, transportation and storage
capacity contracts of $1.5 billion, commodity purchase
commitments
F-98
of $149 million and other purchase and capital commitments
(including maintenance, engineering, procurement and
construction contracts) of $224 million.
18. Retirement Benefits
Pension Benefits
Our primary pension plan is a defined benefit plan that covers
substantially all of our U.S. employees and provides
benefits under a cash balance formula. Certain employees who
participated in the prior pension plans of El Paso, Sonat or
Coastal receive the greater of cash balance benefits or
transition benefits under the prior plan formulas. Transition
benefits reflect prior plan accruals for these employees through
December 31, 2001, December 31, 2004 and
March 31, 2006. We do not anticipate making any
contributions to this pension plan in 2005.
In addition to our primary pension plan, we maintain a
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (SERP) that provides
additional benefits to selected officers and key management. The
SERP provides benefits in excess of certain IRS limits that
essentially mirror those in the primary pension plan. We also
maintain two other pension plans that are closed to new
participants which provide benefits to former employees of our
previously discontinued coal and convenience store operations.
The SERP and the frozen plans together are referred to below as
other pension plans. We also participate in one multi-employer
pension plan for the benefit of our former employees who were
union members. Our contributions to this plan during 2004, 2003
and 2002 were not material. We expect to contribute
$5 million to the SERP in 2005. We do not anticipate making
any contributions to our other pension plans in 2005.
During 2004, we recognized a $4 million curtailment benefit
in our pension plans primarily related to a reduction in the
number of employees that participate in our pension plan, which
resulted from our various asset sales and employee severance
efforts. During 2003, we recognized $11 million in charges
in our pension plans that resulted from employee terminations
and our internal reorganization.
Retirement Savings Plan
We maintain a defined contribution plan covering all of our
U.S. employees. Prior to May 1, 2002, we matched
75 percent of participant basic contributions up to 6
percent, with the matching contributions being made to the
plans stock fund, which participants could diversify at
any time. After May 1, 2002, the plan was amended to
allow for company matching contributions to be invested in the
same manner as that of participant contributions. Effective
March 1, 2003, we suspended the matching contributions, but
reinstituted it again at a rate of 50 percent of
participant basic contributions up to 6 percent on
July 1, 2003. Effective July 1, 2004, we
increased the matching contributions to 75 percent of
participant basic contributions up to 6 percent. Amounts
expensed under this plan were approximately $16 million,
$14 million and $28 million for the years ended
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002.
Other Postretirement Benefits
We provide postretirement medical benefits for closed groups of
retired employees and limited postretirement life insurance
benefits for current and retired employees. Other postretirement
employee benefits (OPEB) for our regulated pipeline companies
are prefunded to the extent such costs are recoverable through
rates. To the extent actual OPEB costs for our regulated
pipeline companies differ from the amounts recovered in rates, a
regulatory asset or liability is recorded. We expect to
contribute $63 million to our postretirement plans in 2005.
Medical benefits for these closed groups of retirees may be
subject to deductibles, co-payment provisions, and other
limitations and dollar caps on the amount of employer costs, and
we reserve the right to change these benefits.
F-99
Below is our projected benefit obligation, accumulated benefit
obligation, fair value of plan assets as of September 30,
our plan measurement date, and related balance sheet accounts
for our pension plans as of December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Primary | |
|
Other | |
|
|
Pension Plan | |
|
Pension Plans | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Projected benefit obligation
|
|
$ |
1,948 |
|
|
$ |
1,928 |
|
|
$ |
170 |
|
|
$ |
163 |
|
Accumulated benefit obligation
|
|
|
1,934 |
|
|
|
1,902 |
|
|
|
169 |
|
|
|
163 |
|
Fair value of plan assets
|
|
|
2,196 |
|
|
|
2,104 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
Accrued benefit liability
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
Prepaid benefit cost
|
|
|
960 |
|
|
|
960 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
Below is information for our pension plans that have accumulated
benefit obligations in excess of plan assets for the year ended
December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Projected benefit obligation
|
|
$ |
170 |
|
|
$ |
134 |
|
Accumulated benefit obligation
|
|
|
169 |
|
|
|
134 |
|
Fair value of plan assets
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
We are required to recognize an additional minimum liability for
pension plans with an accumulated benefit obligation in excess
of plan assets. We recorded other comprehensive income (loss) of
$(33) million in 2004 and $18 million in 2003 related
to the change in this additional minimum liability.
Below is the change in projected benefit obligation, change in
plan assets and reconciliation of funded status for our pension
and other postretirement benefit plans. Our benefits are
presented and computed as of and for the twelve months ended
September 30.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other | |
|
|
|
|
Postretirement | |
|
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Change in benefit obligation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected benefit obligation at beginning of period
|
|
$ |
2,091 |
|
|
$ |
2,088 |
|
|
$ |
575 |
|
|
$ |
558 |
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
Participant contributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
Settlements, curtailments and special termination benefits
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
Actuarial loss (gain)
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
50 |
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(198 |
) |
|
|
(189 |
) |
|
|
(76 |
) |
|
|
(87 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected benefit obligation at end of period
|
|
$ |
2,118 |
|
|
$ |
2,091 |
|
|
$ |
541 |
|
|
$ |
575 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in plan assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at beginning of period
|
|
$ |
2,197 |
|
|
$ |
2,072 |
|
|
$ |
196 |
|
|
$ |
164 |
|
|
Actual return on plan assets
|
|
|
277 |
|
|
|
285 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
Employer contributions
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
Participant contributions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(198 |
) |
|
|
(189 |
) |
|
|
(76 |
) |
|
|
(87 |
) |
|
Administrative expenses
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at end of period
|
|
$ |
2,289 |
|
|
$ |
2,197 |
|
|
$ |
220 |
|
|
$ |
196 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-100
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other | |
|
|
|
|
Postretirement | |
|
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Reconciliation of funded status:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of plan assets at September 30
|
|
$ |
2,289 |
|
|
$ |
2,197 |
|
|
$ |
220 |
|
|
$ |
196 |
|
|
Less: Projected benefit obligation at end of period
|
|
|
2,118 |
|
|
|
2,091 |
|
|
|
541 |
|
|
|
575 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status at September 30
|
|
|
171 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
(321 |
) |
|
|
(379 |
) |
|
Fourth quarter contributions and income
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
Unrecognized net actuarial
loss(1)
|
|
|
800 |
|
|
|
868 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
Unrecognized net transition obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
Unrecognized prior service cost
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepaid (accrued) benefit cost at December 31
|
|
$ |
956 |
|
|
$ |
949 |
|
|
$ |
(274 |
) |
|
$ |
(297 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
The decrease in unrecognized net actuarial loss in our pension
benefits was primarily due to historical changes and assumptions
on discount rates, expected return on plan assets and rate of
compensation increase. We recognize the difference between the
actual return and our expected return over a three year
period as permitted by SFAS No. 87. The decrease in
unrecognized net actuarial loss in our other postretirement
benefits was primarily due to the adoption of FSP No. 106-2. |
The portion of our other postretirement benefit obligation
included in current liabilities was $38 million and
$45 million as of December 31, 2004 and 2003.
Future benefits expected to be paid from our pension plans and
our other postretirement plans as of December 31, 2004, are
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ending |
|
|
|
Other Postretirement | |
December 31, |
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
Benefits(1) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
2005
|
|
$ |
160 |
|
|
$ |
57 |
|
2006
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
2007
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
2008
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
2009
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
2010-2014
|
|
|
788 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
1,590 |
|
|
$ |
461 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes a reduction of $3 million in each year excluding
2005 for an expected subsidy related to the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. |
For each of the years ended December 31, the components of
net benefit cost (income) are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other Postretirement | |
|
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Service cost
|
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
121 |
|
|
|
134 |
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
Expected return on plan assets
|
|
|
(187 |
) |
|
|
(227 |
) |
|
|
(260 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
Amortization of net actuarial (gain) loss
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
Amortization of transition obligation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Amortization of prior service
cost(1)
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
Settlements, curtailment, and special termination benefits
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net benefit cost (income)
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
(43 |
) |
|
$ |
(101 |
) |
|
$ |
35 |
|
|
$ |
29 |
|
|
$ |
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-101
|
|
(1) |
As permitted, the amortization of any prior service cost is
determined using a straight-line amortization of the cost over
the average remaining service period of employees expected to
receive benefits under the plan. |
Projected benefit obligations and net benefit cost are based on
actuarial estimates and assumptions. The following table details
the weighted-average actuarial assumptions used in determining
the projected benefit obligation and net benefit costs of our
pension and other postretirement plans for 2004, 2003 and 2002:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other | |
|
|
Pension Benefits | |
|
Postretirement Benefits | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Percent) | |
|
(Percent) | |
Assumptions related to benefit obligations at September 30:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
5.75 |
|
|
|
6.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.75 |
|
|
|
6.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
4.00 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumptions related to benefit costs for the year ended
December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
6.00 |
|
|
|
6.75 |
|
|
|
7.25 |
|
|
|
6.00 |
|
|
|
6.75 |
|
|
|
7.25 |
|
|
Expected return on plan
assets(1)
|
|
|
8.50 |
|
|
|
8.80 |
|
|
|
8.80 |
|
|
|
7.50 |
|
|
|
7.50 |
|
|
|
7.50 |
|
|
Rate of compensation increase
|
|
|
4.00 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
The expected return on plan assets is a pre-tax rate (before a
tax rate ranging from 26 percent to 27 percent on other
postretirement benefits) that is primarily based on an expected
risk-free investment return, adjusted for historical risk
premiums and specific risk adjustments associated with our debt
and equity securities. These expected returns were then weighted
based on our target asset allocations of our investment
portfolio. For 2005, the assumed expected return on assets for
pension benefits will be reduced to 8 percent. |
Actuarial estimates for our other postretirement benefit plans
assumed a weighted-average annual rate of increase in the per
capita costs of covered health care benefits of
10.0 percent in 2004, gradually decreasing to
5.5 percent by the year 2009. Assumed health care cost
trends have a significant effect on the amounts reported for
other postretirement benefit plans. A one-percentage point
change in assumed health care cost trends would have the
following effects as of September 30:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
One percentage point increase:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate of service cost and interest cost
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
Accumulated postretirement benefit obligation
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
One percentage point decrease:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate of service cost and interest cost
|
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
$ |
(1 |
) |
|
Accumulated postretirement benefit obligation
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(19 |
) |
Plan Assets
The following table provides the target and actual asset
allocations in our pension and other postretirement benefit
plans as of September 30:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pension Plans | |
|
Other Postretirement Plans | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Asset Category |
|
Target | |
|
Actual 2004 | |
|
Actual 2003 | |
|
Target | |
|
Actual 2004 | |
|
Actual 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Percent) | |
|
(Percent) | |
Equity
securities(1)
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
Debt securities
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Actuals for our pension plans include $42 million
(1.8 percent of total assets) and $33 million
(1.5 percent of total assets) of our common stock at
September 30, 2004 and September 30, 2003. |
F-102
The primary investment objective of our plans is to ensure, that
over the long-term life of the plans, an adequate pool of
sufficiently liquid assets to support the benefit obligations to
participants, retirees and beneficiaries exists. In meeting this
objective, the plans seek to achieve a high level of investment
return consistent with a prudent level of portfolio risk.
Investment objectives are long-term in nature covering typical
market cycles of three to five years. Any shortfall of
investment performance compared to investment objectives is the
result of general economic and capital market conditions.
In 2003, we modified our target asset allocations for our other
postretirement benefit plans to increase our equity allocation
to 65 percent of total plan assets and as a result, the actual
assets as of September 30, 2004 were close to our targets.
During 2004, we modified our target and actual asset allocations
for our pension plans to reduce our equity allocation to
60 percent of total plan assets. Correspondingly, our 2005
assumption related to the expected return on plan assets were
reduced from 8.5 percent to 8.0 percent to reflect
this change.
19. Capital Stock
Common Stock
In 2003 and 2004, we issued 26.4 million shares to satisfy
our obligations under the Western Energy Settlement (See
Note 17, on page F-89). In 2003, we also issued
15 million shares as part of an offer to exchange our
equity security units for common stock (see Note 15, on
page F-81).
Dividend
For the year ended December 31, 2004, we paid dividends of
$101 million to common stockholders. On February 18, 2005,
we declared quarterly dividends of $0.04 per share on our common
stock, payable on April 4, 2005 to the shareholders of
record on March 4, 2005. The dividends on our common stock were
treated as a reduction of paid-in-capital since we currently
have an accumulated deficit.
El Paso Tennessee Pipeline Co., our subsidiary, pays dividends
of approximately $6 million each quarter on its
Series A cumulative preferred stock, which is
8.25 percent per annum (2.0625 percent per
quarter).
20. Stock-Based Compensation
We grant stock awards under various stock option plans. We
account for our stock option plans using Accounting Principles
Board Opinion No. 25 and its related interpretations. Under
our employee plans, we may issue incentive stock options on our
common stock (intended to qualify under Section 422 of the
Internal Revenue Code), non-qualified stock options, restricted
stock, stock appreciation rights, phantom stock options, and
performance units. Under our non-employee director plan, we may
issue deferred shares of common stock. We have reserved
approximately 68 million shares of common stock for
existing and future stock awards, including deferred shares. As
of December 31, 2004, approximately 28 million shares
remained unissued.
F-103
Non-qualified Stock
Options
We granted non-qualified stock options to our employees in 2004,
2003 and 2002. Our stock options have contractual terms of
10 years and generally vest after completion of one to five
years of continuous employment from the grant date. Prior to
2004, we also granted options to non-employee members of the
Board of Directors at fair market value on the grant date that
were exercisable immediately. A summary of our stock option
transactions, stock options outstanding and stock options
exercisable as of December 31 is presented below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Options | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Weighted | |
|
|
|
Weighted | |
|
|
|
Weighted | |
|
|
# Shares of | |
|
Average | |
|
# Shares of | |
|
Average | |
|
# Shares of | |
|
Average | |
|
|
Underlying | |
|
Exercise | |
|
Underlying | |
|
Exercise | |
|
Underlying | |
|
Exercise | |
|
|
Options | |
|
Price | |
|
Options | |
|
Price | |
|
Options | |
|
Price | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Outstanding at beginning of year
|
|
|
36,245,014 |
|
|
$ |
47.90 |
|
|
|
43,208,374 |
|
|
$ |
49.16 |
|
|
|
44,822,146 |
|
|
$ |
50.02 |
|
|
Granted
|
|
|
4,842,453 |
|
|
$ |
7.16 |
|
|
|
1,180,041 |
|
|
$ |
7.29 |
|
|
|
3,435,138 |
|
|
$ |
35.41 |
|
|
Exercised
|
|
|
(3,193 |
) |
|
$ |
7.64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(310,611 |
) |
|
$ |
22.44 |
|
|
Converted(1)
|
|
|
(11,333 |
) |
|
$ |
42.99 |
|
|
|
(871,250 |
) |
|
$ |
42.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited or canceled
|
|
|
(7,149,363 |
) |
|
$ |
44.75 |
|
|
|
(7,272,151 |
) |
|
$ |
49.53 |
|
|
|
(4,738,299 |
) |
|
$ |
51.83 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at end of year
|
|
|
33,923,578 |
|
|
$ |
42.73 |
|
|
|
36,245,014 |
|
|
$ |
47.90 |
|
|
|
43,208,374 |
|
|
$ |
49.18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercisable at end of year
|
|
|
28,455,056 |
|
|
$ |
49.45 |
|
|
|
28,703,151 |
|
|
$ |
46.04 |
|
|
|
25,493,152 |
|
|
$ |
43.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average fair value of options granted during the year
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2.69 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3.21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
14.23 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes the conversion of stock options into common stock and
cash at no cost to employees based upon achievement of certain
performance targets and lapse of time. These options had an
original stated exercise price of approximately $43 per
share and $42 per share in 2004 and 2003. |
The following table summarizes the range of exercise prices and
the weighted-average remaining contractual life of options
outstanding and the range of exercise prices for the options
exercisable at December 31, 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Options Outstanding | |
|
Options Exercisable | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average | |
|
Weighted | |
|
|
|
Weighted | |
Range of |
|
Number | |
|
Remaining Years of | |
|
Average | |
|
Number | |
|
Average | |
Exercise Prices |
|
Outstanding | |
|
Contractual Life | |
|
Exercise Price | |
|
Exercisable | |
|
Exercise Price | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
$ 0.00 - $21.39
|
|
|
7,537,238 |
|
|
|
7.1 |
|
|
$ |
9.25 |
|
|
|
2,154,339 |
|
|
$ |
14.35 |
|
$21.40 - $42.89
|
|
|
8,761,610 |
|
|
|
2.9 |
|
|
$ |
37.53 |
|
|
|
8,707,300 |
|
|
$ |
37.52 |
|
$42.90 - $64.29
|
|
|
12,302,057 |
|
|
|
3.6 |
|
|
$ |
54.88 |
|
|
|
12,272,411 |
|
|
$ |
54.91 |
|
$64.30 - $70.63
|
|
|
5,322,673 |
|
|
|
4.7 |
|
|
$ |
70.59 |
|
|
|
5,321,006 |
|
|
$ |
70.59 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33,923,578 |
|
|
|
4.4 |
|
|
$ |
42.73 |
|
|
|
28,455,056 |
|
|
$ |
49.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fair value of each stock option granted used to complete pro
forma net income disclosures (see Note 1, on
page F-46) is estimated on the date of grant using the
Black-Scholes option-pricing model with the following
weighted-average assumptions:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumption: |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Expected Term in Years
|
|
|
5.35 |
|
|
|
6.19 |
|
|
|
6.95 |
|
Expected Volatility
|
|
|
45% |
|
|
|
52% |
|
|
|
43% |
|
Expected Dividends
|
|
|
2.1% |
|
|
|
2.2% |
|
|
|
1.8% |
|
Risk-Free Interest Rate
|
|
|
3.7% |
|
|
|
3.4% |
|
|
|
3.2% |
|
F-104
Restricted Stock
Under our stock-based compensation plans, a limited number of
shares of restricted common stock may be granted to our officers
and employees. These shares carry voting and dividend rights;
however, sale or transfer of the shares is restricted. These
restricted stock awards vest over a specific period of time
and/or if we achieve established performance targets. Restricted
stock awards representing 3.1 million, 0.4 million,
and 1.4 million shares were granted during 2004, 2003 and
2002 with a weighted-average grant date fair value of $8.63,
$7.46 and $38.45 per share. At December 31, 2004,
3.9 million shares of restricted stock were outstanding.
The value of restricted shares subject to performance vesting is
determined based on the fair market value on the date
performance targets are achieved, and this value is charged to
compensation expense ratably over the required service or
restriction period. The value of time vested restricted shares
is determined at their issuance date and this cost is amortized
to compensation expense over the vesting period. For 2004, 2003
and 2002, these charges totaled $23 million,
$60 million and $73 million. We have $20 million on
our balance sheet as of December 31, 2004 related to
unamortized compensation that will be charged to expense over
the vesting period of the restricted stock.
Performance Units
In the past, we awarded eligible officers performance units that
were payable in cash or stock at the end of the vesting period.
The final value of the performance units varied according to the
plan under which they were granted, but was usually based on our
common stock price at the end of the vesting period or total
shareholder return during the vesting period relative to our
peer group. The value of the performance units was charged
ratably to compensation expense over the vesting period with
periodic adjustments to account for the fluctuation in the
market price of our stock or changes in expected total
shareholder return. We recorded a credit to compensation expense
in 2002 of $11 million upon the reduction of our
performance unit liability by $21 million due to a
reduction in our expected total shareholder return. In
July 2003, all outstanding performance units vested at the
Below Threshold level and the Compensation Committee
of our Board of Directors determined that there would be no
payout for the performance units. Accordingly, we reversed the
remaining liability for these units and recorded income of
$16 million.
Employee Stock Purchase Program
In October 1999, we implemented an employee stock purchase
plan under Section 423 of the Internal Revenue Code. The
plan allowed participating employees the right to purchase our
common stock on a quarterly basis at 85 percent of the
lower of the market price at the beginning or at the end of each
calendar quarter. Five million shares of common stock are
authorized for issuance under this plan. For the year ended
December 31, 2002, we sold 1.4 million shares of our
common stock to our employees. Effective January 1, 2003,
we suspended our employee stock purchase program.
|
|
21. |
Business Segment Information |
Our 2002 Pipelines segment results and the amounts reported as a
cumulative effect of accounting change in 2002 have been
restated for errors resulting from the misinterpretation of FAS
141 and 142 upon the adoption of these standards. We have
restated our 2003 segment disclosure information to adjust
income taxes allocated to CTA on certain of our foreign
investments with CTA balances. In 2004, our Power and Marketing
and Trading segments and corporate operations have been restated
to adjust the amount of losses on long-lived assets, earnings
from unconsolidated affiliates and other income for certain
foreign entities with CTA balances and related tax effects. See
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,
Note 1 for a further discussion of the restatements and the
manner in which our business segments and other operations were
affected.
During 2004, we reorganized our business structure into two
primary business lines, regulated and non-regulated, and
modified our operating segments. Historically, our operating
segments included Pipelines, Production, Merchant Energy and
Field Services. As a result of this reorganization, we
eliminated our Merchant Energy segment and established
individual Power and Marketing and Trading segments. All periods
presented reflect this change in segments. Our regulated
business consists of our Pipelines segment, while our
F-105
non-regulated businesses consist of our Production, Marketing
and Trading, Power, and Field Services segments. Our segments
are strategic business units that provide a variety of energy
products and services. They are managed separately as each
segment requires different technology and marketing strategies.
Our corporate operations include our general and administrative
functions as well as a telecommunications business, and various
other contracts and assets, all of which are immaterial. These
other assets and contracts include financial services, LNG and
related items.
During the first quarter of 2004, we reclassified our petroleum
ship charter operations from discontinued operations to
continuing corporate operations. During the second quarter of
2004, we reclassified our Canadian and certain other
international natural gas and oil production operations from our
Production segment to discontinued operations. Our operating
results for all periods presented reflect these changes.
Our Pipelines segment provides natural gas transmission,
storage, and related services, primarily in the U.S. We conduct
our activities primarily through eight wholly owned and four
partially owned interstate transmission systems along with five
underground natural gas storage entities and an LNG terminalling
facility.
Our Production segment is engaged in the exploration for and the
acquisition, development and production of natural gas, oil and
natural gas liquids, primarily in the United States and Brazil.
In the U.S., Production has onshore operations and properties in
20 states and offshore operations and properties in federal
and state waters in the Gulf of Mexico.
Our Marketing and Trading segments operations focus on the
marketing of our natural gas and oil production and the
management of our remaining trading portfolio.
Our Power segment owns and has interests in domestic and
international power assets. As of December 31, 2004, our
power segment primarily consisted of an international power
business. Historically, this segment also had domestic power
plant operations and a domestic power contract restructuring
business. We have sold or announced the sale of substantially
all of these domestic businesses. Our ongoing focus within the
power segment will be to maximize the value of our assets in
Brazil.
Our Field Services segment conducts midstream activities related
to our remaining gathering and processing assets.
We had no customers whose revenues exceeded 10 percent of
our total revenues in 2004, 2003 and 2002.
We use earnings before interest expense and income taxes
(EBIT) to assess the operating results and effectiveness of
our business segments. We define EBIT as net income (loss)
adjusted for (i) items that do not impact our income (loss)
from continuing operations, such as extraordinary items,
discontinued operations and the impact of accounting changes,
(ii) income taxes, (iii) interest and debt expense and
(iv) distributions on preferred interests of consolidated
subsidiaries. Our business operations consist of both
consolidated businesses as well as substantial investments in
unconsolidated affiliates. We believe EBIT is useful to our
investors because it allows them to more effectively evaluate
the performance of all of our businesses and investments. Also,
we exclude interest and debt expense and distributions on
preferred interests of consolidated subsidiaries so that
investors may evaluate our operating results without regard to
our financing methods or capital structure. EBIT may not be
comparable to measures used by other companies. Additionally,
EBIT should be considered in conjunction with net income and
other performance measures
F-106
such as operating income or operating cash flow. Below is a
reconciliation of our EBIT to our income (loss) from continuing
operations for the three years ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
(Restated) | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Total EBIT
|
|
$ |
830 |
|
|
$ |
769 |
|
|
$ |
(427 |
) |
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
(1,607 |
) |
|
|
(1,791 |
) |
|
|
(1,297 |
) |
Distributions on preferred interests of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
|
(159 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
(31 |
) |
|
|
479 |
|
|
|
641 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(833 |
) |
|
$ |
(595 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,242 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following tables reflect our segment results as of and for
each of the three years ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of or for the Year Ended December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Regulated | |
|
Non-regulated | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marketing | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Trading | |
|
Power | |
|
Field | |
|
Corporate(1) | |
|
Total | |
|
|
Pipelines | |
|
Production | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
Services | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Revenue from external customers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic
|
|
$ |
2,554 |
|
|
$ |
535 |
(2) |
|
$ |
697 |
|
|
$ |
241 |
|
|
$ |
1,203 |
|
|
$ |
132 |
|
|
$ |
5,362 |
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
26 |
(2) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
460 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
512 |
|
Intersegment revenue
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
1,174 |
(2) |
|
|
(1,207 |
) |
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
(308 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Operation and maintenance
|
|
|
777 |
|
|
|
365 |
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
374 |
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
201 |
|
|
|
1,872 |
|
Depreciation, depletion, and amortization
|
|
|
410 |
|
|
|
548 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
1,088 |
|
(Gain) loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
599 |
|
|
|
508 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
1,108 |
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
$ |
1,129 |
|
|
$ |
726 |
|
|
$ |
(562 |
) |
|
$ |
(424 |
) |
|
$ |
(465 |
) |
|
$ |
(214 |
) |
|
$ |
190 |
|
Earnings from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
173 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(249 |
) |
|
|
618 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
546 |
|
Other income
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
83 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
193 |
|
Other expense
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
(99 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
1,331 |
|
|
$ |
734 |
|
|
$ |
(539 |
) |
|
$ |
(599 |
) |
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
$ |
(217 |
) |
|
$ |
830 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(36 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(78 |
) |
|
$ |
(114 |
) |
Assets of continuing operations
(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
15,930 |
|
|
|
3,714 |
|
|
|
2,372 |
|
|
|
982 |
|
|
|
686 |
|
|
|
4,424 |
|
|
|
28,108 |
|
|
Foreign(4)
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
366 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
2,617 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
|
3,169 |
|
Capital expenditures and investments in and advances to
unconsolidated affiliates, net
(5)
|
|
|
1,047 |
|
|
|
728 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
1,809 |
|
Total investments in unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
1,032 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,262 |
|
|
|
308 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
2,614 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes eliminations of intercompany transactions. Our
intersegment revenues, along with our intersegment operating
expenses, were incurred in the normal course of business between
our operating segments. We recorded an intersegment revenue
elimination of $308 million and an operation and
maintenance expense elimination of $25 million, which is
included in the Corporate column, to remove
intersegment transactions. |
(2) |
Revenues from external customers include gains and losses
related to our hedging of price risk associated with our natural
gas and oil production. Intersegment revenues represent sales to
our Marketing and Trading segment, which is responsible for
marketing our production. |
(3) |
Excludes assets of discontinued operations of $106 million
(see Note 3, on page F-62). |
(4) |
Of total foreign assets, approximately $1.3 billion relates
to property, plant and equipment and approximately
$1.5 billion relates to investments in and advances to
unconsolidated affiliates. |
(5) |
Amounts are net of third party reimbursements of our capital
expenditures and returns of invested capital. |
F-107
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of or for the Year Ended December 31, 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Regulated | |
|
Non-regulated | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production | |
|
Marketing | |
|
|
|
Field | |
|
|
|
Total | |
|
|
Pipelines | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
and Trading | |
|
Power | |
|
Services | |
|
Corporate(1) | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Revenue from external customers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic
|
|
$ |
2,527 |
|
|
$ |
201 |
(2) |
|
$ |
1,430 |
|
|
$ |
515 |
|
|
$ |
1,153 |
|
|
$ |
113 |
|
|
$ |
5,939 |
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
516 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
533 |
|
Intersegment revenue
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
1,940 |
(2) |
|
|
(2,065 |
) |
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
374 |
|
|
|
(316 |
) |
|
|
196 |
(3) |
Operation and maintenance
|
|
|
720 |
|
|
|
342 |
|
|
|
183 |
|
|
|
562 |
|
|
|
110 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
2,010 |
|
Depreciation, depletion, and amortization
|
|
|
386 |
|
|
|
576 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
|
1,176 |
|
Western Energy Settlement
|
|
|
127 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
(Gain) loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
173 |
|
|
|
510 |
|
|
|
860 |
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
$ |
1,063 |
|
|
$ |
1,073 |
|
|
$ |
(819 |
) |
|
$ |
(13 |
) |
|
$ |
(193 |
) |
|
$ |
(706 |
) |
|
$ |
405 |
|
Earnings (losses) from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
119 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(91 |
) |
|
|
329 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
363 |
|
Other income
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
203 |
|
Other expense
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(178 |
) |
|
|
(202 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
1,234 |
|
|
$ |
1,091 |
|
|
$ |
(809 |
) |
|
$ |
(28 |
) |
|
$ |
133 |
|
|
$ |
(852 |
) |
|
$ |
769 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
24 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(1,303 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,279 |
) |
Cumulative effect of accounting changes, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
Assets of continuing
operations(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
15,659 |
|
|
|
3,459 |
|
|
|
2,661 |
|
|
|
3,897 |
|
|
|
1,990 |
|
|
|
3,890 |
|
|
|
31,556 |
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
308 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
3,102 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
3,583 |
|
Capital expenditures and investments in and advances to
unconsolidated affiliates,
net(5)
|
|
|
837 |
|
|
|
1,300 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
1,083 |
|
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
89 |
|
|
|
3,293 |
|
Total investments in unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
1,018 |
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,652 |
|
|
|
655 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
3,409 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes eliminations of intercompany transactions. Our
intersegment revenues, along with our intersegment operating
expenses, were incurred in the normal course of business between
our operating segments. We recorded an intersegment revenue
elimination of $316 million and an operation and
maintenance expense elimination of $59 million, which is
included in the Corporate column, to remove
intersegment transactions. |
(2) |
Revenues from external customers include gains and losses
related to our hedging of price risk associated with our natural
gas and oil production. Intersegment revenues represent sales to
our Marketing and Trading segment, which is responsible for
marketing our production. |
(3) |
Relates to intercompany activities between our continuing
operations and our discontinued operations. |
(4) |
Excludes assets of discontinued operations of $1.8 billion
(see Note 3, on page F-62). |
(5) |
Amounts are net of third party reimbursements of our capital
expenditures and returns of invested capital. Our Power Segment
Includes $1 billion to acquire remaining interest in
Chaparral and Gemstone (see Note 2, on page F-58). |
F-108
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of or for the Year Ended December 31, 2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Regulated | |
|
Non-regulated | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Pipelines | |
|
|
|
Marketing | |
|
|
|
Field | |
|
|
|
Total | |
|
|
(Restated) | |
|
Production | |
|
and Trading | |
|
Power | |
|
Services | |
|
Corporate(1) | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Revenue from external customers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic
|
|
$ |
2,389 |
|
|
$ |
308 |
(2) |
|
$ |
926 |
|
|
$ |
1,268 |
|
|
$ |
1,145 |
|
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
$ |
6,133 |
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
361 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
405 |
|
Intersegment revenue
|
|
|
218 |
|
|
|
1,623 |
(2) |
|
|
(2,209 |
) |
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
881 |
|
|
|
(213 |
) |
|
|
343 |
|
Operation and maintenance
|
|
|
752 |
|
|
|
368 |
|
|
|
173 |
|
|
|
520 |
|
|
|
179 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
2,091 |
|
Depreciation, depletion, and amortization
|
|
|
374 |
|
|
|
601 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
1,159 |
|
Western Energy Settlement
|
|
|
412 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
487 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
899 |
|
(Gain) loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
160 |
|
|
|
(179 |
) |
|
|
214 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
$ |
788 |
|
|
$ |
803 |
|
|
$ |
(1,993 |
) |
|
$ |
352 |
|
|
$ |
273 |
|
|
$ |
(394 |
) |
|
$ |
(171 |
) |
Earnings (losses) from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(256 |
) |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
(214 |
) |
Other income
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
197 |
|
Other expense
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(124 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(100 |
) |
|
|
(239 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
828 |
|
|
$ |
808 |
|
|
$ |
(1,977 |
) |
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
$ |
289 |
|
|
$ |
(387 |
) |
|
$ |
(427 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(68 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(357 |
) |
|
$ |
(425 |
) |
Cumulative effect of accounting changes, net of income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(222 |
) |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(208 |
) |
Assets of continuing operations
(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Domestic
|
|
|
14,727 |
|
|
|
3,495 |
|
|
|
5,568 |
|
|
|
2,759 |
|
|
|
2,714 |
|
|
|
4,265 |
|
|
|
33, 528 |
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
844 |
|
|
|
2,485 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
277 |
|
|
|
3,887 |
|
Capital expenditures and investments in and advances to
unconsolidated affiliates, net
(5)
|
|
|
1,075 |
|
|
|
2,114 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
|
187 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
3,562 |
|
Total investments in unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
992 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,725 |
|
|
|
922 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
4,749 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes eliminations of intercompany transactions. Our
intersegment revenues, along with our intersegment operating
expenses, were incurred in the normal course of business between
our operating segments. We recorded an intersegment revenue
elimination of $213 million and an operation and
maintenance expense elimination of $41 million, which is
included in the Corporate column, to remove
intersegment transactions. |
(2) |
Revenues from external customers include gains and losses
related to our hedging of price risk associated with our natural
gas and oil production. Intersegment revenues represent sales to
our Marketing and Trading segment, which is responsible for
marketing our production. |
(3) |
Relates to intercompany activities between our continuing
operations and our discontinued operations. |
(4) |
Excludes assets of discontinued operations of $4.5 billion
(see Note 3, on page F-62). |
(5) |
Amounts are net of third party reimbursements of our capital
expenditures and returns of invested capital. |
F-109
22. Investments in, Earnings from and Transactions with
Unconsolidated Affiliates
We hold investments in various unconsolidated affiliates which
are accounted for using the equity method of accounting. Our
principal equity method investees are international pipelines,
interstate pipelines, power generation plants, and gathering
systems. Our investment balance was less than our equity in the
net assets of these investments by $265 million and
$136 million as of December 31, 2004 and 2003. These
differences primarily relate to unamortized purchase price
adjustments, net of asset impairment charges. Our net ownership
interest, investments in and earnings (losses) from our
unconsolidated affiliates are as follows as of and for the year
ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings from | |
|
|
Net Ownership | |
|
Investment | |
|
Unconsolidated Affiliates | |
|
|
Interest | |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
|
|
2002 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
2003 | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Percent) | |
|
(In millions) | |
|
(In millions) | |
Domestic:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citrus
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
$ |
589 |
|
|
$ |
593 |
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
$ |
43 |
|
|
$ |
43 |
|
|
Enterprise Products
Partners(1)
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GulfTerra Energy
Partners(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
599 |
|
|
|
601 |
|
|
|
419 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
Midland Cogeneration
Venture(2)
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
191 |
|
|
|
348 |
|
|
|
(171 |
) |
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
Great Lakes Gas
Transmission(3)
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
316 |
|
|
|
325 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
57 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
Javelina
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
40 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Milford(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(88 |
) |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
Bastrop
Company(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
Mobile Bay
Processing(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(48 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
Blue Lake Gas
Storage(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
Chaparral Investors
(Electron)(7)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(207 |
) |
|
|
(62 |
) |
|
Linden Venture L.P. (East Coast Power)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dauphin
Island(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(40 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
Alliance Pipeline Limited
Partnership(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
CE
Generation(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
Aux Sable NGL
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
Other Domestic Investments
|
|
|
various |
|
|
|
various |
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
137 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total domestic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,534 |
|
|
|
2,156 |
|
|
|
605 |
|
|
|
215 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Korea Independent Energy Corporation
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
Araucaria
Power(8)
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
186 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EGE Itabo
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
Bolivia to Brazil Pipeline
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
EGE Fortuna
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
65 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
Meizhou Wan Generating
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
52 |
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
Enfield
Power(9)
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
Aguaytia Energy
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
San Fernando Pipeline
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Habibullah
Power(10)
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
(46 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
10 |
|
|
Gasoducto del Pacifico Pipeline
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
Samalayuca(11)
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
Saba Power Company
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
Australian
Pipelines(5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(142 |
) |
|
UnoPaso(6)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
Diamond Power
(Gemstone)(7)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
109 |
|
|
CAPSA(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
(262 |
) |
|
PPN(12)
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(50 |
) |
|
Agua del
Cajon(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
Other Foreign
Investments(10)
|
|
|
various |
|
|
|
various |
|
|
|
196 |
|
|
|
226 |
|
|
|
(27 |
) |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total foreign
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,080 |
|
|
|
1,253 |
|
|
|
(59 |
) |
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
(285 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments in unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,614 |
|
|
$ |
3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total earnings (losses) from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
546 |
|
|
$ |
363 |
|
|
$ |
(214 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-110
|
|
(1) |
As of December 31, 2003, we owned an effective
50 percent interest in the one percent general partner of
GulfTerra, approximately 17.8 percent of the partnerships
common units and all of the outstanding Series C units.
During 2004 we sold our remaining interest in GulfTerra to
Enterprise for cash and equity interests in Enterprise and
recognized a $507 million gain. As of December 31,
2004, our ownership consisted of a 9.9 percent interest in
the two percent general partner of Enterprise and approximately
3.7 percent of Enterprises common units. In January 2005,
we sold all of these remaining interests to Enterprise. For a
further discussion of our interests in GulfTerra and Enterprise,
see page F-114. |
(2) |
Our ownership interest consists of a 38.1 percent general
partner interest and 5.4 percent limited partner interest. |
(3) |
Includes a 47 percent general partner interest in Great
Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Partnership and a 3 percent
limited partner interest through our ownership in Great Lakes
Gas Transmission Company. |
(4) |
In 2003 we completed the sale or transfer of our interest in
this investment. |
(5) |
In 2004 we completed the sale of our interest in this investment. |
(6) |
Consolidated in 2004. |
(7) |
This investment was consolidated in 2003. |
(8) |
Our investment in Araucaria Power was included in Diamond Power
(Gemstone) prior to 2003. |
(9) |
We have signed an agreement to sell our interest in the project
and expect to close the transaction in the first half of 2005. |
|
|
(10) |
As of December 31, 2004 and 2003, we also had outstanding
advances of $64 million and $90 million related to our
investment in Habibullah Power. We also had other outstanding
advances of $318 million and $327 million related to
our other foreign investments as of December 31, 2004 and
2003, of which $307 million and $290 million are
related to our investment in Porto Velho. |
(11) |
Consists of investments in a power facility and pipeline. In
2002, we sold our investment in the power facility. |
(12) |
Impaired in 2002 due to our inability to recover our investment.
Earnings generated in 2003 and 2004 did not improve the
recoverability of this investment. We sold our interest in March
2005. |
F-111
Our impairment charges and gains and losses on sales of equity
investments that are included in earnings (losses) from
unconsolidated affiliates during 2004, 2003 and 2002 consisted
of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-tax | |
|
|
Investment |
|
Gain (Loss) | |
|
Cause of Impairments or Gain (Loss) |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
|
2004 (Restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on sale of interests in
GulfTerra(1)
|
|
$ |
507 |
|
|
Sale of investment |
Asian power
investments(2)
|
|
|
(182 |
) |
|
Anticipated sales of investments |
Midland Cogeneration Venture
|
|
|
(161 |
) |
|
Decline in investments fair value based on increased fuel
costs |
Power investments held for sale
|
|
|
(49 |
) |
|
Anticipated sales of investments |
Net gain on domestic power investment sales
(3)
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
Sales of power investments |
Other
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
124 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain on sale of interests in
GulfTerra(4)
|
|
$ |
266 |
|
|
Sale of various investment interests in GulfTerra |
Chaparral Investors (Electron)
|
|
|
(207 |
) |
|
Decline in the investments fair value based on
developments in our power business and the power industry |
Milford power
facility(5)
|
|
|
(88 |
) |
|
Transfer of ownership to lenders |
Dauphin Island Gathering/Mobile Bay Processing
|
|
|
(86 |
) |
|
Decline in the investments fair value based on the
devaluation of the underlying assets |
Bastrop Company
|
|
|
(43 |
) |
|
Decision to sell investment |
Linden Venture, L.P.(East Coast Power)
|
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
Sale of investment in East Coast Power |
Other investments
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
(176 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002 (Restated)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAPSA/CAPEX
|
|
$ |
(262 |
) |
|
Weak economic conditions in Argentina |
EPIC Australia
|
|
|
(141 |
) |
|
Regulatory difficulties and the decision to discontinue further
capital investment |
CE Generation
|
|
|
(74 |
) |
|
Sale of investment |
Aux Sable NGL
|
|
|
(47 |
) |
|
Sale of investment |
Agua del Cajon
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
Weak economic conditions in Argentina |
PPN
|
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
Loss of economic fuel supply and payment default |
Meizhou Wan Generating
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
Weak economic conditions in China |
Other investments
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
(612 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
In September 2004, in connection with the closing of the merger
between GulfTerra and Enterprise, we sold to affiliates of
Enterprise substantially all of our interests in GulfTerra. See
further discussion of GulfTerra beginning on page F-114. |
(2) |
Includes impairments of our investments in Korea Independent
Energy Corporation, Meizhou Wan Generating, Habibullah Power,
Saba Power Company and several other foreign power investments. |
(3) |
Includes a loss on the sale of Bastrop Company and gains on the
sale of several other domestic investments. |
F-112
|
|
(4) |
In 2003, we sold 50 percent of the equity of our
consolidated subsidiary that holds our 1 percent general
partner interest. This was recorded as minority interest in our
balance sheet. |
(5) |
In December 2003, we transferred our ownership interest in
Milford to its lenders in order to terminate all of our
obligations associated with Milford. |
Below is summarized financial information of our proportionate
share of unconsolidated affiliates. This information includes
affiliates in which we hold a less than 50 percent interest
as well as those in which we hold a greater than 50 percent
interest. We received distributions and dividends of
$358 million and $398 million in 2004 and 2003, which
includes $23 million and $53 million of returns of
capital, from our investments. Our proportional shares of the
unconsolidated affiliates in which we hold a greater than
50 percent interest had net income of $15 million,
$119 million and $26 million in 2004, 2003 and 2002
and total assets of $734 million and $1.1 billion as
of December 31, 2004 and 2003.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Unaudited) | |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating results data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
2,211 |
|
|
$ |
3,360 |
|
|
$ |
2,486 |
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
1,485 |
|
|
|
2,309 |
|
|
|
1,632 |
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
388 |
|
|
|
519 |
|
|
|
422 |
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
388 |
|
|
|
520 |
|
|
|
445 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
|
Financial position data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
$ |
1,270 |
|
|
$ |
1,024 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-current assets
|
|
|
5,243 |
|
|
|
8,001 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Short-term debt
|
|
|
250 |
|
|
|
1,169 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other current liabilities
|
|
|
488 |
|
|
|
645 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
2,044 |
|
|
|
1,892 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other non-current liabilities
|
|
|
779 |
|
|
|
1,703 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minority interest
|
|
|
73 |
|
|
|
71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in net assets
|
|
|
2,879 |
|
|
|
3,545 |
|
|
|
|
|
Below is summarized financial information of GulfTerra (in
millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nine months ended | |
|
Year Ended | |
|
Year ended | |
|
|
September 30, 2004 | |
|
December 31, 2003 | |
|
December 31, 2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
Operating results data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net sales or gross revenues
|
|
$ |
677 |
|
|
$ |
871 |
|
|
$ |
457 |
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
432 |
|
|
|
557 |
|
|
|
297 |
|
|
Income from continuing operations
|
|
|
155 |
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
155 |
|
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of | |
|
As of | |
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2004 | |
|
December 31, 2003 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(Unaudited) | |
|
|
|
|
Financial position data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current assets
|
|
$ |
230 |
|
|
$ |
209 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent assets
|
|
|
3,167 |
|
|
|
3,113 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current liabilities
|
|
|
200 |
|
|
|
209 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncurrent liabilities
|
|
|
1,921 |
|
|
|
1,860 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity in net assets
|
|
|
1,276 |
|
|
|
1,253 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-113
The following table shows revenues and charges resulting from
transactions with our unconsolidated affiliates:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Operating revenue
|
|
$ |
218 |
|
|
$ |
216 |
|
|
$ |
65 |
|
Other revenue management fees
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
192 |
|
Cost of sales
|
|
|
102 |
|
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
178 |
|
Reimbursement for operating expenses
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
140 |
|
|
|
186 |
|
Other income
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
Interest income
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
As of December 31, 2002, we held equity investments in
Chaparral and Gemstone. During 2003, we acquired the remaining
third party equity interests and all of the voting rights in
both of these entities. As discussed in Note 2, on
page F-58, we consolidated Chaparral effective
January 1, 2003 and Gemstone effective April 1, 2003.
Prior to the sale of our interests in GulfTerra on
September 30, 2004, our Field Services segment managed
GulfTerras daily operations and performed all of
GulfTerras administrative and operational activities under
a general and administrative services agreement or, in some
cases, separate operational agreements. GulfTerra contributed to
our income through our general partner interest and our
ownership of common and preference units. We did not have any
loans to or from GulfTerra.
In December 2003, GulfTerra and a wholly owned subsidiary of
Enterprise executed definitive agreements to merge to form the
second largest publicly traded energy partnership in the
U.S. On July 29, 2004, GulfTerras unitholders
approved the adoption of its merger agreement with Enterprise
which was completed in September 2004. In January 2005, we sold
our remaining 9.9 percent interest in the two percent
general partner of Enterprise and approximately
13.5 million common units in Enterprise for
$425 million. We also sold our membership interest in two
subsidiaries that own and operate natural gas gathering systems
and the Indian Springs processing facility to Enterprise for
$75 million.
In the December 2003 sales transactions, specific evaluation
procedures were instituted to ensure that they were in the best
interests of us and the partnership and were based on fair
values. These procedures required our Board of Directors to
evaluate and approve, as appropriate, each transaction with
GulfTerra. In addition, a special committee comprised of the
GulfTerra general partners independent directors evaluated
the transactions on GulfTerras behalf. Both boards engaged
independent financial advisors to assist with the evaluation and
to opine on its fairness.
F-114
Below is a detail of the gains or losses recognized in earnings
from unconsolidated affiliates on transactions related to
GulfTerra/Enterprise and other significant transactions during
2002, 2003, and 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized | |
Transaction |
|
Proceeds | |
|
Gain/(Loss) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sold San Juan Basin gathering, treating, and processing
assets and Texas & New Mexico midstream assets to
GulfTerra(1)
|
|
$ |
1,501 |
|
|
$ |
210 |
|
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sold 9.9% of our 1% general partner interest in GulfTerra to
Goldman Sachs
|
|
|
88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchased the 9.9% interest from Goldman
Sachs(2)
|
|
|
(116 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
Redeemed series B preference units
|
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
Released from obligation in 2021 to purchase Chaco
facility(3)
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
67 |
|
|
Sold 50% general partnership interest in GulfTerra to
Enterprise(4)
|
|
|
425 |
|
|
|
297 |
|
|
Other GulfTerra common unit sales
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sold our interest in the general partner of GulfTerra,
2.9 million common units and 10.9 million
series C units in GulfTerra to
Enterprise(5)(6)
|
|
|
951 |
|
|
|
507 |
|
|
|
(1) |
We received $955 million of cash, Series C units in
GulfTerra with a value of $356 million, and an interest in
a production field with a value of $190 million. We
recorded an additional $74 million liability and related
loss in 2003 for future pipeline integrity costs related to the
transmission assets, for which we agreed to reimburse GulfTerra
through 2006. |
(2) |
We paid $92 million in cash and transferred GulfTerra
common units with a book value of $19 million to Goldman
Sachs in December 2003. We also paid $5 million of
miscellaneous expenses related to the repurchase. |
(3) |
We satisfied our obligation to GulfTerra through the transfer of
communications assets with a book value of $10 million. |
(4) |
The cash flows were reflected in our 2003 cash flow statement as
an investing activity and $84 million of the proceeds were
reflected as minority interest on our balance sheet. We also
agreed to pay $45 million to Enterprise through 2006. |
(5) |
We received $870 million in cash and a 9.9 percent
interest in the general partner of the combined organization,
Enterprise Products GP, with a fair value of $82 million.
We also exchanged our remaining GulfTerra common units for
13.5 million Enterprise common units. |
(6) |
As a result of the Enterprise transaction, we also recorded a
$480 million impairment of the goodwill in loss on
long-lived assets on our income statement associated with our
Field Services segment. In addition, we sold South Texas assets
to Enterprise for total proceeds of $156 million and a loss
of $11 million included in our loss on long-lived assets. |
Prior to the sale of our interests in GulfTerra to Enterprise in
September 2004, a subsidiary in our Field Services segment
served as the general partner of GulfTerra, a publicly traded
master limited partnership. We had the following interests in
GulfTerra (Enterprise effective September 30, 2004) as of
December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Book Value | |
|
Ownership | |
|
Book Value | |
|
Ownership | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
|
(Percent) | |
|
(In millions) | |
|
(Percent) | |
One Percent General
Partner(1)
|
|
$ |
82 |
|
|
|
9.9 |
|
|
$ |
194 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
|
Common Units
|
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
3.7 |
|
|
|
251 |
|
|
|
17.8 |
|
Series C Units
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
335 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
780 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
We had $181 million of indefinite-lived intangible assets
related to our general partner interest as of December 31,
2003. We also have $96 million recorded as minority
interest related to the effective general partnership interest
acquired by Enterprise in December 2003. This reduced our
effective ownership interest in the general partner to
50 percent. Both of these were disposed of in the
Enterprise sales described above. |
F-115
During each of the three years ended December 31, 2004, we
conducted the following transactions with GulfTerra:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Revenues received from GulfTerra
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Field Services
|
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
Marketing and Trading
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
19 |
|
|
Production
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
28 |
|
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses paid to GulfTerra
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Field Services
|
|
$ |
84 |
|
|
$ |
75 |
|
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
Marketing and Trading
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
Production
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
113 |
|
|
$ |
114 |
|
|
$ |
199 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reimbursements received from GulfTerra
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Field Services
|
|
$ |
71 |
|
|
$ |
91 |
|
|
$ |
60 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contingent Matters that Could Impact Our
Investments
Economic Conditions in the Dominican Republic. We have
investments in power projects in the Dominican Republic with an
aggregate exposure of approximately $103 million. We own an
approximate 25 percent ownership interest in a 416 MW
power generating complex known as Itabo. We also own an
approximate 48 percent interest in a 67 MW heavy fuel
oil fired power project known as the CEPP project. In 2003, an
economic crisis developed in the Dominican Republic resulting in
a significant devaluation of the Dominican peso. As a
consequence of economic conditions described above, combined
with the high prices on imported fuels and due to their
inability to pass through these high fuel costs to their
consumers, the local distribution companies that purchase the
electrical output of these facilities have been delinquent in
their payments to CEPP and Itabo, and to the other generating
facilities in the Dominican Republic since April 2003. The
failure to pay generators has resulted in the inability of the
generators to purchase fuel required to produce electricity
resulting in significant energy shortfalls in the country. In
addition, a recent local court decision has resulted in the
potential inability of CEPP to continue to receive payments for
its power sales which may affect CEPPs ability to operate.
We are contesting the local court decision. We continue to
monitor the economic and regulatory situation in the Dominican
Republic and as new information becomes available or future
material developments arise, it is possible that impairments of
these investments may occur.
Berkshire Power Project. We own a 56 percent direct
equity interest in a 261 MW power plant, Berkshire Power,
located in Massachusetts. We supply natural gas to Berkshire
under a fuel management agreement. Berkshire has the ability to
delay payment of 33 percent of the amounts due to us under
the fuel supply agreement, up to a maximum of $49 million,
if Berkshire does not have available cash to meet its debt
service requirements. Berkshire has delayed a total of
$46 million of its fuel payments, including $8 million
of interest, under this agreement as of December 31, 2004.
During 2002, Berkshires lenders asserted that Berkshire
was in default on its loan agreement, and these issues remain
unresolved. Based on the uncertainty surrounding these
negotiations and Berkshires inability to generate adequate
future cash flow, we recorded losses of $10 million and
$28 million in 2004 and 2003 associated with the amounts
due to us under the fuel supply agreement.
F-116
For contingent matters that could impact our investments in
Brazil, see Note 17, on page F-89.
For a discussion of non-recourse project financing, see
Note 15, on page F-81.
Duke Litigation. Citrus Trading Corporation (CTC), a
direct subsidiary of Citrus Corp. (Citrus) has filed suit
against Duke Energy LNG Sales, Inc (Duke) and PanEnergy Corp.,
the holding company of Duke, seeking damages of
$185 million for breach of a gas supply contract and
wrongful termination of that contract. Duke sent CTC notice of
termination of the gas supply contract alleging failure of CTC
to increase the amount of an outstanding letter of credit as
collateral for its purchase obligations. Duke has filed in
federal court an amended counter claim joining Citrus and a
cross motion for partial summary judgment, requesting that the
court find that Duke had a right to terminate its gas sales
contract with CTC due to the failure of CTC to adjust the amount
of the letter of credit supporting its purchase obligations. CTC
filed an answer to Dukes motion, which is currently
pending before the court. An unfavorable outcome on this matter
could impact the value of our investment in Citrus.
F-117
REPORT OF MANAGEMENT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER FINANCIAL
REPORTING
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
As of December 31, 2004, we carried out an evaluation under
the supervision and with the participation of our management,
including our Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and our Chief
Financial Officer (CFO), as to the effectiveness, design and
operation of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange
Act)). This evaluation considered the various processes
carried out under the direction of our disclosure committee in
an effort to ensure that information required to be disclosed in
the SEC reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is
recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time
periods specified by the SECs rules and forms, and that
such information is accumulated and communicated to our
management, including the CEO and CFO, as appropriate, to allow
timely discussion regarding required financial disclosure.
Based on the results of this evaluation, our CEO and CFO
concluded that as a result of the material weaknesses discussed
below, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective
as of December 31, 2004. Because of these material
weaknesses, we performed additional procedures to ensure that
our financial statements as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2004, were fairly presented in all material
respects in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.
Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting (as restated)
Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining
adequate internal control over financial reporting, as defined
in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) of the Exchange Act. Our
internal control over financial reporting is a process designed
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements
for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles. Because of its inherent limitations,
internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or
detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of
effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that
controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions,
or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures
may deteriorate.
Under the supervision and with the participation of management,
including the CEO and CFO, we made an assessment of the
effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2004. In making this assessment, we used
the criteria established in Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of
Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).
As of December 31, 2004, we did not maintain effective
controls over (1) access to financial application programs
and data in certain information technology environments,
(2) account reconciliations and (3) identification,
capture and communication of financial data used in accounting
for non-routine transactions or activities. A specific
description of these control deficiencies, which we concluded
are material weaknesses that existed as of December 31,
2004, is discussed below. A material weakness is a control
deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that results
in a more than remote likelihood that a material misstatement of
the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented
or detected.
(1) Access to Financial Application Programs and
Data. At December 31, 2004, we did not maintain
effective controls over access to financial application programs
and data at each of our operating segments. Specifically, we
identified internal control deficiencies with respect to
inadequate design of and compliance with our security access
procedures related to identifying and monitoring conflicting
roles (i.e., segregation of duties) and a lack of independent
monitoring of access to various systems by our information
technology staff, as well as certain users that require
unrestricted security access to financial and reporting systems
to perform their responsibilities. These control deficiencies
did not result in an adjustment to the 2004 interim or annual
consolidated financial statements. However, these control
deficiencies could result in a misstatement of a number of our
financial statement accounts, including accounts receivable,
property, plant and equipment, accounts payable, revenue,
operating expenses, risk management assets and liabilities, and
potentially others, that would result in a material misstatement
to the annual or interim consolidated financial statements that
F-118
would not be prevented or detected. Accordingly, management has
determined that these control deficiencies constitute a material
weakness.
(2) Account Reconciliations. At December 31,
2004, we did not maintain effective controls over the
preparation and review of account reconciliations related to
accounts such as prepaid insurance, accounts receivable, other
assets and liabilities and taxes other than income taxes.
Specifically, we found various instances in our Power and
Marketing and Trading businesses where (1) account balances
were not properly reconciled and (2) there was not
consistent communication of reconciling differences within the
organization to allow for adequate accumulation and resolution
of reconciling items. We also found instances within the company
where accounts were not being reconciled and reviewed by
individuals with adequate accounting experience and training.
These control deficiencies resulted in adjustments impacting the
fourth quarter 2004 financial information. Furthermore, these
control deficiencies could result in a misstatement to the
aforementioned accounts that would result in a material
misstatement to the annual or interim consolidated financial
statements that would not be prevented or detected. Accordingly,
management has determined that these control deficiencies
constitute a material weakness.
(3) Identification, Capture and Communication of
Financial Data Used in Accounting for Non-Routine Transactions
or Activities. At December 31, 2004, we did not
maintain effective controls related to identification, capture
and communication of financial data used for accounting for
non-routine transactions or activities. We identified control
deficiencies related to the identification, capture and
validation of pertinent information necessary to ensure the
timely and accurate recording of non-routine transactions or
activities, primarily related to accounting for investments in
unconsolidated affiliates, determining impairment amounts, and
accounting for divestiture of assets. These control deficiencies
resulted in a) the restatement of our 2002 consolidated
financial statements b) the restatement of our 2003
consolidated financial statements and restated 2003 fourth
quarter information as described in the fifth paragraph of
Note 1 as previously reported in our April 8, 2005
Form 10-K/A, c) the restatement of our 2003 and 2004
consolidated financial statements and restated 2003 fourth
quarter and 2004 first, second and fourth quarter financial
information as described in the sixth paragraph of Note 1,
beginning on page F-46, and d) adjustments to the
consolidated financial statements for the fourth quarter of
2004. Furthermore, these control deficiencies could result in a
misstatement in the aforementioned accounts that would result in
a material misstatement to the annual or interim consolidated
financial statements that would not be prevented or detected.
Accordingly, management has determined that these control
deficiencies constitute a material weakness.
Because of the material weaknesses described above, management
has concluded that, as of December 31, 2004, we did not
maintain effective internal control over financial reporting,
based on the criteria established in Internal
Control Integrated Framework issued by the COSO.
Management previously concluded that the Company did not
maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as
of December 31, 2004, because of the material weaknesses
described in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) above. In connection
with the restatements of the Companys consolidated
financial statements described in the fifth paragraph of
Note 1, beginning on page F-46, to the consolidated
financial statements, management has determined that the
restatement was an additional effect of the material weaknesses
described in item (3) above. Additionally, in connection
with the restatement of the Companys consolidated
financial statements described in the sixth paragraph of
Note 1, beginning on page F-46, to the consolidated
financial statements, management has determined that the
restatement was an additional effect of the material weaknesses
described in 3 above. Accordingly, these restatements do not
affect the previous conclusion stated in our report on internal
control over financial reporting.
Managements assessment of the effectiveness of our
internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2004, has been audited by
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public
accounting firm, as stated in their report which is included
herein.
Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Changes Implemented Through December 31, 2004.
During the course of 2004, management, with the oversight of our
Audit Committee, devoted considerable effort to remediating
deficiencies and to making
F-119
improvements in our internal control over financial reporting.
These improvements include the following enhancements in our
internal controls over financial reporting:
|
|
|
|
|
Improving in the area of estimating oil and gas reserves,
including changes in the composition of our Board of Directors
and management by adding persons with greater experience in the
oil and gas industry, creating a centralized reserve reporting
function and internal committee that provides oversight of the
reporting function, continuing the use of third party reserve
engineering firms to perform an independent assessment of our
proved reserves, and enhancing documentation with regard to the
procedures and controls for recording proved reserves; |
|
|
|
Implementing changes to our systems and procedures to segregate
responsibilities for manual journal entry preparation and
procurement activities; and |
|
|
|
Implementing formal training to educate appropriate personnel on
managements responsibilities mandated by the Sarbanes
Oxley Act, Section 404, the components of the internal
control framework on which we rely and its relationship to our
core values. |
Changes in 2005. Since December 31, 2004, we have
taken action to correct the control deficiencies that resulted
in the material weaknesses described in our report above
including implementing monitoring controls in our information
technology areas over users who require unrestricted access to
perform their job responsibilities and formalizing and issuing a
company-wide account reconciliation policy and providing
training on the appropriate application of such policy. Other
remedial actions have also been identified and are in the
process of being implemented.
F-120
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of
El Paso Corporation:
We have completed an integrated audit of El Paso
Corporations 2004 consolidated financial statements and of
its internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2004 and audits of its 2003 and 2002
consolidated financial statements in accordance with the
standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(United States). Our opinions, based on our audits, are
presented below.
Consolidated Financial Statements and Financial Statement
Schedule
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements listed in
the accompanying index present fairly, in all material respects,
the financial position of El Paso Corporation and its
subsidiaries at December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the results
of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three
years in the period ended December 31, 2004 in conformity
with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America. In addition, in our opinion, the financial
statement schedule listed in the accompanying index presents
fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth
therein when read in conjunction with the related consolidated
financial statements. These financial statements and financial
statement schedule are the responsibility of the Companys
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements and financial statement schedule based on
our audits. We conducted our audits of these statements in
accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about
whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit of financial statements includes
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, and evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable
basis for our opinion.
As described in Note 1, the Company has restated its 2002,
2003 and 2004 consolidated financial statements.
As discussed in the notes to the consolidated financial
statements, the Company adopted FASB Financial Interpretation
No. 46, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities
on January 1, 2004; FASB Staff Position No. 106-2,
Accounting and Disclosure Requirements Related to the
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of
2003 on July 1, 2004; Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards (SFAS) No. 150, Accounting for Certain
Financial Instruments with Characteristics of Both Liabilities
and Equity on July 1, 2003; SFAS No. 143,
Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations and SFAS
No. 146, Accounting for Costs Associated with Exit or
Disposal Activities on January 1, 2003; SFAS
No. 141, Business Combinations, SFAS No. 142,
Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets and SFAS
No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of
Long-Lived Assets on January 1, 2002; DIG Issue
No. C-16, Scope Exceptions; applying the Normal
Purchases and Sales Exception to Contracts that Combine a
Forward Contract and Purchased Option Contract on
July 1, 2002 and EITF Issue No. 02-03, Accounting
for the Contracts Involved in Energy Trading and Risk Management
Activities, Consensus 2, on October 1, 2002.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Also, we have audited managements assessment, included in
Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting appearing on pages F-118 through F-120, that El Paso
Corporation did not maintain effective internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, because the
Company did not maintain effective controls over (1) access
to financial application programs and data in certain
information technology environments, (2) account
reconciliations and (3) identification, capture and
communication of financial data used in accounting for
non-routine transactions or activities. Managements
assessment was based on criteria established in Internal
Control Integrated Framework issued by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission
(COSO).
F-121
The Companys management is responsible for maintaining
effective internal control over financial reporting and for its
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express opinions
on managements assessment and on the effectiveness of the
Companys internal control over financial reporting based
on our audit.
We conducted our audit of internal control over financial
reporting in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether effective internal control over
financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. An
audit of internal control over financial reporting includes
obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial
reporting, evaluating managements assessment, testing and
evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal
control, and performing such other procedures as we consider
necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit
provides a reasonable basis for our opinions.
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that
transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of
financial statements in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the
company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
A material weakness is a control deficiency, or combination of
control deficiencies, that results in more than a remote
likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim
financial statements will not be prevented or detected. The
following material weaknesses have been identified and included
in managements assessment. At December 31, 2004, the
Company did not maintain effective control over (1) access
to financial applications programs and data, (2) account
reconciliations and (3) identification, capture and
communication of financial data used in accounting for
non-routine transactions or activities. A specific description
of these control deficiencies which management concluded are
material weaknesses, that existed at December 31, 2004, is
discussed below.
|
|
|
|
1. |
Access to Financial Application Programs and Data. At
December 31, 2004, the Company did not maintain effective
controls over access to financial application programs and data
at each of its operating segments. Internal control deficiencies
were identified with respect to inadequate design of and
compliance with security access procedures related to
identifying and monitoring conflicting roles (i.e., segregation
of duties) and lack of independent monitoring of access to
various systems by information technology staff, as well as
certain users with accounting and reporting responsibilities who
also have security administrator access to financial and
reporting systems to perform their responsibilities. These
control deficiencies did not result in an adjustment to the 2004
interim or annual consolidated financial statements. However,
these control deficiencies could result in a misstatement of a
number of the Companys financial statement accounts,
including accounts receivable, property, plant and equipment,
accounts payable, revenue, price risk management assets and
liabilities, and potentially others, that would result in a
material misstatement to the annual or interim consolidated
financial statements that would not be prevented or detected.
Accordingly, these control deficiencies constitute a material
weakness. |
F-122
|
|
|
|
2. |
Account Reconciliations. At December 31, 2004, the
Company did not maintain effective controls over the preparation
and review of account reconciliations related to accounts such
as prepaid insurance, accounts receivable, other assets and
taxes other than income taxes. Specifically, instances were
identified in the Power and Marketing and Trading businesses
where (1) account balances were not properly reconciled and
(2) there was not consistent communication of reconciling
differences within the organization to allow for adequate
accumulation and resolution of reconciling items. Instances were
also noted where accounts were not being reconciled and reviewed
by individuals with adequate accounting experience and training.
These control deficiencies resulted in adjustments impacting the
fourth quarter of 2004 financial statements. Furthermore, these
control deficiencies could result in a misstatement of the
aforementioned accounts that would result in a material
misstatement to the annual or interim consolidated financial
statements that would not be prevented or detected. Accordingly,
these control deficiencies constitute a material weakness. |
|
|
3. |
Identification, Capture and Communication of Financial Data
Used in Accounting for Non-Routine Transactions or Activities.
At December 31, 2004, the Company did not maintain
effective controls related to identification, capture and
communication of financial data used for accounting for
non-routine transactions or activities. Control deficiencies
were identified related to the identification, capture and
validation of pertinent information necessary to ensure the
timely and accurate recording of non-routine transactions or
activities, primarily related to accounting for investments in
unconsolidated affiliates, determining impairment of long-lived
assets, and accounting for divestitures. These control
deficiencies resulted in (a) the restatement of the 2002
consolidated financial statements, (b) the restatement of
the 2003 consolidated financial statements and related 2003
fourth quarter financial information as described in the fifth
paragraph of Note 1 as previously reported in the
Companys April 8, 2005 Form 10-K/A, (c) the
restatement of the 2003 and 2004 consolidated financial
statements and related 2003 fourth quarter and 2004 first,
second and fourth quarter information as described in the sixth
paragraph of Note 1 as reported in this Registration
Statement on Form S-1 and (d) adjustments to the financial
statements for the fourth quarter of 2004. Furthermore, these
control deficiencies could result in a material misstatement in
the aforementioned accounts that would result in a misstatement
to the annual or interim consolidated financial statements that
would not be prevented or detected. Accordingly these control
deficiencies constitute a material weakness. |
These material weaknesses were considered in determining the
nature, timing, and extent of audit tests applied in our audit
of the 2004 consolidated financial statements, and our opinion
regarding the effectiveness of the Companys internal
control over financial reporting does not affect our opinion on
those consolidated financial statements.
In our opinion, managements assessment that El Paso
Corporation did not maintain effective internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, is fairly
stated, in all material respects, based on criteria established
in Internal Control Integrated Framework
issued by COSO. Also, in our opinion, because of the effects of
the material weaknesses described above on the achievement of
the objectives of the control criteria, the Company has not
maintained effective internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2004 based on criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued
by COSO.
F-123
Management and we previously concluded that the Company did not
maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as
of December 31, 2004 because of the material weaknesses
described in items 1, 2 and 3 above. In connection with the
restatement of the Companys consolidated financial
statements described in the fifth paragraph of Note 1 to
the consolidated financial statements, management has determined
that the restatement was an additional effect of the material
weakness described in item 3 above. Additionally, in
connection with the restatement of the Companys
consolidated financial statements described in the sixth
paragraph of Note 1 to the consolidated financial
statements, management has determined that the restatement was
an additional effect of the material weaknesses described in
item 3 above. Accordingly, these restatements did not
affect managements assessment or our opinions on internal
control over financial reporting.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Houston, Texas
March 25, 2005, except for the
restatement described in the fifth paragraph
of Note 1 to the consolidated financial
statements and the matter described in the
penultimate paragraph of Managements Report on
Internal Control over Financial Reporting, as to
which the date is April 8, 2005, and except for
the restatement described in the sixth paragraph
of Note 1 to the consolidated financial
statements and the matters described in the
penultimate paragraph of Managements Report on
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting, as to
which the date is June 15, 2005
F-124
Supplemental Selected Quarterly Financial Information
(Unaudited)
Financial information by quarter is summarized below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarters Ended | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
March 31 | |
|
June 30 | |
|
September 30 | |
|
December 31 | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(Restated)(2) | |
|
(Restated)(2) | |
|
|
|
(Restated)(2) | |
|
|
|
|
(In millions, except per common share amounts) | |
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
1,557 |
|
|
$ |
1,524 |
|
|
$ |
1,429 |
|
|
$ |
1,364 |
|
|
$ |
5,874 |
|
|
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
582 |
|
|
|
271 |
|
|
|
1,108 |
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
189 |
|
|
|
370 |
|
|
|
(355 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
190 |
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(119 |
) |
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
$ |
(202 |
) |
|
$ |
(546 |
) |
|
$ |
(833 |
) |
|
Discontinued operations, net of income
taxes(1)
|
|
|
(77 |
) |
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(114 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(196 |
) |
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
(214 |
) |
|
$ |
(542 |
) |
|
$ |
(947 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted earnings per common share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(0.19 |
) |
|
$ |
0.05 |
|
|
$ |
(0.31 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.86 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.30 |
) |
|
|
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(0.12 |
) |
|
|
(0.04 |
) |
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
0.01 |
|
|
|
(0.18 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(0.31 |
) |
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
|
$ |
(0.33 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.85 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.48 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarters Ended | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
March 31 | |
|
June 30 | |
|
September 30 | |
|
December 31 | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Restated)(2) | |
|
|
|
|
(In millions, except per common share amounts) | |
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
1,828 |
|
|
$ |
1,569 |
|
|
$ |
1,714 |
|
|
$ |
1,557 |
|
|
$ |
6,668 |
|
|
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
395 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
397 |
|
|
|
860 |
|
|
Western Energy Settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
|
(20 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
264 |
|
|
|
(272 |
) |
|
|
481 |
|
|
|
(68 |
) |
|
|
405 |
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(207 |
) |
|
$ |
(297 |
) |
|
$ |
65 |
|
|
$ |
(156 |
) |
|
$ |
(595 |
) |
|
Discontinued operations, net of income
taxes(1)
|
|
|
(215 |
) |
|
|
(939 |
) |
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
(84 |
) |
|
|
(1,279 |
) |
|
Cumulative effect of accounting changes, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(431 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,236 |
) |
|
$ |
24 |
|
|
$ |
(240 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,883 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted earnings per common share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(0.34 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.50 |
) |
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
$ |
(0.26 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.99 |
) |
|
|
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(0.36 |
) |
|
|
(1.57 |
) |
|
|
(0.07 |
) |
|
|
(0.14 |
) |
|
|
(2.14 |
) |
|
|
Cumulative effect of accounting changes, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(0.72 |
) |
|
$ |
(2.07 |
) |
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
$ |
(0.40 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Our petroleum markets operations, our Canadian and certain other
international natural gas and oil production operations, and our
coal mining operations are classified as discontinued operations
(See Note 3, on page F-62, for further discussion). |
|
(2) |
The table below reflects the amounts we originally reported in
our Form 10-K filed on March 28, 2005. Items indicated with
a (*) were not restated. See Note 1, on page F-46, to the
consolidated financial statements for a further discussion of
these restatements and the impact on each annual period. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarters Ended | |
|
|
| |
|
|
March 31, | |
|
June 30, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except per common share amounts) | |
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
$ |
222 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
205 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
|
(97 |
) |
|
$ |
45 |
|
|
$ |
(548 |
) |
|
$ |
(84 |
) |
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(109 |
) |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
(201 |
) |
Net income (loss)
|
|
|
(206 |
) |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
(544 |
) |
|
|
(285 |
) |
Basic and diluted earnings per common share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss ) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(0.15 |
) |
|
$ |
0.07 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
$ |
(0.14 |
) |
|
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(0.17 |
) |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
|
(0.33 |
) |
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(0.32 |
) |
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
|
|
* |
|
|
$ |
(0.47 |
) |
F-125
Supplemental Natural Gas and Oil Operations (Unaudited)
Our Production segment is engaged in the exploration for, and
the acquisition, development and production of natural gas, oil
and natural gas liquids, primarily in the United States and
Brazil. In the United States, we have onshore operations and
properties in 20 states and offshore operations and properties
in federal and state waters in the Gulf of Mexico. All of our
proved reserves are in the United States and Brazil. We have
excluded information relating to our natural gas and oil
operations in Canada, Indonesia and Hungary from the following
disclosures. We classified these operations as discontinued
operations beginning in the second quarter of 2004 based on our
decision to exit these operations.
Capitalized costs relating to natural gas and oil producing
activities and related accumulated depreciation, depletion and
amortization were as follows at December 31 (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
States | |
|
Brazil | |
|
Worldwide | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas and oil properties:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs subject to
amortization(1)
|
|
$ |
14,211 |
|
|
$ |
337 |
|
|
$ |
14,548 |
|
|
|
Costs not subject to amortization
|
|
|
308 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
420 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,519 |
|
|
|
449 |
|
|
|
14,968 |
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
11,130 |
|
|
|
138 |
|
|
|
11,268 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net capitalized costs
|
|
$ |
3,389 |
|
|
$ |
311 |
|
|
$ |
3,700 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAS143 abandonment liability
|
|
$ |
252 |
|
|
$ |
4 |
|
|
$ |
256 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural gas and oil properties:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs subject to
amortization(1)
|
|
$ |
14,052 |
|
|
$ |
146 |
|
|
$ |
14,198 |
|
|
|
Costs not subject to amortization
|
|
|
371 |
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
488 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,423 |
|
|
|
263 |
|
|
|
14,686 |
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
11,216 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
11,274 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net capitalized costs
|
|
$ |
3,207 |
|
|
$ |
205 |
|
|
$ |
3,412 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAS 143 abandonment liability
|
|
$ |
210 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
210 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
As of January 1, 2003, we adopted SFAS No. 143,
which is further discussed in Note 1, on page F-46.
Included in our costs subject to amortization at
December 31, 2004 and 2003 are SFAS No. 143 asset
values of $154 million and $124 million for the United
States and $3 million and $0.2 million for Brazil. |
Costs incurred in natural gas and oil producing activities,
whether capitalized or expensed, were as follows at December 31
(in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
States | |
|
Brazil | |
|
Worldwide | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property acquisition costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proved properties
|
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
69 |
|
|
$ |
102 |
|
|
|
Unproved properties
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
Exploration
costs(1)
|
|
|
185 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
210 |
|
|
Development
costs(1)
|
|
|
395 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
396 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs expended in 2004
|
|
|
645 |
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
743 |
|
|
Asset retirement obligation costs
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs incurred
|
|
$ |
675 |
|
|
$ |
101 |
|
|
$ |
776 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-126
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
States | |
|
Brazil | |
|
Worldwide | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property acquisition costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proved properties
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
|
Unproved properties
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
Exploration
costs(1)
|
|
|
467 |
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
|
562 |
|
|
Development
costs(1)
|
|
|
668 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
668 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Costs expended in 2003
|
|
|
1,180 |
|
|
|
99 |
|
|
|
1,279 |
|
|
Asset retirement obligation
costs(2)
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs Incurred
|
|
$ |
1,304 |
|
|
$ |
99 |
|
|
$ |
1,403 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property acquisition costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proved properties
|
|
$ |
362 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
362 |
|
|
|
Unproved properties
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
Exploration costs
|
|
|
524 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
569 |
|
|
Development costs
|
|
|
1,242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs incurred
|
|
$ |
2,157 |
|
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
$ |
2,211 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Excludes approximately $110 million and $130 million
that was paid in 2004 and 2003 under net profits agreements
described beginning on page F-131. |
(2) |
In January 2003, we adopted SFAS No. 143, which is
further discussed in Note 1, on page F-46. The cumulative
effect of adopting SFAS No. 143 was $3 million. |
The table above includes capitalized internal costs incurred in
connection with the acquisition, development and exploration of
natural gas and oil reserves of $44 million,
$58 million, and $76 million and capitalized interest
of $22 million, $19 million and $10 million for
the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002.
In our January 1, 2005 reserve report, the amounts
estimated to be spent in 2005, 2006 and 2007 to develop our
worldwide booked proved undeveloped reserves are
$182 million, $251 million and $218 million.
Presented below is an analysis of the capitalized costs of
natural gas and oil properties by year of expenditures that are
not being amortized as of December 31, 2004, pending
determination of proved reserves (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative | |
|
Costs Excluded | |
|
Cumulative | |
|
|
Balance | |
|
for Years Ended | |
|
Balance | |
|
|
| |
|
December 31 | |
|
| |
|
|
December 31, | |
|
| |
|
December 31, | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Worldwide(1)(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquisition
|
|
$ |
209 |
|
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
$ |
51 |
|
|
$ |
61 |
|
|
$ |
21 |
|
|
Exploration
|
|
|
178 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
Development
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
420 |
|
|
$ |
139 |
|
|
$ |
146 |
|
|
$ |
106 |
|
|
$ |
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Includes operations in the United States and Brazil. |
(2) |
Includes capitalized interest of $20 million,
$6 million, and less than $1 million for the years
ended December 31, 2004, 2003, and 2002. |
F-127
Projects presently excluded from amortization are in various
stages of evaluation. The majority of these costs are expected
to be included in the amortization calculation in the years 2005
through 2008. Our total amortization expense per Mcfe for the
United States was $1.84, $1.40, and $1.05 in 2004, 2003, and
2002 and $2.02 for Brazil in 2004. We had no production in
Brazil during 2003 and 2002. Included in our worldwide
depreciation, depletion, and amortization expense is accretion
expense of $0.08/Mcfe and $0.06/Mcfe for 2004 and 2003
attributable to SFAS No. 143 which we adopted in January
2003.
Net quantities of proved developed and undeveloped reserves of
natural gas and NGL, oil, and condensate, and changes in these
reserves at December 31, 2004 are presented below.
Information in these tables is based on our internal reserve
report. Ryder Scott Company, an independent petroleum
engineering firm, prepared an estimate of our natural gas and
oil reserves for 88 percent of our properties. The total
estimate of proved reserves prepared by Ryder Scott was within
four percent of our internally prepared estimates presented in
these tables. This information is consistent with estimates of
reserves filed with other federal agencies except for
differences of less than five percent resulting from actual
production, acquisitions, property sales, necessary reserve
revisions and additions to reflect actual experience. Ryder
Scott was retained by and reports to the Audit Committee of our
Board of Directors. The properties reviewed by Ryder Scott
represented 88 percent of our proved properties based on
value. The tables below exclude our Power segments equity
interest in Sengkang in Indonesia and Aguaytia in Peru. Combined
proved reserves balances for these interests were 132,336 MMcf
of natural gas and 2,195 MBbls of oil, condensate and NGL for
total natural gas equivalents of 145,507 MMcfe, all net to
our ownership interests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas (in Bcf) | |
|
|
| |
|
|
United | |
|
|
|
|
States | |
|
Brazil | |
|
Worldwide | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Net proved developed and undeveloped
reserves(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2002
|
|
|
2,799 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,799 |
|
|
|
Revisions of previous estimates
|
|
|
(155 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(155 |
) |
|
|
Extensions, discoveries and other
|
|
|
829 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
829 |
|
|
|
Purchases of reserves in place
|
|
|
142 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
142 |
|
|
|
Sales of reserves in place
|
|
|
(657 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(657 |
) |
|
|
Production
|
|
|
(470 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(470 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2002
|
|
|
2,488 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,488 |
|
|
|
Revisions of previous estimates
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
Extensions, discoveries and other
|
|
|
405 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
405 |
|
|
|
Purchases of reserves in place
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
Sales of reserves in
place(2)
|
|
|
(471 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(471 |
) |
|
|
Production
|
|
|
(339 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(339 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2003
|
|
|
2,061 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,061 |
|
|
|
Revisions of previous estimates
|
|
|
(172 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(172 |
) |
|
|
Extensions, discoveries and other
|
|
|
79 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
Purchases of reserves in place
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
Sales of reserves in
place(2)
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(21 |
) |
|
|
Production
|
|
|
(238 |
) |
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(245 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
1,724 |
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
1,793 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proved developed reserves
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2002
|
|
|
1,799 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,799 |
|
|
|
December 31, 2003
|
|
|
1,428 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,428 |
|
|
|
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
1,287 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
1,341 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Net proved reserves exclude royalties and interests owned by
others and reflects contractual arrangements and royalty
obligations in effect at the time of the estimate. |
(2) |
Sales of reserves in place include 20,729 MMcf and
28,779 MMcf of natural gas conveyed to third parties under
net profits agreements in 2004 and 2003 as described beginning
on page F-131. |
F-128
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oil and Condensate (in MBbls) | |
|
|
| |
|
|
United | |
|
|
|
|
States | |
|
Brazil | |
|
Worldwide | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Net proved developed and undeveloped
reserves(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2002
|
|
|
45,153 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45,153 |
|
|
|
Revisions of previous estimates
|
|
|
1,552 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,552 |
|
|
|
Extensions, discoveries and other
|
|
|
7,921 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,921 |
|
|
|
Purchases of reserves in place
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
Sales of reserves in place
|
|
|
(3,754 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,754 |
) |
|
|
Production
|
|
|
(12,580 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12,580 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2002
|
|
|
38,354 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38,354 |
|
|
|
Revisions of previous estimates
|
|
|
895 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
895 |
|
|
|
Extensions, discoveries and other
|
|
|
5,000 |
|
|
|
20,543 |
|
|
|
25,543 |
|
|
|
Purchases of reserves in place
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
Sales of reserves in
place(2)
|
|
|
(4,328 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,328 |
) |
|
|
Production
|
|
|
(7,555 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,555 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2003
|
|
|
32,371 |
|
|
|
20,543 |
|
|
|
52,914 |
|
|
|
Revisions of previous estimates
|
|
|
(999 |
) |
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
(747 |
) |
|
|
Extensions, discoveries and other
|
|
|
2,214 |
|
|
|
1,848 |
|
|
|
4,062 |
|
|
|
Purchases of reserves in place
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,848 |
|
|
|
1,848 |
|
|
|
Sales of reserves in
place(2)
|
|
|
(1,276 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,276 |
) |
|
|
Production
|
|
|
(4,979 |
) |
|
|
(320 |
) |
|
|
(5,299 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
27,331 |
|
|
|
24,171 |
|
|
|
51,502 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proved developed reserves
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2002
|
|
|
28,554 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,554 |
|
|
|
December 31, 2003
|
|
|
22,821 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,821 |
|
|
|
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
19,641 |
|
|
|
2,613 |
|
|
|
22,254 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Net proved reserves exclude royalties and interests owned by
others and reflects contractual agreements and royalty
obligations in effect at the time of the estimate. |
(2) |
Sales of reserves in place include 1,276 MBbl and 1,098 MBbl of
liquids conveyed to third parties under net profits agreements
in 2004 and 2003 as described beginning on page F-131. |
F-129
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NGL (in MBbls) | |
|
|
| |
|
|
United | |
|
|
|
|
States | |
|
Brazil | |
|
Worldwide | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Net proved developed and undeveloped
reserves(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 1, 2002
|
|
|
28,874 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,874 |
|
|
|
Revisions of previous estimates
|
|
|
(2,289 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,289 |
) |
|
|
Extensions, discoveries and other
|
|
|
6,820 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,820 |
|
|
|
Purchases of reserves in place
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales of reserves in place
|
|
|
(7,916 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,916 |
) |
|
|
Production
|
|
|
(3,882 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,882 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2002
|
|
|
21,607 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,607 |
|
|
|
Revisions of previous estimates
|
|
|
(2,717 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,717 |
) |
|
|
Extensions, discoveries and other
|
|
|
1,795 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,795 |
|
|
|
Purchases of reserves in place
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
Sales of reserves in
place(2)
|
|
|
(504 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(504 |
) |
|
|
Production
|
|
|
(4,223 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,223 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2003
|
|
|
15,985 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,985 |
|
|
|
Revisions of previous estimates
|
|
|
724 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
724 |
|
|
|
Extensions, discoveries and other
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
Purchases of reserves in place
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales of reserves in
place(2)
|
|
|
(47 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(47 |
) |
|
|
Production
|
|
|
(3,519 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,519 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2004
|
|
|
13,201 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,201 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proved developed reserves
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2001
|
|
|
17,526 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,526 |
|
|
|
December 31, 2002
|
|
|
14,088 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,088 |
|
|
|
December 31, 2003
|
|
|
11,943 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,943 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Net proved reserves exclude royalties and interests owned by
others and reflects contractual agreements and royalty
obligations in effect at the time of the estimate. |
(2) |
Sales of reserves in place include 47 MBbl and
194 MBbl of NGL conveyed to third parties under net profits
agreements in 2004 and 2003 as described below. |
During 2004, we had approximately 174 Bcfe of negative
reserve revisions in the United States that were largely
performance-driven. Our reserve revisions were primarily
concentrated onshore in our coal bed methane operations and
offshore in the Gulf of Mexico:
Onshore. The onshore region recorded 71 Bcfe of
negative reserve revisions. All of the negative reserve
revisions are related to performance results from producing
wells or the recent drilling program coupled with the related
impact on booked proven undeveloped locations. In certain areas
of the Arkoma and Black Warrior Basins, wells drilled in late
2003 had positive initial results; however, subsequent drilling
and additional production history resulted in 70 Bcfe of
negative revisions. In the Holly Field of North Louisiana,
14 Bcfe of reserves were revised downward as a result of
production performance. These negative revisions were offset by
better-than-anticipated performance in the Rockies and other
Arklatex fields, resulting in positive reserve revisions of
13 Bcfe.
Texas Gulf Coast. The Texas Gulf Coast region recorded
26 Bcfe of negative reserve revisions. The negative
revisions were comprised of approximately 7 Bcfe of
performance revisions to proved producing wells, approximately
6 Bcfe due to mechanical failures in five wells, and
approximately 13 Bcfe due to lower-than-expected results
from the 2004 development drilling program.
Offshore. The offshore region recorded 77 Bcfe of
negative reserve revisions in the Gulf of Mexico. Approximately
10 Bcfe of the revisions is a result of mechanical
failures, and approximately 25 Bcfe is due to
F-130
producing well performance. The remaining 42 Bcfe resulted
from the drilling of development wells and adjustments to proved
undeveloped reserves as a result of production performance in
offsetting locations.
There are numerous uncertainties inherent in estimating
quantities of proved reserves, projecting future rates of
production and projecting the timing of development
expenditures, including many factors beyond our control. The
reserve data represents only estimates. Reservoir engineering is
a subjective process of estimating underground accumulations of
natural gas and oil 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
interpretations and judgment. All estimates of proved reserves
are determined according to the rules prescribed by the SEC.
These rules indicate that the standard of reasonable
certainty be applied to proved reserve estimates. This
concept of reasonable certainty implies that as more technical
data becomes available, a positive, or upward, revision is more
likely than a negative, or downward, revision. Estimates are
subject to revision based upon a number of factors, including
reservoir performance, prices, economic conditions and
government restrictions. In addition, results of drilling,
testing and production subsequent to the date of an estimate may
justify revision of that estimate. Reserve estimates are often
different from the quantities of natural gas and oil that are
ultimately recovered. The meaningfulness of reserve estimates is
highly dependent on the accuracy of the assumptions on which
they were based. In general, the volume of production from
natural gas and oil properties we own declines as reserves are
depleted. Except to the extent we conduct successful exploration
and development activities or acquire additional properties
containing proved reserves, or both, our proved reserves will
decline as reserves are produced. There have been no major
discoveries or other events, favorable or adverse, that may be
considered to have caused a significant change in the estimated
proved reserves since December 31, 2004. However in January
2005, we announced two acquisitions in east Texas and south
Texas for $211 million. In March 2005, we acquired the
interest of one of the parties in our net profits interest
drilling program for $62 million. These acquisitions added
properties with approximately 139 Bcfe of existing proved
reserves and 52 MMcfe/d of current production.
In 2003, we entered into agreements to sell interests in a
maximum of 124 wells to Lehman Brothers and a subsidiary of
Nabors Industries. As these wells are developed, Lehman and
Nabors will pay 70 percent of the drilling and development
costs in exchange for 70 percent of the net profits of the
wells sold. As each well is commenced, Lehman and Nabors receive
an overriding royalty interest in the form of a net profits
interest in the well, under which they are entitled to receive
70 percent of the aggregate net profits of all wells until
they have recovered 117.5 percent of their aggregate
investment. Upon this recovery, the net profits interest will
convert to a 2 percent overriding royalty interest in the
wells for the remainder of the wells productive life. We
do not guarantee a return or the recovery of Lehman and
Nabors costs. All parties to the agreement have the right
to cease participation in the agreement at any time, at which
time Lehman or Nabors will continue to receive its net profits
interest on wells previously started, but will relinquish its
right to participate in any future wells. During 2004, we sold
interests in 54 wells and total proved reserves of 20,729 MMcf
of natural gas and 1,323 MBbl of oil and natural gas
liquids. They have paid $110 million of drilling and
development costs and were paid $152 million of the
revenues net of $11 million of expenses associated with
these wells for the year ended December 31, 2004. In March
2005, we acquired all of the interests held by the Lehman
subsidiary for $62 million.
F-131
Results of operations from producing activities by fiscal year
were as follows at December 31 (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
States | |
|
Brazil | |
|
Worldwide | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales to external customers
|
|
$ |
518 |
|
|
$ |
27 |
|
|
$ |
545 |
|
|
|
Affiliated sales
|
|
|
1,137 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
1,136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,655 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
1,681 |
|
|
Production
costs(1)
|
|
|
(210 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(210 |
) |
|
Depreciation, depletion and
amortization(2)
|
|
|
(530 |
) |
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
(548 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
915 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
923 |
|
|
Income tax (expense) benefit
|
|
|
(333 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(336 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Results of operations from producing activities
|
|
$ |
582 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
587 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales to external customers
|
|
$ |
191 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
191 |
|
|
|
Affiliated sales
|
|
|
1,868 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,868 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2,059 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,059 |
|
|
Production
costs(1)
|
|
|
(229 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(229 |
) |
|
Depreciation, depletion and
amortization(2)
|
|
|
(576 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(576 |
) |
|
Ceiling test charges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,254 |
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
1,249 |
|
|
Income tax (expense) benefit
|
|
|
(449 |
) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(447 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Results of operations from producing activities
|
|
$ |
805 |
|
|
$ |
(3 |
) |
|
$ |
802 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Revenues
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales to external customers
|
|
$ |
134 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
134 |
|
|
|
Affiliated sales
|
|
|
1,677 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,677 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
1,811 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,811 |
|
|
Production
costs(1)
|
|
|
(284 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(284 |
) |
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
(599 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(599 |
) |
|
Gain on long-lived assets
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
930 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
930 |
|
|
Income tax (expense) benefit
|
|
|
(327 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(327 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Results of operations from producing activities
|
|
$ |
603 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
603 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
Production cost includes lease operating costs and production
related taxes, including ad valorem and severance taxes. |
(2) |
In January 2003, we adopted SFAS No. 143, which is
further discussed in Note 1, on page F-46. Our
depreciation, depletion and amortization includes accretion
expense for SFAS 143 abandonment liabilities of
$23 million primarily for the United States for both 2004
and 2003. |
F-132
The standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows
relating to proved natural gas and oil reserves at December 31
is as follows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
States | |
|
Brazil | |
|
Worldwide | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future cash
inflows(1)
|
|
$ |
11,895 |
|
|
$ |
1,077 |
|
|
$ |
12,972 |
|
Future production costs
|
|
|
(3,585 |
) |
|
|
(135 |
) |
|
|
(3,720 |
) |
Future development costs
|
|
|
(1,234 |
) |
|
|
(274 |
) |
|
|
(1,508 |
) |
Future income tax expenses
|
|
|
(1,184 |
) |
|
|
(141 |
) |
|
|
(1,325 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future net cash flows
|
|
|
5,892 |
|
|
|
527 |
|
|
|
6,419 |
|
10% annual discount for estimated timing of cash flows
|
|
|
(2,004 |
) |
|
|
(219 |
) |
|
|
(2,223 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows
|
|
$ |
3,888 |
|
|
$ |
308 |
|
|
$ |
4,196 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows,
including effects of hedging activities
|
|
$ |
3,907 |
|
|
$ |
305 |
|
|
$ |
4,212 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future cash
inflows(1)
|
|
$ |
13,302 |
|
|
$ |
588 |
|
|
$ |
13,890 |
|
Future production costs
|
|
|
(3,025 |
) |
|
|
(65 |
) |
|
|
(3,090 |
) |
Future development costs
|
|
|
(1,325 |
) |
|
|
(236 |
) |
|
|
(1,561 |
) |
Future income tax expenses
|
|
|
(1,695 |
) |
|
|
(75 |
) |
|
|
(1,770 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future net cash flows
|
|
|
7,257 |
|
|
|
212 |
|
|
|
7,469 |
|
10% annual discount for estimated timing of cash flows
|
|
|
(2,449 |
) |
|
|
(128 |
) |
|
|
(2,577 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows
|
|
$ |
4,808 |
|
|
$ |
84 |
|
|
$ |
4,892 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows,
including effects of hedging activities
|
|
$ |
4,759 |
|
|
$ |
84 |
|
|
$ |
4,843 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future cash
inflows(1)
|
|
$ |
12,847 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
12,847 |
|
Future production costs
|
|
|
(2,924 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,924 |
) |
Future development costs
|
|
|
(1,361 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,361 |
) |
Future income tax expenses
|
|
|
(1,960 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,960 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Future net cash flows
|
|
|
6,602 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,602 |
|
10% annual discount for estimated timing of cash flows
|
|
|
(2,293 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,293 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows
|
|
$ |
4,309 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
4,309 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standardized measure of discounted future net cash flows,
including effects of hedging activities
|
|
$ |
4,266 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
4,266 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
United States excludes $1 million, $104 million and
$85 million of future net cash outflows attributable to
hedging activities in the years 2004, 2003 and 2002. Brazil
excludes $5 million of future net cash outflows
attributable to hedging activities in 2004. |
For the calculations in the preceding table, estimated future
cash inflows from estimated future production of proved reserves
were computed using year-end prices of $6.22 per MMbtu for
natural gas and $43.45 per barrel of oil at
December 31, 2004. Adjustments for transportation and other
charges resulted in a net price of $5.99 per Mcf of gas, $42.11
per barrel of oil and $32.13 per barrel of NGL at
December 31, 2004. We may receive amounts different than
the standardized measure of discounted cash flow for a number of
reasons, including price changes and the effects of our hedging
activities.
F-133
We do not rely upon the standardized measure when making
investment and operating decisions. These decisions are based on
various factors including probable and proved reserves,
different price and cost assumptions, actual economic
conditions, capital availability, and corporate investment
criteria.
The following are the principal sources of change in the
worldwide standardized measure of discounted future net cash
flows (in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years Ended December 31,(1),(2) | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In Millions) | |
Sales and transfers of natural gas and oil produced net of
production costs
|
|
$ |
(1,470 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,829 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,526 |
) |
Net changes in prices and production costs
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
1,586 |
|
|
|
3,301 |
|
Extensions, discoveries and improved recovery, less related costs
|
|
|
268 |
|
|
|
1,105 |
|
|
|
1,561 |
|
Changes in estimated future development costs
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(16 |
) |
|
|
17 |
|
Previously estimated development costs incurred during the period
|
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
275 |
|
Revision of previous quantity estimates
|
|
|
(453 |
) |
|
|
(94 |
) |
|
|
(348 |
) |
Accretion of discount
|
|
|
568 |
|
|
|
526 |
|
|
|
275 |
|
Net change in income taxes
|
|
|
257 |
|
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
(934 |
) |
Purchases of reserves in place
|
|
|
114 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
284 |
|
Sale of reserves in place
|
|
|
(75 |
) |
|
|
(1,229 |
) |
|
|
(1,418 |
) |
Change in production rates, timing and other
|
|
|
(94 |
) |
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change
|
|
$ |
(696 |
) |
|
$ |
583 |
|
|
$ |
1,580 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) This
disclosure reflects changes in the standardized measure
calculation excluding the effects of hedging activities.
(2) Includes
operations in the United States and Brazil.
F-134
SCHEDULE II
EL PASO CORPORATION
VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
Years Ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002
(In millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charged | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at | |
|
to Costs | |
|
|
|
Charged | |
|
Balance | |
|
|
Beginning | |
|
and | |
|
|
|
to Other | |
|
at End | |
Description |
|
of Period | |
|
Expenses | |
|
Deductions | |
|
Accounts | |
|
of Period | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$ |
273 |
|
|
$ |
(48 |
) |
|
$ |
(22 |
)(1) |
|
$ |
(4 |
) |
|
$ |
199 |
|
|
Valuation allowance on deferred tax assets
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
46 |
(3) |
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
Legal reserves
|
|
|
1,169 |
|
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
(655 |
)(5) |
|
|
(67 |
) |
|
|
592 |
|
|
Environmental reserves
|
|
|
412 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
(51 |
)(5) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
380 |
|
|
Regulatory reserves
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(12 |
)(5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$ |
176 |
|
|
$ |
18 |
|
|
$ |
(31 |
)(1) |
|
$ |
110 |
(2) |
|
$ |
273 |
|
|
Valuation allowance on deferred tax assets
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(68 |
)(3) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
Legal reserves
|
|
|
1,031 |
|
|
|
180 |
(4) |
|
|
(43 |
)(5) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1,169 |
|
|
Environmental reserves
|
|
|
389 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
(52 |
)(5) |
|
|
67 |
(6) |
|
|
412 |
|
|
Regulatory reserves
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
(43 |
)(5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
2002
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for doubtful accounts
|
|
$ |
117 |
|
|
$ |
30 |
|
|
$ |
(14 |
)(1) |
|
$ |
43 |
(2) |
|
$ |
176 |
|
|
Valuation allowance on deferred tax assets
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
46 |
(3) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
72 |
|
|
Legal reserves
|
|
|
149 |
|
|
|
954 |
(4) |
|
|
(74 |
)(5) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
1,031 |
|
|
Environmental reserves
|
|
|
468 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(63 |
) |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
389 |
|
|
Regulatory reserves
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
(59 |
)(5) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
24 |
|
|
|
(1) |
Relates primarily to accounts written off. |
(2) |
Relates primarily to receivables from trading counterparties,
reclassified due to bankruptcy or declining credit that have
been accounted for within our price risk management activities. |
(3) |
Relates primarily to valuation allowances for deferred tax
assets related to the Western Energy Settlement, foreign ceiling
test charges, foreign asset impairments and net operating loss
carryovers. |
(4) |
Relates to our Western Energy Settlement of $104 million in
2003 and $899 million in 2002. In June 2004, we released
approximately $602 million to the settling parties
(including approximately $568 million from escrow) and
correspondingly reduced our liability by this amount. |
(5) |
Relates primarily to payments for various litigation reserves,
including the Western Energy Settlement, environmental
remediation reserves or revenue crediting and rate settlement
reserves. |
(6) |
Relates primarily to liabilities previously classified in our
petroleum discontinued operations, but reclassified as
continuing operations due to our retention of these obligations. |
F-135
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
REPORT OF MANAGEMENT ON INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER FINANCIAL
REPORTING
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
MCVs management, including the President and Chief
Executive Officer, and the Chief Financial Officer, Vice
President and Controller, after evaluating the effectiveness of
MCVs disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rules 13a-15(e) or 15d-15(e)) as
of the end of the period covered by this report, have concluded
that based on the evaluation of these controls and procedures
required by paragraph (b) of Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 or
15d-15, that MCVs disclosure controls and procedures were
effective.
Managements Report on Internal Control Over Financial
Reporting
MCVs management is responsible for establishing and
maintaining an adequate system of internal control over
financial reporting of MCV. This system is designed to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial
reporting and the preparation of financial statements for
external purposes in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America.
MCVs internal control over financial reporting includes
those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the
maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately
and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the
assets of MCV; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that
transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of
financial statements in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of MCV
are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and the Management Committee of MCV; and
(iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or
timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or
disposition of MCVs assets that could have a material
effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, a system of internal
control over financial reporting can provide only reasonable
assurance and may not prevent or detect misstatements. Further,
because of changes in conditions, effectiveness of internal
controls over financial reporting may vary over time. Our system
contains self-monitoring mechanisms, and actions are taken to
correct deficiencies as they are identified.
MCV management conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of
the system of internal control over financial reporting based on
the framework in Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of
Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on
this evaluation, management concluded that MCVs system of
internal control over financial reporting was effective as of
December 31, 2004. MCV managements assessment of the
effectiveness of MCVs internal control over financial
reporting has been audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an
independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in
their report which is included herein.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
There were no changes in MCVs internal control over
financial reporting identified in connection with the evaluation
required by paragraph (d) of Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 or 15d-15
that occurred during our last fiscal quarter that have
materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially
affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
FA-1
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Partners and the Management Committee of
Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership:
We have completed an integrated audit of Midland Cogeneration
Venture Limited Partnership 2004 consolidated financial
statements and of its internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2004 and audits of its December 31,
2003 and December 31, 2002 financial statements in
accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (United States). Our opinions, based on our
audits, are presented below.
Consolidated financial statements
In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated balance sheets and
the related consolidated statements of operations,
partners equity and cash flows present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of the Midland
Cogeneration Limited Partnership (a Michigan limited
partnership) and its subsidiaries (MCV) at
December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 2004 in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America. These financial statements are the responsibility of
the MCVs management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We
conducted our audits of these statements in accordance with the
standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(United States). Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether
the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An
audit of financial statements includes examining, on a test
basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used
and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the
overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our
audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
As explained in Note 2 to the financial statements,
effective April 1, 2002, Midland Cogeneration Venture
Limited Partnership changed its method of accounting for
derivative and hedging activities in accordance with Derivative
Implementation Group (DIG) Issue C-16.
Internal control over financial reporting
Also, in our opinion, managements assessment, included in
the accompanying Managements Report on Internal Control
Over Financial Reporting appearing on page FA-1, that the
MCV maintained effective internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2004 based on criteria
established in Internal Control Integrated
Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), is fairly
stated, in all material respects, based on those criteria.
Furthermore, in our opinion, the MCV maintained, in all material
respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as
of December 31, 2004, based on criteria established in
Internal Control Integrated Framework issued
by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway
Commission (COSO). The MCVs management is responsible for
maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting
and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express
opinions on managements assessment and on the
effectiveness of the MCVs internal control over financial
reporting based on our audit. We conducted our audit of internal
control over financial reporting in accordance with the
standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(United States). Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether
effective internal control over financial reporting was
maintained in all material respects. An audit of internal
control over financial reporting includes obtaining an
understanding of internal control over financial reporting,
evaluating managements assessment, testing and evaluating
the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and
performing such other procedures as we consider necessary in the
circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable
basis for our opinions.
FA-2
A companys internal control over financial reporting is a
process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles. A companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that
transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of
financial statements in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the
company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of
management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys assets that could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over
financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements.
Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future
periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree
of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Detroit, Michigan
February 25, 2005
FA-3
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AS OF DECEMBER 31,
(In Thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
ASSETS |
CURRENT ASSETS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
125,781 |
|
|
$ |
173,651 |
|
|
Accounts and notes receivable related parties
|
|
|
54,368 |
|
|
|
43,805 |
|
|
Accounts receivable
|
|
|
42,984 |
|
|
|
38,333 |
|
|
Gas inventory
|
|
|
17,509 |
|
|
|
20,298 |
|
|
Unamortized property taxes
|
|
|
18,060 |
|
|
|
17,672 |
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
94,977 |
|
|
|
86,825 |
|
|
Broker margin accounts, and prepaid gas costs and expenses
|
|
|
13,147 |
|
|
|
8,101 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
366,826 |
|
|
|
388,685 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
2,466,944 |
|
|
|
2,463,931 |
|
|
Pipeline
|
|
|
21,432 |
|
|
|
21,432 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
2,488,376 |
|
|
|
2,485,363 |
|
|
Accumulated depreciation
|
|
|
(1,062,821 |
) |
|
|
(991,556 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net property, plant and equipment
|
|
|
1,425,555 |
|
|
|
1,493,807 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER ASSETS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Restricted investment securities held-to-maturity
|
|
|
139,410 |
|
|
|
139,755 |
|
|
Derivative assets non-current
|
|
|
24,337 |
|
|
|
18,100 |
|
|
Deferred financing costs, net of accumulated amortization of
$18,498 and $17,285, respectively
|
|
|
6,467 |
|
|
|
7,680 |
|
|
Prepaid gas costs, spare parts deposit, materials and supplies
|
|
|
17,782 |
|
|
|
21,623 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other assets
|
|
|
187,996 |
|
|
|
187,158 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL ASSETS
|
|
$ |
1,980,377 |
|
|
$ |
2,069,650 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS EQUITY |
CURRENT LIABILITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
|
$ |
82,693 |
|
|
$ |
57,368 |
|
|
Gas supplier funds on deposit
|
|
|
19,613 |
|
|
|
4,517 |
|
|
Interest payable
|
|
|
47,738 |
|
|
|
53,009 |
|
|
Current portion of long-term debt
|
|
|
76,548 |
|
|
|
134,576 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
226,592 |
|
|
|
249,470 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
942,097 |
|
|
|
1,018,645 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1,712 |
|
|
|
2,459 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-current liabilities
|
|
|
943,809 |
|
|
|
1,021,104 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES (Notes 7 and 8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL LIABILITIES
|
|
|
1,170,401 |
|
|
|
1,270,574 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PARTNERS EQUITY
|
|
|
809,976 |
|
|
|
799,076 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS EQUITY
|
|
$ |
1,980,377 |
|
|
$ |
2,069,650 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
FA-4
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
(In Thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
OPERATING REVENUES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
$ |
405,415 |
|
|
$ |
404,681 |
|
|
$ |
404,713 |
|
|
Electric
|
|
|
225,154 |
|
|
|
162,093 |
|
|
|
177,569 |
|
|
Steam
|
|
|
19,090 |
|
|
|
17,638 |
|
|
|
14,537 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating revenues
|
|
|
649,659 |
|
|
|
584,412 |
|
|
|
596,819 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING EXPENSES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fuel costs
|
|
|
413,061 |
|
|
|
254,988 |
|
|
|
255,142 |
|
|
Depreciation
|
|
|
88,712 |
|
|
|
89,437 |
|
|
|
88,963 |
|
|
Operations
|
|
|
18,769 |
|
|
|
16,943 |
|
|
|
16,642 |
|
|
Maintenance
|
|
|
13,508 |
|
|
|
15,107 |
|
|
|
12,666 |
|
|
Property and single business taxes
|
|
|
28,834 |
|
|
|
30,040 |
|
|
|
27,087 |
|
|
Administrative, selling and general
|
|
|
11,236 |
|
|
|
9,959 |
|
|
|
8,195 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total operating expenses
|
|
|
574,120 |
|
|
|
416,474 |
|
|
|
408,695 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING INCOME
|
|
|
75,539 |
|
|
|
167,938 |
|
|
|
188,124 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTHER INCOME (EXPENSE):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest and other income
|
|
|
5,460 |
|
|
|
5,100 |
|
|
|
5,555 |
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
(104,618 |
) |
|
|
(113,247 |
) |
|
|
(119,783 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other income (expense), net
|
|
|
(99,158 |
) |
|
|
(108,147 |
) |
|
|
(114,228 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE CUMULATIVE
EFFECT OF ACCOUNTING CHANGE
|
|
|
(23,619 |
) |
|
|
59,791 |
|
|
|
73,896 |
|
Cumulative effect of change in method of accounting for
derivative option contracts (to April 1, 2002) (Note 2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58,131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCOME (LOSS)
|
|
$ |
(23,619 |
) |
|
$ |
59,791 |
|
|
$ |
132,027 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
FA-5
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS EQUITY
FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
(In Thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General | |
|
Limited | |
|
|
|
|
Partners | |
|
Partners | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
BALANCE, DECEMBER 31, 2001
|
|
$ |
468,972 |
|
|
$ |
82,740 |
|
|
$ |
551,712 |
|
Comprehensive Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
|
114,947 |
|
|
|
17,080 |
|
|
|
132,027 |
|
|
Other Comprehensive Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain on hedging activities since beginning of period
|
|
|
33,311 |
|
|
|
4,950 |
|
|
|
38,261 |
|
|
|
Reclassification adjustments recognized in net income above
|
|
|
10,717 |
|
|
|
1,593 |
|
|
|
12,310 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other comprehensive income
|
|
|
44,028 |
|
|
|
6,543 |
|
|
|
50,571 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Comprehensive Income
|
|
|
158,975 |
|
|
|
23,623 |
|
|
|
182,598 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE, DECEMBER 31, 2002
|
|
$ |
627,947 |
|
|
$ |
106,363 |
|
|
$ |
734,310 |
|
Comprehensive Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income
|
|
|
52,056 |
|
|
|
7,735 |
|
|
|
59,791 |
|
|
Other Comprehensive Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain on hedging activities since beginning of period
|
|
|
34,484 |
|
|
|
5,125 |
|
|
|
39,609 |
|
|
|
Reclassification adjustments recognized in net income above
|
|
|
(30,153 |
) |
|
|
(4,481 |
) |
|
|
(34,634 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other comprehensive income
|
|
|
4,331 |
|
|
|
644 |
|
|
|
4,975 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Comprehensive Income
|
|
|
56,387 |
|
|
|
8,379 |
|
|
|
64,766 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE, DECEMBER 31, 2003
|
|
$ |
684,334 |
|
|
$ |
114,742 |
|
|
$ |
799,076 |
|
Comprehensive Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Loss
|
|
|
(20,563 |
) |
|
|
(3,056 |
) |
|
|
(23,619 |
) |
|
Other Comprehensive Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized gain on hedging activities since beginning of period
|
|
|
62,292 |
|
|
|
9,256 |
|
|
|
71,548 |
|
|
|
Reclassification adjustments recognized in net income above
|
|
|
(32,239 |
) |
|
|
(4,790 |
) |
|
|
(37,029 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other comprehensive income
|
|
|
30,053 |
|
|
|
4,466 |
|
|
|
34,519 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Comprehensive Income
|
|
|
9,490 |
|
|
|
1,410 |
|
|
|
10,900 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BALANCE, DECEMBER 31, 2004
|
|
$ |
693,824 |
|
|
$ |
116,152 |
|
|
$ |
809,976 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
FA-6
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
(In Thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(23,619 |
) |
|
$ |
59,791 |
|
|
$ |
132,027 |
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by
operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
89,925 |
|
|
|
90,792 |
|
|
|
90,430 |
|
|
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(58,131 |
) |
|
(Increase) decrease in accounts receivable
|
|
|
(15,214 |
) |
|
|
(1,211 |
) |
|
|
48,343 |
|
|
(Increase) decrease in gas inventory
|
|
|
2,789 |
|
|
|
(732 |
) |
|
|
133 |
|
|
(Increase) decrease in unamortized property taxes
|
|
|
(388 |
) |
|
|
683 |
|
|
|
(1,730 |
) |
|
(Increase) decrease in broker margin accounts and prepaid
expenses
|
|
|
(5,046 |
) |
|
|
(4,778 |
) |
|
|
31,049 |
|
|
(Increase) decrease in derivative assets
|
|
|
20,130 |
|
|
|
4,906 |
|
|
|
(20,444 |
) |
|
(Increase) decrease in prepaid gas costs, materials and supplies
|
|
|
3,841 |
|
|
|
(8,704 |
) |
|
|
1,376 |
|
|
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable and accrued liabilities
|
|
|
25,775 |
|
|
|
(712 |
) |
|
|
8,774 |
|
|
Increase in gas supplier funds on deposit
|
|
|
15,096 |
|
|
|
4,517 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease in interest payable
|
|
|
(5,271 |
) |
|
|
(3,377 |
) |
|
|
(3,948 |
) |
|
Increase (decrease) in other non-current liabilities
|
|
|
(1,197 |
) |
|
|
311 |
|
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash provided by operating activities
|
|
|
106,821 |
|
|
|
141,486 |
|
|
|
227,855 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant modifications and purchases of plant equipment
|
|
|
(20,460 |
) |
|
|
(33,278 |
) |
|
|
(29,529 |
) |
|
Maturity of restricted investment securities held-to-maturity
|
|
|
674,553 |
|
|
|
601,225 |
|
|
|
377,192 |
|
|
Purchase of restricted investment securities held-to-maturity
|
|
|
(674,208 |
) |
|
|
(602,279 |
) |
|
|
(374,426 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities
|
|
|
(20,115 |
) |
|
|
(34,332 |
) |
|
|
(26,763 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Repayment of financing obligation
|
|
|
(134,576 |
) |
|
|
(93,928 |
) |
|
|
(182,084 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in financing activities
|
|
|
(134,576 |
) |
|
|
(93,928 |
) |
|
|
(182,084 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NET INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
|
|
|
(47,870 |
) |
|
|
13,226 |
|
|
|
19,008 |
|
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS AT BEGINNING OF PERIOD
|
|
|
173,651 |
|
|
|
160,425 |
|
|
|
141,417 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH AND EQUIVALENTS AT END OF PERIOD
|
|
$ |
125,781 |
|
|
$ |
173,651 |
|
|
$ |
160,425 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
FA-7
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
|
(1) |
The Partnership and Associated Risks |
MCV was organized to construct, own and operate a
combined-cycle, gas-fired cogeneration facility (the
Facility) located in Midland, Michigan. MCV was
formed on January 27, 1987, and the Facility began
commercial operation in 1990.
In 1992, MCV had acquired the outstanding common stock of PVCO
Corp., a previously inactive company. MCV and PVCO Corp. then
entered into a partnership agreement to form MCV Gas
Acquisition General Partnership (MCV GAGP) for the
purpose of buying and selling natural gas on the spot market and
other transactions involving natural gas activities. PVCO Corp.
and MCV GAGP were dissolved on January 30, 2004 and
July 2, 2004, respectively, due to inactivity.
The Facility has a net electrical generating capacity of
approximately 1500 MW and approximately 1.5 million
pounds of process steam capacity per hour. MCV has entered into
three principal energy sales agreements. MCV has contracted to
(i) supply up to 1240 MW of electric capacity
(Contract Capacity) to Consumers Energy Company
(Consumers) under the Power Purchase Agreement
(PPA), for resale to its customers through 2025,
(ii) supply electricity and steam to The Dow Chemical
Company (Dow) through 2008 and 2015, respectively,
under the Steam and Electric Power Agreement (SEPA)
and (iii) supply steam to Dow Corning Corporation
(DCC) under the Steam Purchase Agreement
(SPA) through 2011. From time to time, MCV enters
into other sales agreements for the sale of excess capacity
and/or energy available above MCVs internal use and
obligations under the PPA, SEPA and SPA. Results of operations
are primarily dependent on successfully operating the Facility
at or near contractual capacity levels and on Consumers
ability to perform its obligations under the PPA. Sales pursuant
to the PPA have historically accounted for over 90% of
MCVs revenues.
The PPA permits Consumers, under certain conditions, to reduce
the capacity and energy charges payable to MCV and/or to receive
refunds of capacity and energy charges paid to MCV if the
Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) does not
permit Consumers to recover from its customers the capacity and
energy charges specified in the PPA (the
regulatory-out provision). Until September 15,
2007, however, the capacity charge may not be reduced below an
average capacity rate of 3.77 cents per kilowatt-hour for the
available Contract Capacity notwithstanding the
regulatory-out provision. Consumers and MCV are
required to support and defend the terms of the PPA.
The Facility is a qualifying cogeneration facility
(QF) originally certified by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Public
Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, as amended
(PURPA). In order to maintain QF status, certain
operating and efficiency standards must be maintained on a
calendar-year basis and certain ownership limitations must be
met. In the case of a topping-cycle generating plant such as the
Facility, the applicable operating standard requires that the
portion of total energy output that is put to some useful
purpose other than facilitating the production of power (the
Thermal Percentage) be at least 5%. In addition, the
Facility must achieve a PURPA efficiency standard (the sum of
the useful power output plus one-half of the useful thermal
energy output, divided by the energy input (the Efficiency
Percentage)) of at least 45%. If the Facility maintains a
Thermal Percentage of 15% or higher, the required Efficiency
Percentage is reduced to 42.5%. Since 1990, the Facility has
achieved the applicable Thermal and Efficiency Percentages. For
the twelve months ended December 31, 2004, the Facility
achieved a Thermal Percentage of 15.6% and an Efficiency
Percentage of 47.6%. The loss of QF status could, among other
things, cause MCV to lose its rights under PURPA to sell power
from the Facility to Consumers at Consumers avoided
cost and subject MCV to additional federal and state
regulatory requirements.
The Facility is wholly dependent upon natural gas for its fuel
supply and a substantial portion of the Facilitys
operating expenses consist of the costs of natural gas. MCV
recognizes that its existing gas contracts are not sufficient to
satisfy the anticipated gas needs over the term of the PPA and,
as such, no assurance can be given as to the availability or
price of natural gas after the expiration of the existing gas
contracts. In
FA-8
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
addition, to the extent that the costs associated with
production of electricity rise faster than the energy charge
payments, MCVs financial performance will be negatively
affected. The extent of such impact will depend upon the amount
of the average energy charge payable under the PPA, which is
based upon costs incurred at Consumers coal-fired plants
and upon the amount of energy scheduled by Consumers for
delivery under the PPA. However, given the unpredictability of
these factors, the overall economic impact upon MCV of changes
in energy charges payable under the PPA and in future fuel costs
under new or existing contracts cannot accurately be predicted.
At both the state and federal level, efforts continue to
restructure the electric industry. A significant issue to MCV is
the potential for future regulatory denial of recovery by
Consumers from its customers of above market PPA costs Consumers
pays MCV. At the state level, the MPSC entered a series of
orders from June 1997 through February 1998 (collectively the
Restructuring Orders), mandating that utilities
wheel third-party power to the utilities
customers, thus permitting customers to choose their power
provider. MCV, as well as others, filed an appeal in the
Michigan Court of Appeals to protect against denial of recovery
by Consumers of PPA charges. The Michigan Court of Appeals found
that the Restructuring Orders do not unequivocally disallow such
recovery by Consumers and, therefore, MCVs issues were not
ripe for appellate review and no actual controversy regarding
recovery of costs could occur until 2008, at the earliest. In
June 2000, the State of Michigan enacted legislation which,
among other things, states that the Restructuring Orders (being
voluntarily implemented by Consumers) are in compliance with the
legislation and enforceable by the MPSC. The legislation
provides that the rights of parties to existing contracts
between utilities (like Consumers) and QFs (like MCV), including
the rights to have the PPA charges recovered from customers of
the utilities, are not abrogated or diminished, and permits
utilities to securitize certain stranded costs, including PPA
charges.
In 1999, the U.S. District Court granted summary judgment
to MCV declaring that the Restructuring Orders are preempted by
federal law to the extent they prohibit Consumers from
recovering from its customers any charge for avoided costs (or
stranded costs) to be paid to MCV under PURPA
pursuant to the PPA. In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals
(Appellate Court) vacated the U.S. District
Courts 1999 summary judgment and ordered the case
dismissed based upon a finding that no actual case or
controversy existed for adjudication between the parties. The
Appellate Court determined that the parties dispute is
hypothetical at this time and the QFs (including MCV)
claims are premised on speculation about how an order might be
interpreted by the MPSC, in the future.
Two significant issues that could affect MCVs future
financial performance are the price of natural gas and
Consumers ability/obligation to pay PPA charges. Natural
gas prices have historically been volatile and presently there
is no consensus among forecasters on the price or range of
future prices of natural gas. Even with the approved Resource
Conservation Agreement and Reduced Dispatch Agreement, if gas
prices continue at present levels or increase, the economics of
operating the Facility may be adversely affected.
Consumers ability/obligation to pay PPA charges may be
affected by an MPSC order denying Consumers recovery from
ratepayers. This issue is likely to be addressed in the
timeframe of 2007 or beyond. MCV continues to monitor and
participate in these matters as appropriate, and to evaluate
potential impacts on both cash flows and recoverability of the
carrying value of property, plant and equipment. MCV management
cannot, at this time, predict the impact or outcome of these
matters.
|
|
(2) |
Significant Accounting Policies |
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of
America requires management to make estimates and assumptions
that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and
disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of
the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues
and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could
differ from those estimates. Following is a discussion of
MCVs significant accounting policies.
FA-9
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
Principles of Consolidation |
The consolidated financial statements included the accounts of
MCV and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, PVCO Corp. and MCV GAGP.
Previously, all material transactions and balances among
entities, which comprise MCV, had been eliminated in the
consolidated financial statements. The 2004 dissolution of these
wholly-owned subsidiaries had no impact on the financial
position and results of operations.
MCV recognizes revenue for the sale of variable energy and fixed
energy when delivered. Capacity and other installment revenues
are recognized based on plant availability or other contractual
arrangements.
MCVs fuel costs are those costs associated with securing
natural gas, transportation and storage services necessary to
generate electricity and steam from the Facility. These costs
are recognized in the income statement based upon actual volumes
burned to produce the delivered energy. In addition, MCV engages
in certain cost mitigation activities to offset the fixed
charges MCV incurs for these activities. The gains or losses
resulting from these activities have resulted in net gains of
approximately $6.7 million, $7.7 million and
$3.9 million for the years ended 2004, 2003 and 2002,
respectively. These net gains are reflected as a component of
fuel costs.
In July 2000, in response to rapidly escalating natural gas
prices and since Consumers electric rates were frozen, MCV
entered into a series of transactions with Consumers whereby
Consumers agreed to reduce MCVs dispatch level and MCV
agreed to share with Consumers the savings realized by not
having to generate electricity (Dispatch
Mitigation). On January 1, 2004, Dispatch Mitigation
ceased and Consumers began dispatching MCV pursuant to a
915 MW settlement and a 325 MW settlement
availability caps provision (i.e., minimum dispatch
of 1100 MW on- and off-peak (Forced Dispatch)).
In 2004, MCV and Consumers entered into a Resource Conservation
Agreement (RCA) and a Reduced Dispatch Agreement
(RDA) which, among other things, provides that
Consumers will economically dispatch MCV, if certain conditions
are met. Such dispatch is expected to reduce electric production
from what is occurring under the Forced Dispatch, as well as
decrease gas consumption by MCV. The RCA provides that Consumers
has a right of first refusal to purchase, at market prices, the
gas conserved under the RCA. The RCA and RDA provide for the
sharing of savings realized by not having to generate
electricity. The RCA and RDA were approved by an order of the
MPSC on January 25, 2005 and MCV and Consumers accepted the
terms of the MPSC order making the RCA and RDA effective as of
January 27, 2005. This MPSC order is subject to appeal by
other parties. MCV management cannot predict the final outcome
of any such appeal. While awaiting approval of this order,
effective October 23, 2004, MCV and Consumers entered into
an interim Dispatch Mitigation program for energy dispatch above
1100 MW up to 1240 MW of Contract Capacity under the
PPA. This interim program, which was structured very similarly
to the RCA and RDA, was terminated on January 27, 2005 with
the effective date of the RCA/ RDA. For the twelve months ended
December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002, MCV estimates that these
programs have resulted in net savings of approximately
$1.6 million, $13.0 million and $2.5 million, a
portion of which is realized in reduced maintenance expenditures
in future years.
Accounts receivable and accounts receivable-related parties are
recorded at the billed amount and do not bear interest. MCV
evaluates the need for an allowance for doubtful accounts using
MCVs best estimate of the amount of probable credit
losses. At December 31, 2004 and 2003, no allowance was
provided since typically all receivables are collected within
30 days of each month end.
FA-10
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
MCVs inventory of natural gas is stated at the lower of
cost or market, and valued using the last-in, first-out
(LIFO) method. Inventory includes the costs of
purchased gas, variable transportation and storage. The amount
of reserve to reduce inventories from first-in, first-out
(FIFO) basis to the LIFO basis at December 31,
2004 and 2003, was $10.3 million and $8.4 million,
respectively. Inventory cost, determined on a FIFO basis,
approximates current replacement cost.
Materials and supplies are stated at the lower of cost or market
using the weighted average cost method. The majority of
MCVs materials and supplies are considered replacement
parts for MCVs Facility.
Original plant, equipment and pipeline were valued at cost for
the constructed assets and at the asset transfer price for
purchased and contributed assets, and are depreciated using the
straight-line method over an estimated useful life of
35 years, which is the term of the PPA, except for the hot
gas path components of the GTGs which are primarily being
depreciated over a 25-year life. Plant construction and
additions, since commercial operations in 1990, are depreciated
using the straight-line method over the remaining life of the
plant which currently is 22 years. Major renewals and
replacements, which extend the useful life of plant and
equipment are capitalized, while maintenance and repairs are
expensed when incurred. Major equipment overhauls are
capitalized and amortized to the next equipment overhaul.
Personal property is depreciated using the straight-line method
over an estimated useful life of 5 to 15 years. The cost of
assets and related accumulated depreciation are removed from the
accounts when sold or retired, and any resulting gain or loss
reflected in operating income.
MCV is not subject to Federal or State income taxes. Partnership
earnings are taxed directly to each individual partner.
All liquid investments purchased with a maturity of three months
or less at time of purchase are considered to be current cash
equivalents.
|
|
|
Fair Value of Financial Instruments |
The carrying amounts of cash and cash equivalents and short-term
investments approximate fair value because of the short maturity
of these instruments. MCVs short-term investments, which
are made up of investment securities held-to-maturity, as of
December 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003 have original
maturity dates of approximately one year or less. The unique
nature of the negotiated financing obligation discussed in
Note 6 makes it unnecessary to estimate the fair value of
the Owner Participants underlying debt and equity
instruments supporting such financing obligation, since
SFAS No. 107 Disclosures about Fair Value of
Financial Instruments does not require fair value
accounting for the lease obligation.
|
|
|
Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities |
Effective January 1, 2001, MCV adopted
SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative
Instruments and Hedging Activities which was issued in
June 1998 and then amended by SFAS No. 137,
Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging
Activities Deferral of the Effective Date of
SFAS No. 133, SFAS No. 138
Accounting for Certain Derivative Instruments and Certain
Hedging Activities An
FA-11
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
amendment of FASB Statement No. 133 and
SFAS No. 149 Amendment of Statement 133 on
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activity (collectively
referred to as SFAS No. 133).
SFAS No. 133 establishes accounting and reporting
standards requiring that every derivative instrument be recorded
on the balance sheet as either an asset or liability measured at
its fair value. SFAS No. 133 requires that changes in
a derivatives fair value be recognized currently in
earnings unless specific hedge accounting criteria are met.
Special accounting for qualifying hedges in some cases allows a
derivatives gains and losses to offset related results on
the hedged item in the income statement or permits recognition
of the hedge results in other comprehensive income, and requires
that a company formally document, designate and assess the
effectiveness of transactions that receive hedge accounting.
|
|
|
Electric Sales Agreements |
MCV believes that its electric sales agreements currently do not
qualify as derivatives under SFAS No. 133, due to the
lack of an active energy market (as defined by
SFAS No. 133) in the State of Michigan and the
transportation cost to deliver the power under the contracts to
the closest active energy market at the Cinergy hub in Ohio and
as such does not record the fair value of these contracts on its
balance sheet. If an active energy market emerges, MCV intends
to apply the normal purchase, normal sales exception under
SFAS No. 133 to its electric sales agreements, to the
extent such exception is applicable.
|
|
|
Natural Gas Supply Contracts |
MCV management believes that its long-term natural gas
contracts, which do not contain volume optionality, qualify
under SFAS No. 133 for the normal purchases and normal
sales exception. Therefore, these contracts are currently not
recognized at fair value on the balance sheet.
The FASB issued DIG Issue C-16, which became effective
April 1, 2002, regarding natural gas commodity contracts
that combine an option component and a forward component. This
guidance requires either that the entire contract be accounted
for as a derivative or the components of the contract be
separated into two discrete contracts. Under the first
alternative, the entire contract considered together would not
qualify for the normal purchases and sales exception under the
revised guidance. Under the second alternative, the newly
established forward contract could qualify for the normal
purchases and sales exception, while the option contract would
be treated as a derivative under SFAS No. 133 with
changes in fair value recorded through earnings. At
April 1, 2002, MCV had nine long-term gas contracts that
contained both an option and forward component. As such, they
were no longer accounted for under the normal purchases and
sales exception and MCV began mark-to-market accounting of these
nine contracts through earnings. As of January 31, 2005,
only four contracts of the original nine contracts, which
contained an option and forward component remain in effect. In
addition, as a result of implementing the RCA/ RDA, effective
January 27, 2005, MCV has determined that as of the
effective date of the RCA/ RDA, an additional nine long term
contracts (for a total of 13) will no longer be accounted
for under the normal purchases and sales exception, per
SFAS No. 133 and will result in additional
mark-to-market activity in 2005 and beyond. MCV expects future
earnings volatility on both the remaining long term gas
contracts that contain volume optionality as well as the long
term gas contracts under the RCA/ RDA that will require
mark-to-market recognition on a quarterly basis.
Based on the natural gas prices, at the beginning of April 2002,
MCV recorded a $58.1 million gain for the cumulative effect
of this accounting change. From April 2002 to December 2004, MCV
recorded an additional net mark-to-market loss of
$2.3 million for these gas contracts. The cumulative
mark-to-market gain through December 31, 2004 of
$55.8 million is recorded as a current and non-current
derivative asset on the balance sheet, as detailed below. These
assets will reverse over the remaining life of these gas
contracts, ranging from 2005 to 2007. For the twelve months
ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, MCV recorded in
Fuel costs losses of $19.2 million and
$5.0 million, respectively, for net mark-to-market
adjustments
FA-12
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
associated with these contracts. In addition, as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003, MCV recorded Derivative
assets in Current Assets in the amount of
$31.4 million and $56.9 million, respectively, and for
the same periods recorded Derivative assets
non-current in Other Assets in the amount of
$24.3 million and $18.1 million, respectively,
representing the mark-to-market value on these long-term natural
gas contracts.
|
|
|
Natural Gas Supply Futures and Options |
To manage market risks associated with the volatility of natural
gas prices, MCV maintains a gas hedging program. MCV enters into
natural gas futures contracts, option contracts, and over the
counter swap transactions (OTC swaps) in order to
hedge against unfavorable changes in the market price of natural
gas in future months when gas is expected to be needed. These
financial instruments are being utilized principally to secure
anticipated natural gas requirements necessary for projected
electric and steam sales, and to lock in sales prices of natural
gas previously obtained in order to optimize MCVs existing
gas supply, storage and transportation arrangements.
These financial instruments are derivatives under
SFAS No. 133 and the contracts that are utilized to
secure the anticipated natural gas requirements necessary for
projected electric and steam sales qualify as cash flow hedges
under SFAS No. 133, since they hedge the price risk
associated with the cost of natural gas. MCV also engages in
cost mitigation activities to offset the fixed charges MCV
incurs in operating the Facility. These cost mitigation
activities include the use of futures and options contracts to
purchase and/or sell natural gas to maximize the use of the
transportation and storage contracts when it is determined that
they will not be needed for Facility operation. Although these
cost mitigation activities do serve to offset the fixed monthly
charges, these cost mitigation activities are not considered a
normal course of business for MCV and do not qualify as hedges
under SFAS No. 133. Therefore, the resulting
mark-to-market gains and losses from cost mitigation activities
are flowed through MCVs earnings.
Cash is deposited with the broker in a margin account at the
time futures or options contracts are initiated. The change in
market value of these contracts requires adjustment of the
margin account balances. The margin account balance as of
December 31, 2004 and 2003 was recorded as a current asset
in Broker margin accounts and prepaid expenses, in
the amount of $1.4 million and $4.1 million,
respectively.
For the twelve months ended December 31, 2004, MCV has
recognized in other comprehensive income, an unrealized
$34.5 million increase on the futures contracts and OTC
swaps, which are hedges of forecasted purchases for plant use of
market priced gas. This resulted in a net $65.8 million
gain in other comprehensive income as of December 31, 2004.
This balance represents natural gas futures, options and OTC
swaps with maturities ranging from January 2005 to December
2009, of which $33.4 million of this gain is expected to be
reclassified into earnings within the next twelve months. MCV
also has recorded, as of December 31, 2004, a
$63.6 million current derivative asset in Derivative
assets, representing the mark-to-market gain on natural
gas futures for anticipated projected electric and steam sales
accounted for as hedges. In addition, for the twelve months
ended December 31, 2004, MCV has recorded a net
$36.5 million gain in earnings from hedging activities
related to MCV natural gas requirements for Facility operations
and a net $1.8 million gain in earnings from cost
mitigation activities.
For the twelve months ended December 31, 2003, MCV
recognized an unrealized $5.0 million increase in other
comprehensive income on the futures contracts, which are hedges
of forecasted purchases for plant use of market priced gas,
which resulted in a $31.3 million gain balance in other
comprehensive income as of December 31, 2003. As of
December 31, 2003, MCV had recorded a $29.9 million
current derivative asset in Derivative assets. For
the twelve months ended December 31, 2003, MCV had recorded
a net $35.0 million gain in earnings from hedging
activities related to MCV natural gas requirements for Facility
operations and a net $1.0 million gain in earnings from
cost mitigation activities.
FA-13
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In 2003, the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF)
issued EITF 03-1 The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary
Impairment and Its Application to Certain
Investments. EITF 03-1 addresses how to determine the
meaning of other-than-temporary impairment of certain debt and
equity securities, the measurement of an impairment loss and
accounting and disclosure considerations subsequent to the
recognition of an other-than-temporary impairment. The various
sections of EITF 03-1 became effective at various times
during 2004. MCV has adopted this guidance and does not expect
the application to materially affect it financial position or
results of operations, since MCVs investments approximate
fair value due to the short maturity of its permitted
investments.
|
|
(3) |
Restricted Investment Securities Held-to-Maturity |
Non-current restricted investment securities held-to-maturity
have carrying amounts that approximate fair value because of the
short maturity of these instruments and consist of the following
at December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Funds restricted for rental payments pursuant to the Overall
Lease Transaction
|
|
$ |
138,150 |
|
|
$ |
137,296 |
|
Funds restricted for management non-qualified plans
|
|
|
1,260 |
|
|
|
2,459 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
139,410 |
|
|
$ |
139,755 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4) |
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities |
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities consist of the
following at December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Accounts payable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related parties
|
|
$ |
12,772 |
|
|
$ |
7,386 |
|
|
Trade creditors
|
|
|
53,476 |
|
|
|
34,786 |
|
Property and single business taxes
|
|
|
11,833 |
|
|
|
12,548 |
|
Other
|
|
|
4,612 |
|
|
|
2,648 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
82,693 |
|
|
$ |
57,368 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5) |
Gas Supplier Funds on Deposit |
Pursuant to individual gas contract terms with counterparties,
deposit amounts or letters of credit may be required by one
party to the other based upon the net amount of exposure. The
net amount of exposure will vary with changes in market prices,
credit provisions and various other factors. Collateral paid or
received will be posted by one party to the other based on the
net amount of the exposure. Interest is earned on funds on
deposit. As of December 31, 2004, MCV is supplying credit
support to two gas suppliers; one in the form of a letter of
credit in the amount of $2.4 million; and cash on deposit
with the other in the amount of $7.3 million. As of
December 31, 2004, MCV is holding $19.6 million of
cash on deposit from two of MCVs brokers. In addition as
of December 31, 2004, MCV is also holding letters of credit
totaling $208.6 million from two gas suppliers, of which
$184.0 million is a letter of credit from El Paso
Corporation (El Paso), a related party.
FA-14
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Long-term debt consists of the following at December 31 (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Financing obligation, maturing through 2015, payable in
semi-annual installments of principal and interest,
collateralized by property, plant and equipment
|
|
$ |
1,018,645 |
|
|
$ |
1,153,221 |
|
Less current portion
|
|
|
(76,548 |
) |
|
|
(134,576 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total long-term debt
|
|
$ |
942,097 |
|
|
$ |
1,018,645 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In June 1990, MCV obtained permanent financing for the Facility
by entering into sale and leaseback agreements (Overall
Lease Transaction) with a lessor group, related to
substantially all of MCVs fixed assets. Proceeds of the
financing were used to retire borrowings outstanding under
existing loan commitments, make a capital distribution to the
Partners and retire a portion of notes issued by MCV to MEC
Development Corporation (MDC) in connection with the
transfer of certain assets by MDC to MCV. In accordance with
SFAS No. 98, Accounting For Leases, the
sale and leaseback transaction has been accounted for as a
financing arrangement.
The financing obligation utilizes the effective interest rate
method, which is based on the minimum lease payments required
through the end of the basic lease term of 2015 and
managements estimate of additional anticipated obligations
after the end of the basic lease term. The effective interest
rate during the remainder of the basic lease term is
approximately 9.4%.
Under the terms of the Overall Lease Transaction, MCV sold
undivided interests in all of the fixed assets of the Facility
for approximately $2.3 billion, to five separate owner
trusts (Owner Trusts) established for the benefit of
certain institutional investors (Owner
Participants). U.S. Bank National Association
(formerly known as State Street Bank and Trust Company) serves
as owner trustee (Owner Trustee) under each of the
Owner Trusts, and leases undivided interests in the Facility on
behalf of the Owner Trusts to MCV for an initial term of
25 years. CMS Midland Holdings Company (CMS
Holdings), currently a wholly owned subsidiary of
Consumers, acquired a 35% indirect equity interest in the
Facility through its purchase of an interest in one of the Owner
Trusts.
The Overall Lease Transaction requires MCV to achieve certain
rent coverage ratios and other financial tests prior to a
distribution to the Partners. Generally, these financial tests
become more restrictive with the passage of time. Further, MCV
is restricted to making permitted investments and incurring
permitted indebtedness as specified in the Overall Lease
Transaction. The Overall Lease Transaction also requires filing
of certain periodic operating and financial reports,
notification to the lessors of events constituting a material
adverse change, significant litigation or governmental
investigation, and change in status as a qualifying facility
under FERC proceedings or court decisions, among others.
Notification and approval is required for plant modification,
new business activities, and other significant changes, as
defined. In addition, MCV has agreed to indemnify various
parties to the sale and leaseback transaction against any
expenses or environmental claims asserted, or certain federal
and state taxes imposed on the Facility, as defined in the
Overall Lease Transaction.
Under the terms of the Overall Lease Transaction and refinancing
of the tax-exempt bonds, approximately $25.0 million of
transaction costs were a liability of MCV and have been recorded
as a deferred cost. Financing costs incurred with the issuance
of debt are deferred and amortized using the interest method
over the remaining portion of the 25-year lease term. Deferred
financing costs of approximately $1.2 million,
$1.4 million and $1.5 million were amortized in the
years 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
FA-15
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Interest and fees incurred related to long-term debt
arrangements during 2004, 2003 and 2002 were
$103.4 million, $111.9 million and
$118.3 million, respectively.
Interest and fees paid during 2004, 2003 and 2002 were
$108.6 million, $115.4 million and
$122.1 million, respectively.
Minimum payments due under these long-term debt arrangements
over the next five years are (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principal | |
|
Interest | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
2005
|
|
$ |
76,548 |
|
|
$ |
97,835 |
|
|
$ |
174,383 |
|
2006
|
|
|
63,459 |
|
|
|
92,515 |
|
|
|
155,974 |
|
2007
|
|
|
62,916 |
|
|
|
87,988 |
|
|
|
150,904 |
|
2008
|
|
|
67,753 |
|
|
|
83,163 |
|
|
|
150,916 |
|
2009
|
|
|
70,335 |
|
|
|
76,755 |
|
|
|
147,090 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
341,011 |
|
|
$ |
438,256 |
|
|
$ |
779,267 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revolving Credit Agreement
MCV has also entered into a working capital line (Working
Capital Facility), which expires August 27, 2005.
Under the terms of the existing agreement, MCV can borrow up to
the $50.0 million commitment, in the form of short-term
borrowings or letters of credit collateralized by MCVs
natural gas inventory and earned receivables. At any given time,
borrowings and letters of credit are limited by the amount of
the borrowing base, defined as 90% of earned receivables and 50%
of natural gas inventory, capped at $15 million. MCV did
not utilize the Working Capital Facility during the year 2004,
except for letters of credit associated with normal business
practices. At December 31, 2004, MCV had $47.6 million
available under its Working Capital Facility. As of
December 31, 2004, MCVs borrowing base was capped at
the maximum amount available of $50.0 million and MCV had
outstanding letters of credit in the amount of
$2.4 million. MCV believes that amounts available to it
under the Working Capital Facility along with available cash
reserves will be sufficient to meet any working capital
shortfalls that might occur in the near term.
Intercreditor Agreement
MCV has also entered into an Intercreditor Agreement with the
Owner Trustee, Working Capital Lender, U.S. Bank National
Association as Collateral Agent (Collateral Agent)
and the Senior and Subordinated Indenture Trustees. Under the
terms of this agreement, MCV is required to deposit all revenues
derived from the operation of the Facility with the Collateral
Agent for purposes of paying operating expenses and rent. In
addition, these funds are required to pay construction
modification costs and to secure future rent payments. As of
December 31, 2004, MCV has deposited $138.2 million
into the reserve account. The reserve account is to be
maintained at not less than $40 million nor more than
$137 million (or debt portion of next succeeding basic rent
payment, whichever is greater). Excess funds in the reserve
account are periodically transferred to MCV. This agreement also
contains provisions governing the distribution of revenues and
rents due under the Overall Lease Transaction, and establishes
the priority of payment among the Owner Trusts, creditors of the
Owner Trusts, creditors of MCV and the Partnership.
FA-16
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
(7) |
Commitments and Other Agreements |
MCV has entered into numerous commitments and other agreements
related to the Facility. Principal agreements are summarized as
follows:
Power Purchase Agreement
MCV and Consumers have executed the PPA for the sale to
Consumers of a minimum amount of electricity, subject to the
capacity requirements of Dow and any other permissible
electricity purchasers. Consumers has the right to terminate
and/or withhold payment under the PPA if the Facility fails to
achieve certain operating levels or if MCV fails to provide
adequate fuel assurances. In the event of early termination of
the PPA, MCV would have a maximum liability of approximately
$270 million if the PPA were terminated in the 12th through
24th years. The term of this agreement is 35 years
from the commercial operation date and year-to-year thereafter.
Steam and Electric Power
Agreement
MCV and Dow executed the SEPA for the sale to Dow of certain
minimum amounts of steam and electricity for Dows
facilities.
If the SEPA is terminated, and Consumers does not fulfill
MCVs commitments as provided in the Backup Steam and
Electric Power Agreement, MCV will be required to pay Dow a
termination fee, calculated at that time, ranging from a minimum
of $60 million to a maximum of $85 million. This
agreement provides for the sale to Dow of steam and electricity
produced by the Facility for terms of 25 years and
15 years, respectively, commencing on the commercial
operation date and year-to-year thereafter.
Steam Purchase Agreement
MCV and DCC executed the SPA for the sale to DCC of certain
minimum amounts of steam for use at the DCC Midland site. Steam
sales under the SPA commenced in July 1996. Termination of this
agreement, prior to expiration, requires the terminating party
to pay to the other party a percentage of future revenues, which
would have been realized had the initial term of 15 years
been fulfilled. The percentage of future revenues payable is 50%
if termination occurs prior to the fifth anniversary of the
commercial operation date and
331/3%
if termination occurs after the fifth anniversary of this
agreement. The term of this agreement is 15 years from the
commercial operation date of steam deliveries under the contract
and year-to-year thereafter.
Gas Supply Agreements
MCV has entered into gas purchase agreements with various
producers for the supply of natural gas. The current contracted
volume totals 238,531 MMBtu per day annual average for
2005. As of January 1, 2005, gas contracts with
U.S. suppliers provide for the purchase of
173,336 MMBtu per day while gas contracts with Canadian
suppliers provide for the purchase of 65,195 MMBtu per day.
Some of these contracts require MCV to pay for a minimum amount
of natural gas per year, whether or not taken. The estimated
minimum commitments under these contracts based on current long
term prices for gas for the years 2005 through 2009 are
$384.6 million, $402.1 million, $436.7 million,
$358.8 million and $324.0 million, respectively. A
portion of these payments may be utilized in future years to
offset the cost of quantities of natural gas taken above the
minimum amounts.
Gas Transportation
Agreements
MCV has entered into firm natural gas transportation agreements
with various pipeline companies. These agreements require MCV to
pay certain reservation charges in order to reserve the
transportation capacity.
FA-17
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
MCV incurred reservation charges in 2004, 2003 and 2002, of
$35.5 million, $34.8 million and $35.1 million,
respectively. The estimated minimum reservation charges required
under these agreements for each of the years 2005 through 2009
are $34.3 million, $30.0 million, $21.6 million,
$21.6 million and $21.6 million, respectively. These
projections are based on current commitments.
Gas Turbine Service
Agreements
Under a Service Agreement, as amended, with Alstom, which
commenced on January 1, 1990 and was set to expire upon the
earlier of the completion of the sixth series of major GTG
inspections or December 31, 2009, Alstom sold MCV an
initial inventory of spare parts for the GTGs and provided
qualified service personnel and supporting staff to assist MCV,
to perform scheduled inspections on the GTGs, and to repair the
GTGs at MCVs request. The Service Agreement was terminated
for cause by MCV in February 2004. Alstom disputed MCVs
right to terminate for cause. The parties settled the dispute
and the agreement terminated in February 2004.MCV has a
maintenance service and parts agreement with General Electric
International, Inc. (GEII), which commenced
July 1, 2004 (GEII Agreement). GEII will
provide maintenance services and hot gas path parts for
MCVs twelve GTGs, including providing an initial inventory
of spare parts for the GTGs and providing qualified service
personnel and supporting staff to assist MCV, to perform
scheduled inspections on the GTGs, and to repair the GTGs at
MCVs request. Under terms and conditions similar to the
MCV/ Alstom Service Agreement, as described above the GEII
Agreement will cover four rounds of major GTG inspections, which
are expected to be completed by the year 2015, at a savings to
MCV as compared to the Service Agreement with Alstom. MCV is to
make monthly payments over the life of the contract totaling
approximately $207 million (subject to escalations based on
defined indices. The GEII Agreement can be terminated by either
party for cause or convenience. Should termination for
convenience occur, a buy out amount will be paid by the
terminating party with payments ranging from approximately
$19.0 million to $.9 million, based upon the number of
operating hours utilized since commencement of the GEII
Agreement.
Steam Turbine Service
Agreement
MCV entered into a nine year Steam Turbine Maintenance Agreement
with General Electric Company effective January 1, 1995,
which is designed to improve unit reliability, increase
availability and minimize unanticipated maintenance costs. In
addition, this contract includes performance incentives and
penalties, which are based on the length of each scheduled
outage and the number of forced outages during a calendar year.
Effective February 1, 2004, MCV and GE amended this
contract to extend its term through August 31, 2007. MCV
will continue making monthly payments over the life of the
contract, which will total $22.3 million (subject to
escalation based on defined indices). The parties have certain
termination rights without incurring penalties or damages for
such termination. Upon termination, MCV is only liable for
payment of services rendered or parts provided prior to
termination.
Site Lease
In December 1987, MCV leased the land on which the Facility is
located from Consumers (Site Lease). MCV and
Consumers amended and restated the Site Lease to reflect the
creation of five separate undivided interests in the Site Lease
as of June 1, 1990. Pursuant to the Overall Lease
Transaction, MCV assigned these undivided interests in the Site
Lease to the Owner Trustees, which in turn subleased the
undivided interests back to MCV under five separate site
subleases.
The Site Lease is for a term which commenced on
December 29, 1987, and ends on December 31, 2035,
including two renewal options of five years each. The rental
under the Site Lease is $.6 million per annum, including
the two five-year renewal terms.
FA-18
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
In 1997, MCV filed a property tax appeal against the City of
Midland at the Michigan Tax Tribunal contesting MCVs 1997
property taxes. Subsequently, MCV filed appeals contesting its
property taxes for tax years 1998 through 2004 at the Michigan
Tax Tribunal. A trial was held for tax years 1997-2000. The
appeals for tax years 2001-2004 are being held in abeyance. On
January 23, 2004, the Michigan Tax Tribunal issued its
decision in MCVs tax appeal against the City of Midland
for tax years 1997 through 2000 and has issued several orders
correcting errors in the initial decision (together the
MTT Decision). MCV management has estimated that the
MTT Decision will result in a refund to MCV for the tax years
1997 through 2000 of at least approximately $35.3 million
in taxes plus $9.6 million of interest as of
December 31, 2004. The MTT Decision has been appealed to
the Michigan Appellate Court by the City of Midland. MCV has
filed a cross-appeal at the Michigan Appellate Court. MCV
management cannot predict the outcome of these legal
proceedings. MCV has not recognized any of the above stated
refunds (net of approximately $16.1 million of deferred
expenses) in earnings at this time.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US
EPA) has approved the State of Michigans
State Implementation Plan (SIP), which includes an
interstate NOx budget and allowance trading program administered
by the US EPA beginning in 2004. Each NOx allowance permits
a source to emit one ton of NOx during the seasonal control
period, which for 2004 was from May 31 through
September 30. NOx allowances may be bought or sold and
unused allowances may be banked for future use, with
certain limitations. MCV estimates that it will have excess NOx
allowances to sell under this program. Consumers has given
notice to MCV that it believes the ownership of the NOx
allowances under this program belong, at least in part, to
Consumers. MCV has initiated the dispute resolution process
pursuant to the PPA to resolve this issue and the parties have
entered into a standstill agreement deferring the resolution of
this dispute. However, either party may terminate the standstill
agreement at any time and reinstate the PPAs dispute
resolution provisions. MCV management cannot predict the outcome
of this issue. As of December 31, 2004, MCV has sold 1,200
tons of 2004 allowances for $2.7 million, which is recorded
in Accounts payable and accrued liabilities, pending
resolution of ownership of these credits.
On July 12, 2004 the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), Air Quality Division, issued MCV a
Letter of Violation asserting that MCV violated its
Air Use Permit to Install No. 209-02 (PTI) by
exceeding the carbon monoxide emission limit on the Unit 14
GTG duct burner and failing to maintain certain records in the
required format. On July 13, 2004 the DEQ, Water Division,
issued MCV a Notice Letter asserting MCV violated
its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit by
discharging heated process waste water into the storm water
system, failure to document inspections, and other minor
infractions (alleged NPDES violations).
MCV has declared all duct burners as unavailable for operational
use (which reduces the generation capability of the Facility by
approximately 100 MW) and is assessing the duct burner
issue and has begun other corrective action to address the
DEQs assertions. MCV disagrees with certain of the
DEQs assertions. MCV filed responses to these DEQ letters
in July and August 2004. On December 13, 2004, the DEQ
informed MCV that it was pursuing an escalated enforcement
action against MCV regarding the alleged violations of
MCVs PTI. The DEQ also stated that the alleged violations
are deemed federally significant and, as such, placed MCV on the
United States Environmental Protection Agencys High
Priority Violators List (HPVL). The DEQ and MCV are
pursuing voluntary settlement of this matter, which will satisfy
state and federal requirements and remove MCV from the HPVL. Any
such settlement is likely to involve a fine,
FA-19
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
but the DEQ has not, at this time, stated what, if any, fine
they will seek to impose. At this time, MCV management cannot
predict the financial impact or outcome of these issues,
however, MCV believes it has resolved all issues associated with
the alleged NPDES violations and does not expect any further
MDEQ actions on this NPDES matter.
|
|
(9) |
Voluntary Severance Program |
In July 2004, MCV announced a Voluntary Severance Program
(VSP) for all employees (union and non-union
employees), subject to certain eligibility requirements. The VSP
entitled participating employees, upon termination, to a lump
sum payment, based upon number of years of service up to a
maximum of 52 weeks of wages. Nineteen employees elected to
participate in the VSP and MCV has recorded $1.7 million of
severance costs in Operating Expenses related to the
nineteen employees.
|
|
|
Postretirement Health Care Plans |
In 1992, MCV established defined cost postretirement health care
plans (Plans) that cover all full-time employees,
excluding key management. The Plans provide health care credits,
which can be utilized to purchase medical plan coverage and pay
qualified health care expenses. Participants become eligible for
the benefits if they retire on or after the attainment of
age 65 or upon a qualified disability retirement, or if
they have 10 or more years of service and retire at age 55
or older. The Plans granted retroactive benefits for all
employees hired prior to January 1, 1992. This prior
service cost has been amortized to expense over a five-year
period. MCV annually funds the current year service and interest
cost as well as amortization of prior service cost to both
qualified and non-qualified trusts. The MCV accounts for retiree
medical benefits in accordance with SFAS 106,
Employers Accounting for Postretirement Benefits Other
Than Pensions. This standard required the full accrual of
such costs during the years that the employee renders service to
the MCV until the date of full eligibility. The accumulated
benefit obligation of the Plans were $4.9 million at
December 31, 2004 and $3.3 million at
December 31, 2003. The measurement date of these Plans was
December 31, 2004.
The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization
Act of 2003 (the Act) was signed into law in
December 2003. The Act expanded Medicare to include, for the
first time, coverage for prescription drugs. At
December 31, 2003, based upon FASB staff position,
SFAS No. 106-1, Employers Accounting for
Postretirement Benefits Other Than Pensions, MCV had
elected to defer financial recognition of this legislation until
issuance of final accounting guidance. The final
SFAS No. 106-2 was issued in second quarter 2004 and
supersedes SFAS No. 106-1, which MCV adopted during
this same period. The adoption of this standard had no impact to
MCVs financial position because MCV does not consider its
Plans to be actuarially equivalent. The Plans benefits provided
to eligible participants are not annual or on-going in nature,
but are a readily exhaustible, lump-sum amount available for use
at the discretion of the participant.
FA-20
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table reconciles the change in the Plans
benefit obligation and change in Plan assets as reflected on the
balance sheet as of December 31 (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Change in benefit obligation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation at beginning of year
|
|
$ |
3,276.0 |
|
|
$ |
2,741.9 |
|
Service cost
|
|
|
232.1 |
|
|
|
212.5 |
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
174.8 |
|
|
|
178.2 |
|
Actuarial gain (loss)
|
|
|
1,298.0 |
|
|
|
147.4 |
|
Benefits paid during year
|
|
|
(8.3 |
) |
|
|
(4.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit obligation at end of year
|
|
|
4,972.6 |
|
|
|
3,276.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in Plan assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of Plan assets at beginning of year
|
|
|
2,826.8 |
|
|
|
2,045.8 |
|
Actual return on Plan assets
|
|
|
292.7 |
|
|
|
527.5 |
|
Employer contribution
|
|
|
206.5 |
|
|
|
257.5 |
|
Benefits paid during year
|
|
|
(8.3 |
) |
|
|
(4.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of Plan assets at end of year
|
|
|
3,317.7 |
|
|
|
2,826.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfunded (funded) status
|
|
|
1,654.9 |
|
|
|
449.2 |
|
Unrecognized prior service cost
|
|
|
(155.9 |
) |
|
|
(170.3 |
) |
Unrecognized net gain (loss)
|
|
|
(1,499.0 |
) |
|
|
(278.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued benefit cost
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic postretirement health care cost for years ending
December 31, included the following components (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Components of net periodic benefit cost:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$ |
232.1 |
|
|
$ |
212.5 |
|
|
$ |
197.3 |
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
174.8 |
|
|
|
178.2 |
|
|
|
188.7 |
|
Expected return on Plan assets
|
|
|
(216.1 |
) |
|
|
(163.7 |
) |
|
|
(167.0 |
) |
Amortization of unrecognized net (gain) or loss
|
|
|
15.7 |
|
|
|
30.5 |
|
|
|
14.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost
|
|
$ |
206.5 |
|
|
$ |
257.5 |
|
|
$ |
233.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assumed health care cost trend rates have a significant effect
on the amounts reported for the health care plans. A
one-percentage-point change in assumed health care cost trend
rates would have the following effects (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-Percentage- | |
|
1-Percentage | |
|
|
Point | |
|
Point | |
|
|
Increase | |
|
Decrease | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Effect on total of service and interest cost components
|
|
$ |
51.6 |
|
|
$ |
44.7 |
|
Effect on postretirement benefit obligation
|
|
$ |
514.8 |
|
|
$ |
447.1 |
|
FA-21
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
Assumptions used in accounting for the Post-Retirement Health
Care Plan were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Discount rate
|
|
|
5.75% |
|
|
|
6.00% |
|
|
|
6.75% |
|
Long-term rate of return on Plan assets
|
|
|
8.00% |
|
|
|
8.00% |
|
|
|
8.00% |
|
Inflation benefit amount
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1998 through 2004
|
|
|
0.00% |
|
|
|
0.00% |
|
|
|
0.00% |
|
|
2005 and later years
|
|
|
5.00% |
|
|
|
4.00% |
|
|
|
4.00% |
|
The long-term rate of return on Plan assets is established based
on MCVs expectations of asset returns for the investment
mix in its Plan (with some reliance on historical asset returns
for the Plans). The expected returns for various asset
categories are blended to derive one long-term assumption.
Plan Assets. Citizens Bank has been appointed as trustee
(Trustee) of the Plan. The Trustee serves as
investment consultant, with the responsibility of providing
financial information and general guidance to the MCV Benefits
Committee. The Trustee shall invest the assets of the Plan in
the separate investment options in accordance with instructions
communicated to the Trustee from time to time by the MCV Benefit
Committee. The MCV Benefits Committee has the fiduciary and
investment selection responsibility for the Plan. The MCV
Benefits Committee consists of MCV Officers (excluding the
President and Chief Executive Officer).
The MCV has a target allocation of 80% equities and 20% debt
instruments. These investments emphasis total growth return,
with a moderate risk level. The MCV Benefits Committee reviews
the performance of the Plan investments quarterly, based on a
long-term investment horizon and applicable benchmarks, with
rebalancing of the investment portfolio, at the discretion of
the MCV Benefits Committee.
MCVs Plans weighted-average asset allocations, by
asset category are as follows as of December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Asset Category:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
|
1 |
% |
|
|
11 |
% |
Fixed income
|
|
|
19 |
% |
|
|
17 |
% |
Equity securities
|
|
|
80 |
% |
|
|
72 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributions. MCV expects to contribute approximately
$.4 million to the Plan in 2005.
Retirement and Savings Plans
MCV sponsors a defined contribution retirement plan covering all
employees. Under the terms of the plan, MCV makes contributions
to the plan of either five or ten percent of an employees
eligible annual compensation dependent upon the employees
age. MCV also sponsors a 401(k) savings plan for employees.
Contributions and costs for this plan are based on matching an
employees savings up to a maximum level. In 2004, 2003 and
2002, MCV contributed $1.4 million, $1.3 million and
$1.2 million, respectively under these plans.
Supplemental Retirement
Benefits
MCV provides supplemental retirement, postretirement health care
and excess benefit plans for key management. These plans are not
qualified plans under the Internal Revenue Code; therefore,
earnings of the trusts maintained by MCV to fund these plans are
taxable to the Partners and trust assets are included in the
assets of MCV.
FA-22
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
(11) |
Partners Equity and Related Party Transactions |
The following table summarizes the nature and amount of each of
MCVs Partners equity interest, interest in profits
and losses of MCV at December 31, 2004, and the nature and
amount of related party transactions or agreements that existed
with the Partners or affiliates as of December 31, 2004,
2003 and 2002, and for each of the twelve month periods ended
December 31 (in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beneficial Owner, Equity Partner, |
|
Equity | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Type of Partner and Nature of Related Party |
|
Interest | |
|
Interest | |
|
Related Party Transactions and Agreements |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
CMS Energy Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CMS Midland, Inc.
|
|
$ |
396,888 |
|
|
|
49.0 |
% |
|
Power purchase agreements |
|
$ |
601,535 |
|
|
$ |
513,774 |
|
|
$ |
557,149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General Partner; wholly-owned
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases under gas transportation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
subsidiary of Consumers Energy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
agreements |
|
|
9,349 |
|
|
|
14,294 |
|
|
|
23,552 |
|
|
Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases under spot gas agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
663 |
|
|
|
3,631 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases under gas supply agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,330 |
|
|
|
11,306 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gas storage agreement |
|
|
2,563 |
|
|
|
2,563 |
|
|
|
2,563 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land lease/easement agreements |
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable |
|
|
50,364 |
|
|
|
40,373 |
|
|
|
44,289 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
1,031 |
|
|
|
1,025 |
|
|
|
3,502 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales under spot gas agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,260 |
|
|
|
1,084 |
|
El Paso Corporation
|
|
$ |
141,397 |
|
|
|
18.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Source Midland Limited Partnership
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase under gas transportation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(SMLP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
agreements |
|
|
12,334 |
|
|
|
13,023 |
|
|
|
12,463 |
|
|
General Partner; owned by
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases under spot gas agreement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
610 |
|
|
|
15,655 |
|
|
subsidiaries of El Paso Corporation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases under gas supply agreement |
|
|
70,000 |
|
|
|
54,308 |
|
|
|
47,136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gas agency agreement |
|
|
264 |
|
|
|
238 |
|
|
|
365 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred reservation charges under gas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
purchase agreement |
|
|
3,152 |
|
|
|
4,728 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
523 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
10,997 |
|
|
|
5,751 |
|
|
|
7,706 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales under spot gas agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,474 |
|
|
|
14,007 |
|
El Paso Midland, Inc. (El Paso Midland)
|
|
|
84,838 |
|
|
|
10.9 |
|
|
See related party activity listed under |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General Partner; wholly-owned subsidiary of El Paso
Corporation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMLP. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MEI Limited Partnership (MEI)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See related party activity listed under |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A General and Limited Partner; 50% interest owned by
El Paso Midland, Inc. and 50% interest owned by SMLP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMLP. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
General Partnership Interest
|
|
|
70,701 |
|
|
|
9.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Limited Partnership Interest
|
|
|
7,068 |
|
|
|
.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Micogen Limited Partnership (MLP)
|
|
|
35,348 |
|
|
|
4.5 |
|
|
See related party activity listed under |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Limited Partner, owned subsidiaries of El Paso Corporation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SMLP. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total El Paso Corporation
|
|
$ |
339,352 |
|
|
|
43.5 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Dow Chemical Company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Dow Chemical Company
|
|
$ |
73,735 |
|
|
|
7.5 |
% |
|
Steam and electric power agreement |
|
|
39,055 |
|
|
|
36,207 |
|
|
|
29,385 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Limited Partner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steam purchase agreement Dow Corning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corp (affiliate) |
|
|
4,289 |
|
|
|
4,017 |
|
|
|
3,746 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases under demineralized water |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
supply agreement |
|
|
8,142 |
|
|
|
6,396 |
|
|
|
6,605 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts receivable |
|
|
4,003 |
|
|
|
3,431 |
|
|
|
3,635 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
744 |
|
|
|
610 |
|
|
|
1,016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standby and backup fees |
|
|
766 |
|
|
|
731 |
|
|
|
734 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sales of gas under tolling agreement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,442 |
|
Alanna Corporation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alanna Corporation
|
|
$ |
1 |
(1) |
|
|
.00001 |
% |
|
Note receivable |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Limited Partner; wholly-owned subsidiary of Alanna Holdings
Corporation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Footnotes to Partners Equity and Related Party
Transactions
|
|
(1) |
Alannas capital stock is pledged to secure MCVs
obligation under the lease and other overall lease transaction
documents. |
FA-23
EL PASO CORPORATION
UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Unaudited Pro Forma Financial Statements
On January 14, 2005, we sold our remaining interests in
Enterprise Products GP, LLC, the general partner of Enterprise
Products Partners, L.P., and Enterprise Products Partners L.P.
(Enterprise) to affiliates of EPCO, Inc. for approximately
$425 million. The transaction included the sale of our
9.9 percent membership interest in the general partner of
Enterprise and approximately 13.5 million common units in
Enterprise. Previously, on September 30, 2004, we completed
the sale of a portion of our ownership interests in GulfTerra
Energy Partners, L.P. (GulfTerra) and nine
processing plants in South Texas to affiliates of Enterprise.
The sales were completed in connection with the closing of the
merger between GulfTerra and Enterprise.
In April 2005, our Board of Directors approved the planned sale
of our Asian power asset portfolio. As part of this planned
sale, we entered into separate agreements to sell our Korean,
Chinese and other Asian power plants. Our other Asian power
plants consist of two consolidated power plants and six
unconsolidated interests that have been accounted for under the
equity method. In August 2005 we announced the sale of our south
Louisiana gathering and processing assets, which were reported
as discontinued operations for the quarter and six months ended
June 30, 2005.
The unaudited pro forma financial statements that follow are
based on our historical consolidated financial statements
adjusted for the effects of the sales of our interests in
Enterprise and GulfTerra, the nine processing plants, and for
the anticipated sale of our interests in the other Asian power
assets. The sale of our Korean assets and planned sale of our
Chinese and south Louisiana assets were not significant for
purposes of preparing these unaudited pro forma financial
statements. The unaudited pro forma balance sheet as of
June 30, 2005, assumes that the anticipated disposition of
the other Asian power assets occurred on the balance sheet date.
The unaudited pro forma statements of income for the six months
ended June 30, 2005, and for the year ended
December 31, 2004, assume that these dispositions occurred
on January 1, 2004. The unaudited pro forma financial
statements should be read in conjunction with the historical
consolidated financial statements for the six months ended
June 30, 2005, and for the year ended December 31,
2004, included on pages F-1 through F-120 of this
prospectus, and should not be construed to be indicative of
future results or results that actually would have occurred had
the transactions occurred on the dates presented. Furthermore,
there can be no assurance that the sale of these assets will
occur as anticipated. Finally, these pro forma financial
statements were prepared in accordance with Article 11 of
Regulation S-X. Accordingly, we have not assumed any cost
savings or synergies that might occur related to these
transactions.
FB-1
EL PASO CORPORATION
UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
As of June 30, 2005
(In millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro Forma | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustments | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other | |
|
|
|
|
El Paso | |
|
Asia Power | |
|
|
|
|
Historical | |
|
Assets | |
|
Pro Forma | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
ASSETS |
Current assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$ |
1,540 |
|
|
$ |
180 |
(a) |
|
$ |
1,710 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10 |
)(a) |
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts and notes receivable, net
|
|
|
1,216 |
|
|
|
(8 |
)(a) |
|
|
1,208 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2,050 |
|
|
|
(6 |
)(a) |
|
|
2,044 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
4,806 |
|
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
4,962 |
|
Property, plant and equipment, net
|
|
|
18,687 |
|
|
|
(6 |
)(a) |
|
|
18,681 |
|
Other assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
2,275 |
|
|
|
(100 |
)(a) |
|
|
2,175 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
3,908 |
|
|
|
(45 |
)(a) |
|
|
3,863 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$ |
29,676 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
29,681 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY |
Current liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accounts payable
|
|
$ |
1,199 |
|
|
$ |
(8 |
)(a) |
|
$ |
1,191 |
|
|
Short-term financing obligations, including current maturities
|
|
|
1,099 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,099 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2,361 |
|
|
|
(6 |
)(a) |
|
|
2,355 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current liabilities
|
|
|
4,659 |
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
4,645 |
|
Long-term debt
|
|
|
16,379 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,379 |
|
Other liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred income taxes
|
|
|
1,528 |
|
|
|
(5 |
)(a) |
|
|
1,523 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
3,251 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,251 |
|
Commitments and contingencies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities of subsidiaries
|
|
|
59 |
|
|
|
(3 |
)(a) |
|
|
56 |
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock
|
|
|
750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
750 |
|
|
Common stock
|
|
|
1,959 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,959 |
|
|
Additional paid-in-capital
|
|
|
4,431 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,431 |
|
|
Accumulated deficit
|
|
|
(2,941 |
) |
|
|
18 |
(a) |
|
|
(2,918 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
(a) |
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(399 |
) |
|
|
4 |
(a) |
|
|
(395 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity
|
|
|
3,800 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
3,827 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity
|
|
$ |
29,676 |
|
|
$ |
5 |
|
|
$ |
29,681 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes
FB-2
EL PASO CORPORATION
UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME
For The Six Months Ended June 30, 2005
(In millions, except per common share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro Forma Adjustments | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other | |
|
|
|
|
El Paso | |
|
GulfTerra/ | |
|
Asia Power | |
|
|
|
|
Historical | |
|
Enterprise | |
|
Assets | |
|
Pro Forma | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
2,366 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(28 |
)(b) |
|
$ |
2,338 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of products and services
|
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
159 |
|
|
Operation and maintenance
|
|
|
880 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27 |
)(b) |
|
|
853 |
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
574 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3 |
)(b) |
|
|
571 |
|
|
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
381 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37 |
)(b) |
|
|
344 |
|
|
Taxes, other than income taxes
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,130 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(67 |
) |
|
|
2,063 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
236 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
275 |
|
Earnings from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
171 |
|
|
|
(183 |
)(e) |
|
|
55 |
(b) |
|
|
43 |
|
Other income, net
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1 |
)(b) |
|
|
103 |
|
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
(690 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(690 |
) |
Distributions on preferred interests of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
(188 |
) |
|
|
(183 |
) |
|
|
93 |
|
|
|
(278 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
(64 |
)(f) |
|
|
69 |
(c) |
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(131 |
) |
|
$ |
(119 |
) |
|
$ |
24 |
|
|
$ |
(226 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted income per common share from continuing
operations
|
|
$ |
(0.22 |
) (d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(0.37 |
) (d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
640 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
640 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
FB-3
EL PASO CORPORATION
UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME
For The Twelve Months Ended December 31, 2004
(In millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro Forma Adjustments | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other | |
|
|
|
|
El Paso | |
|
GulfTerra/ | |
|
Asia Power | |
|
|
|
|
Historical | |
|
Enterprise | |
|
Assets | |
|
Pro Forma | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
5,874 |
|
|
$ |
(722 |
) (e) |
|
$ |
(52 |
) (b) |
|
$ |
5,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of products and services
|
|
|
1,363 |
|
|
|
(528 |
)(e) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
835 |
|
|
Operation and maintenance
|
|
|
1,872 |
|
|
|
(12 |
)(e) |
|
|
(48 |
)(b) |
|
|
1,812 |
|
|
Depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
1,088 |
|
|
|
(8 |
)(e) |
|
|
(7 |
)(b) |
|
|
1,073 |
|
|
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
1,108 |
|
|
|
(491 |
)(e) |
|
|
(30 |
)(b) |
|
|
587 |
|
|
Taxes, other than income taxes
|
|
|
253 |
|
|
|
(2 |
)(e) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
251 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,684 |
|
|
|
(1,041 |
) |
|
|
(85 |
) |
|
|
4,558 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income
|
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
319 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
542 |
|
Earnings from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
546 |
|
|
|
(613 |
)(e) |
|
|
118 |
(b) |
|
|
51 |
|
Other income, net
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
)(b) |
|
|
92 |
|
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
(1,607 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
(b) |
|
|
(1,606 |
) |
Distributions on preferred interests of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before income taxes
|
|
|
(802 |
) |
|
|
(294 |
) |
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
(946 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
(242 |
)(f) |
|
|
(8 |
)(c) |
|
|
(219 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(833 |
) |
|
$ |
(52 |
) |
|
$ |
158 |
|
|
$ |
(727 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted loss per common share from continuing
operations
|
|
$ |
(1.30 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(1.14 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
639 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
639 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes
FB-4
EL PASO CORPORATION
NOTES TO THE UNAUDITED PRO FORMA CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
El Paso Historical
These amounts represent our condensed historical consolidated
balance sheet and income statement information. Amounts as of
and for the six months ended June 30, 2005 were derived
from our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, for the six months
ended June 30, 2005. Amounts for the year ended
December 31, 2004 were derived from our 2004 Annual Report
on Form 10-K, as amended.
Pro Forma Adjustments
These amounts represent the historical results and balances
related to our unconsolidated interests in our other Asian power
assets including our interests in the Habibullah, Saba, Khulna,
NEPC (Haripur), Fauji and Sengkang power plants, which have been
accounted for using the equity method and our consolidated
interests in the CEBU and East Asia Utility Power plants, as of
and for the periods presented. The pro forma adjusting entries
reflect the anticipated sale of these interests.
|
|
|
These amounts represent the historical results related to our
interests in Enterprise and GulfTerra which were accounted for
as equity investments and the nine processing plants sold to
affiliates of EPCO, Inc. for the period presented. The pro forma
adjusting entries reflect the following transactions: |
|
|
|
|
|
The sale of all of our interest in the general partner of
Enterprise and GulfTerra; |
|
|
|
The elimination of all effects of our common units of GulfTerra
and Enterprise and Series C units of GulfTerra; and |
|
|
|
The elimination of all non-affiliated effects of the nine
processing plants sold. |
Pro Forma Adjusting Entries
(a) To reflect the pro forma effects of the anticipated
sale of our interests in the other Asian power assets noted
above on our condensed consolidated balance sheet. The pro forma
effects include the following:
|
|
|
(1) Receipt of anticipated proceeds of $180 million
from the sale of these interests based on bids received. |
|
|
(2) Elimination of the individual assets and liabilities of
the consolidated power plants and our interests in the
unconsolidated power plants. |
|
|
(3) Recognition of a gain on the sale of our interests in
the Asian power assets of $18 million. |
|
|
(4) Recognition of the income tax liability of
$5 million on the gain on the sale. |
(b) To reflect the pro forma effects of the sale of the
interests in our other Asian power assets noted above on our
condensed consolidated income statements. The pro forma effects
include adjustments for the historical results of operations for
the consolidated power plants and unconsolidated affiliates.
These adjustments include impairment charges recorded during the
six months ended June 30, 2005 and the year ended
December 31, 2004.
(c) To eliminate actual U.S. income taxes for our
other Asian assets in 2004 and the first six months of 2005. We
expect to receive a portion of the proceeds from the sales of
these assets within the U.S. and
FB-5
recorded net deferred tax assets and a corresponding income tax
expense/benefit on the book versus tax basis differences in
these investments. Amounts also reflect the elimination of local
income and withholding taxes.
(d) Earnings per share computations for 2005 include the
effect of $8 million of preferred stock dividends.
(e) To reflect the pro forma effects of the sale of our
Enterprise and GulfTerra interests and nine processing plants on
our condensed consolidated income statement. The pro forma
effects include the following:
|
|
|
(1) Adjustment for the historical results of operations for
our nine processing plants, including impairment charges
recorded during 2004 on these assets; |
|
|
(2) Reduction of earnings from unconsolidated affiliates in
2004 for (i) all of our general partner interests in
Enterprise and GulfTerra, (ii) all of our Series C
units in GulfTerra and (iii) all of the common units sold
in both GulfTerra and Enterprise; and |
|
|
(3) Elimination of gains and losses on long-lived assets
during 2004 on sales of our Enterprise and GulfTerra interests,
and during 2005 on the sale of our remaining interest in
Enterprise. |
(f) To reflect income taxes related to the income statement
adjustments. Income taxes were computed using a statutory rate
of 35 percent, except for taxes on the 2004 net gain
related to the sale of our interests in GulfTerra and our nine
processing plants. Taxes on the 2004 net gain were computed
separately and resulted in an increase in our tax expense of
$139 million due to the non-deductibility of goodwill which
was written off as a result of these transactions. The statutory
rate of 35 percent differs from our effective tax rate.
FB-6
,
2005
El Paso Corporation
4.99% Convertible Perpetual Preferred Stock
(liquidation preference $1,000 per share)
Common Stock
PROSPECTUS
WE HAVE NOT AUTHORIZED ANY DEALER, SALESPERSON OR OTHER PERSON
TO GIVE YOU WRITTEN INFORMATION OTHER THAN THIS PROSPECTUS OR TO
MAKE REPRESENTATIONS AS TO MATTERS NOT STATED IN THIS
PROSPECTUS. YOU MUST NOT RELY ON UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION. THIS
PROSPECTUS IS NOT AN OFFER TO SELL THESE SECURITIES OR OUR
SOLICITATION OF YOUR OFFER TO BUY THESE SECURITIES IN ANY
JURISDICTION WHERE THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED OR LEGAL. NEITHER
THE DELIVERY OF THIS PROSPECTUS NOR ANY SALES MADE HEREUNDER
AFTER THE DATE OF THIS PROSPECTUS SHALL CREATE AN IMPLICATION
THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN OR THE AFFAIRS OF EL PASO
HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE THE DATE HEREOF.
PART II
INFORMATION NOT REQUIRED IN PROSPECTUS
|
|
ITEM 13. |
OTHER EXPENSES OF ISSUANCE AND DISTRIBUTION |
The following table sets forth the costs and expenses, to be
incurred by the registrant in connection with the registration
of the preferred stock and common stock. All amounts shown are
estimated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SEC registration fee
|
|
$ |
88,000 |
|
Printing and engraving expenses
|
|
|
100,000 |
|
Legal fees and expenses
|
|
|
150,000 |
|
Accounting fees and expenses
|
|
|
75,000 |
|
Miscellaneous
|
|
|
50,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
463,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Reference is made to the Plan of Distribution for
the description of expenses to be incurred by the Selling
Stockholders.
|
|
ITEM 14. |
INDEMNIFICATION OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS |
Section 145 of the Delaware General Corporation Law
provides that a corporation may indemnify directors and officers
as well as other employees and individuals against expenses
(including attorneys fees), judgments, fines, and amounts
paid in settlement in connection with specified actions, rules,
or proceedings, whether civil, criminal, administrative, or
investigative (other than action by or in the right of the
corporation a derivative action), if
they acted in good faith and in a manner they reasonably
believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the
corporation and, with respect to any criminal action or
proceeding, had no reasonable cause to believe their conduct was
unlawful. A similar standard is applicable in the case of
derivative actions, except that indemnification only extends to
expenses (including attorneys fees) incurred in connection
with the defense or settlement of such action, and the statute
requires court approval before there can be any indemnification
where the person seeking indemnification has been found liable
to the corporation. The statute provides that it is not
exclusive of other indemnification that may be granted by a
corporations charter, by-laws, disinterested director
vote, stockholder vote, agreement, or otherwise.
Article X of El Pasos By-laws requires
indemnification to the full extent permitted under Delaware law
as from time to time in effect. Subject to any restrictions
imposed by Delaware law, the By-laws of El Paso provide an
unconditional right to indemnification for all expense,
liability, and loss (including attorneys fees, judgments,
fines, ERISA excise taxes, or penalties and amounts paid in
settlement) actually and reasonably incurred or suffered by any
person in connection with any actual or threatened proceeding
(including, to the extent permitted by law, any derivative
action) by reason of the fact that such person is or was serving
as a director, officer, or employee of El Paso or that,
being or having been such a director or officer or an employee
of El Paso, such person is or was serving at the request of
El Paso as a director, officer, employee, or agent of
another corporation, partnership, joint venture, trust, or other
enterprise, including an employee benefit plan. The By-laws of
El Paso also provide that El Paso may, by action of
its Board of Directors, provide indemnification to its agents
with the same scope and effect as the foregoing indemnification
of directors and officers.
Section 102(b)(7) of the Delaware General Corporation Law
permits a corporation to provide in its certificate of
incorporation that a director of the corporation shall not be
personally liable to the corporation or its stockholders for
monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a director,
except for liability for (i) any breach of the
directors duty of loyalty to the corporation or its
stockholders, (ii) acts or omissions not in good faith or
which involve intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of
law, (iii) payment of unlawful dividends or unlawful stock
purchases or redemptions, or (iv) any transaction from
which the director derived an improper personal benefit.
II-1
Article 10 of El Pasos Restated Certificate of
Incorporation, as amended, provides that to the full extent that
the Delaware General Corporation Law, as it now exists or may
hereafter be amended, permits the limitation or elimination of
the liability of directors, a director of El Paso shall not
be liable to El Paso or its stockholders for monetary
damages for breach of fiduciary duty as a director. Any
amendment to or repeal of such Article 10 shall not
adversely affect any right or protection of a director of
El Paso for or with respect to any acts or omissions of
such director occurring prior to such amendment or repeal.
El Paso has entered into indemnification agreements with
each member of the Board of Directors and certain officers,
including each of the executives named in this registration
statement. These agreements reiterate the rights to
indemnification that are provided to our Board of Directors and
certain officers under El Pasos By-laws, clarify
procedures related to those rights, and provide that such rights
are also available to fiduciaries under certain of
El Pasos employee benefit plans. As is the case under
the By-laws, the agreements provide for indemnification to the
full extent permitted by Delaware law, including the right to be
paid the reasonable expenses (including attorneys fees)
incurred in defending a proceeding related to service as a
director, officer or fiduciary in advance of that proceedings
final disposition. El Paso may maintain insurance, enter
into contracts, create a trust fund or use other means available
to provide for indemnity payments and advances. In the event of
a change in control of El Paso (as defined in the
indemnification agreements), El Paso is obligated to pay
the costs of independent legal counsel who will provide advice
concerning the rights of each director and officer to indemnity
payments and advances.
El Paso maintains directors and officers
liability insurance which provides for payment, on behalf of the
directors and officers of El Paso and its subsidiaries, of
certain losses of such persons (other than matters uninsurable
under law) arising from claims, including claims arising under
the Securities Act, for acts or omissions by such persons while
acting as directors or officers of El Paso and/or its
subsidiaries, as the case may be.
|
|
ITEM 15. |
RECENT SALES OF UNREGISTERED SECURITIES |
On April 15, 2005, we issued 750,000 shares of
4.99% Convertible Perpetual Preferred Stock in a private
placement under Rule 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended. The initial purchasers in the transaction were Banc of
America Securities LLC and Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. The
preferred stock was offered and sold by the initial purchasers
only to qualified institutional investors in accordance with
Rule 144A under the Securities Act. The gross proceeds to
El Paso were approximately $750 million, and the net
proceeds to El Paso (after deducting the initial
purchasers discounts and commissions and
El Pasos estimated expenses) were approximately
$722 million.
Each exhibit identified below is filed as part of this
registration statement. Exhibits not incorporated by reference
to a prior filing or previously filed are designated by an
*; all exhibits not so designated are incorporated
herein by reference to a prior filing as indicated. Exhibits
designated with a + constitute a management contract
or compensatory plan or arrangement required to be filed as an
exhibit to this registration statement pursuant to
Item 601(b)(10) of Regulation S-K.
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No. |
|
Exhibit |
|
|
|
|
2 |
.A |
|
Merger Agreement, dated as of December 15, 2003, by and
among Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Enterprise Products GP,
LLC, Enterprise Products Management LLC, GulfTerra Energy
Partners, L.P. and GulfTerra Energy Company, L.L.C. (including
the form of Assumption Agreement to be entered into in
connection with the merger, attached as an exhibit thereto)
(Exhibit 2.1 to our Form 8-K filed December 15,
2003) |
II-2
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No. |
|
Exhibit |
|
|
|
|
2 |
.B |
|
Parent Company Agreement, dated as of December 15, 2003, by
and among Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Enterprise Products
GP, LLC, Enterprise Products GTM, LLC, El Paso Corporation,
Sabine River Investors I, L.L.C., Sabine River
Investors II, L.L.C., El Paso EPN Investments, L.L.C.
and GulfTerra GP Holding Company (including the form of Second
Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of
Enterprise Products GP, LLC, to be entered into in connection
with the merger, attached as an exhibit thereto)
(Exhibit 2.2 to our Form 8-K filed December 15,
2003); Amendment No. 1 to Parent Company Agreement, dated
as of December 15, 2003, by and among Enterprise Products
Partners L.P., Enterprise Products GP, LLC, Enterprise Products
GTM, LLC, El Paso Corporation, Sabine River
Investors I, L.L.C., Sabine River Investors II,
L.L.C., El Paso EPN Investments, L.L.C. and GulfTerra GP
Holding Company, dated as of April 19, 2004 (including the
forms of Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company
Agreement of Enterprise Products GP, LLC, Exchange and
Registration Rights Agreement and Performance Guaranty, to be
entered into by the parties named therein in connection with the
merger of Enterprise and GulfTerra, attached as Exhibits 1,
2 and 3, respectively, thereto) (Exhibit 2.1 to our
Form 8-K filed April 21, 2004); Second Amended and
Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of GulfTerra Energy
Company, L.L.C., adopted by GulfTerra GP Holding Company, a
Delaware corporation, and Enterprise Products GTM, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, as of December 15, 2003
(Exhibit 2.3 to our Form 8-K filed December 15,
2003); Purchase and Sale Agreement (Gas Plants), dated as of
December 15, 2003, by and between El Paso Corporation,
El Paso Field Services Management, Inc., El Paso
Transmission, L.L.C., El Paso Field Services Holding
Company and Enterprise Products Operating L.P. (Exhibit 2.4
to our Form 8-K filed December 15, 2003) |
|
2 |
.B.1 |
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated as of January 14, 2005,
by and among Enterprise GP Holdings, L.P., Sabine River
Investors I, L.L.C., Sabine River Investors II,
L.L.C., El Paso Corporation and GulfTerra GP Holding
Company (Exhibit 2.B.1 to our 2004 Form 10-K) |
|
3 |
.A |
|
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation effective as
of May 26, 2005 (Exhibit 3.A to our Current Report on
Form 8-K filed May 27, 2005) |
|
3 |
.B |
|
By-Laws effective as of July 31, 2003 (Exhibit 3.B to
our 2003 Second Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
4 |
.A |
|
Indenture dated as of May 10, 1999, by and between
El Paso and HSBC Bank USA, National Association (as
successor-in-interest to JPMorgan Chase Bank (formerly The Chase
Manhattan Bank)), as Trustee (Exhibit 4.A to our 2004
Form 10-K) |
|
4 |
.B |
|
Certificate of Designations of 4.99% Convertible Perpetual
Preferred Stock (included in Exhibit 3.A to our Current
Report on Form 8-K filed May 27, 2005) |
|
4 |
.C |
|
Registration Rights Agreement, dated April 15, 2005, by and
among El Paso Corporation and the Initial Purchasers party
thereto (Exhibit 4.A to our Current Report on Form 8-K
filed April 15, 2005) |
|
*5 |
.A |
|
Opinion of Andrews Kurth LLP as to the legality of the common
stock (to be filed by amendment) |
|
10 |
.A |
|
Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of
November 23, 2004, among El Paso Corporation, ANR
Pipeline Company, Colorado Interstate Gas Company, El Paso
Natural Gas Company, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, the several
banks and other financial institutions from time to time parties
thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent
and as collateral agent (Exhibit 10.A to our Form 8-K
filed November 29, 2004); Amended and Restated Subsidiary
Guarantee Agreement dated as of November 23, 2004, made by
each of the Subsidiary Guarantors, as defined therein, in favor
of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as collateral agent
(Exhibit 10.C to our Form 8-K filed November 29,
2004); Amended and Restated Parent Guarantee Agreement dated as
of November 23, 2004, made by El Paso Corporation, in
favor of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Collateral Agent
(Exhibit 10.D to our Form 8-K filed November 29,
2004) |
|
10 |
.B |
|
Amended and Restated Security Agreement dated as of
November 23, 2004, among El Paso Corporation, ANR
Pipeline Company, Colorado Interstate Gas Company, El Paso
Natural Gas Company, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, the
Subsidiary Grantors and certain other credit parties thereto and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., not in its individual capacity, but
solely as collateral agent for the Secured Parties and as the
depository bank (Exhibit 10.B to our Form 8-K filed
November 29, 2004) |
II-3
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No. |
|
Exhibit |
|
|
|
|
10 |
.C |
|
$3,000,000,00 Revolving Credit Agreement dated as of
April 16, 2003 among El Paso Corporation, El Paso
Natural Gas Company, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and ANR
Pipeline Company, as Borrowers, the Lenders Party thereto, and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Administrative Agent, ABN AMRO Bank N.V.
and Citicorp North America, Inc., as Co-Document Agents, Bank of
America, N.A. and Credit Suisse First Boston, as Co-Syndication
Agents, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. and Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., as Joint Bookrunners and Co-Lead Arrangers
(Exhibit 99.1 to our Form 8-K filed April 18,
2003); First Amendment to the $3,000,000,000 Revolving Credit
Agreement and Waiver dated as of March 17, 2004 among
El Paso Corporation, El Paso Natural Gas Company,
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, ANR Pipeline Company and
Colorado Interstate Gas Company, as Borrowers, the Lender and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Administrative Agent, ABN AMRO Bank N.V.
and Citicorp North America, Inc., as Co-Documentation Agents,
Bank of America, N.A. and Credit Suisse First Boston, as
Co-Syndication Agents (Exhibit 10.A.1 to our 2003
Form 10-K); Second Waiver to the $3,000,000,000 Revolving
Credit Agreement dated as of June 15, 2004 among
El Paso Corporation, El Paso Natural Gas Company,
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, ANR Pipeline Company and
Colorado Interstate Gas Company, as Borrowers, the Lenders party
thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Administrative Agent, ABN
AMRO Bank N.V. and Citicorp North America, Inc., as
Co-Documentation Agents, Bank of America, N.A. and Credit Suisse
First Boston, as Co-Syndication Agents (Exhibit 10.A.2 to
our 2003 Form 10-K); Second Amendment to the $3,000,000,000
Revolving Credit Agreement and Third Waiver dated as of
August 6, 2004 among El Paso Corporation, El Paso
Natural Gas Company, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, ANR
Pipeline Company and Colorado Interstate Gas Company, as
Borrowers, the Lenders party thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, as
Administrative Agent, ABN AMRO Bank N.V. and Citicorp North
America, Inc., as Co-Documentation Agents, Bank of America, N.A.
and Credit Suisse First Boston, as Co-Syndication Agents
(Exhibit 99.B to our Form 8-K filed August 10,
2004) |
|
10 |
.D |
|
$1,000,000,000 Amended and Restated 3-Year Revolving Credit
Agreement dated as of April 16, 2003 among El Paso
Corporation, El Paso Natural Gas Company and Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Company, as Borrowers, The Lenders Party Thereto, and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Administrative Agent, ABN AMRO Bank N.V.
and Citicorp North America, Inc., as Co-Document Agents, Bank of
America, N.A., as Syndication Agent, J.P. Morgan Securities
Inc. and Citigroup Global Markets Inc., as Joint Bookrunners and
Co-Lead Arrangers. (Exhibit 99.2 to our Form 8-K filed
April 18, 2003) |
|
10 |
.E |
|
Security and Intercreditor Agreement dated as of April 16,
2003 Among El Paso Corporation, the Persons Referred to
therein as Pipeline Company Borrowers, the Persons Referred to
therein as Grantors, Each of the Representative Agents, JPMorgan
Chase Bank, as Credit Agreement Administrative Agent and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Collateral Agent, Intercreditor Agent,
and Depository Bank. (Exhibit 99.3 to our Form 8-K
filed April 18, 2003) |
|
+10 |
.F |
|
1995 Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors Amended and
Restated effective as of December 4, 2003
(Exhibit 10.F to our 2003 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.G |
|
Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors Amended and
Restated effective as of January 20, 1999 (Exhibit 10.G to
our 2004 Form 10-K); Amendment No. 1 effective as of
July 16, 1999 to the Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee
Directors (Exhibit 10.G.1 to our 2004 Form 10-K); Amendment
No. 2 effective as of February 7, 2001 to the Stock
Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors (Exhibit 10.F.1 to
our 2001 First Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
+10 |
.H |
|
2001 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors effective as
of January 29, 2001 (Exhibit 10.1 to our
Form S-8, Registration No. 333-64240, filed
June 29, 2001); Amendment No. 1 effective as of
February 7, 2001 to the 2001 Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors (Exhibit 10.G.1 to our 2001
Form 10-K); Amendment No. 2 effective as of
December 4, 2003 to the 2001 Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors (Exhibit 10.H.1 to our 2003
Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.I |
|
1995 Omnibus Compensation Plan Amended and Restated effective as
of August 1, 1998 (Exhibit 10.I to our 2004
Form 10-K); Amendment No. 1 effective as of
December 3, 1998 to the 1995 Omnibus Compensation Plan
(Exhibit 10.I.1 to our 2004 Form 10-K); Amendment
No. 2 effective as of January 20, 1999 to the 1995
Omnibus Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10.I.2 to our 2004
Form 10-K) |
II-4
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No. |
|
Exhibit |
|
|
|
|
+10 |
.J |
|
1999 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan dated January 20,
1999 (Exhibit 10.1 to our Form S-8, Registration
No. 333-78979, filed May 20, 1999); Amendment
No. 1 effective as of February 7, 2001 to the 1999
Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10.V.1 to our
2001 First Quarter Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 2
effective as of May 1, 2003 to the 1999 Omnibus Incentive
Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10.I.1 to our 2003 Second
Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
+10 |
.K |
|
2001 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan effective as of
January 29, 2001 (Exhibit 10.1 to our Form S-8,
Registration No. 333-64236, filed June 29, 2001);
Amendment No. 1 effective as of February 7, 2001 to
the 2001 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan
(Exhibit 10.J.1 to our 2001 Form 10-K); Amendment
No. 2 effective as of April 1, 2001 to the 2001
Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10.J.1 to our
2002 Form 10-K); Amendment No. 3 effective as of
July 17, 2002 to the 2001 Omnibus Incentive Compensation
Plan (Exhibit 10.J.1 to our 2002 Second Quarter
Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 4 effective as of
May 1, 2003 to the 2001 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan
(Exhibit 10.J.1 to our 2003 Second Quarter Form 10-Q);
Amendment No. 5 effective as of March 8, 2004 to the
2001 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10.K.1 to
our 2003 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.L |
|
Supplemental Benefits Plan Amended and Restated effective
December 7, 2001 (Exhibit 10.K to our 2001
Form 10-K); Amendment No. 1 effective as of
November 7, 2002 to the Supplemental Benefits Plan
(Exhibit 10.K.1 to our 2002 Form 10-K); Amendment
No. 3 effective December 17, 2004 to the Supplemental
Benefits Plan (Exhibit 10.UU to our 2004 Third Quarter
Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 2 effective as of
June 1, 2004 to the Supplemental Benefits Plan (Exhibit
10.L.1 to our 2004 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.M |
|
Senior Executive Survivor Benefit Plan Amended and Restated
effective as of August 1, 1998 (Exhibit 10.M to our 2004
Form 10-K); Amendment No. 1 effective as of
February 7, 2001 to the Senior Executive Survivor Benefit
Plan (Exhibit 10.I.1 to our 2001 First Quarter
Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 2 effective as of
October 1, 2002 to the Senior Executive Survivor Benefit
Plan (Exhibit 10.L.1 to our 2002 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.N |
|
Key Executive Severance Protection Plan Amended and Restated
effective as of August 1, 1998 (Exhibit 10.N to our
2004 Form 10-K); Amendment No. 1 effective as of
February 7, 2001 to the Key Executive Severance Protection
Plan (Exhibit 10.K.1 to our 2001 First Quarter
Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 2 effective as of
November 7, 2002 to the Key Executive Severance Protection
Plan (Exhibit 10.N.1 to our 2002 Form 10-K); Amendment
No. 3 effective as of December 6, 2002 to the Key
Executive Severance Protection Plan (Exhibit 10.N.1 to our
2002 Form 10-K); Amendment No. 4 effective as of
September 2, 2003 to the Key Executive Severance Protection
Plan (Exhibit 10.N.1 to our 2003 Third Quarter
Form 10-Q) |
|
+10 |
.O |
|
2004 Key Executive Severance Protection Plan effective as of
March 9, 2004 (Exhibit 10.P to our 2003 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.P |
|
Director Charitable Award Plan Amended and Restated effective as
of August 1, 1998 (Exhibit 10.P to our 2004
Form 10-K); Amendment No. 1 effective as of
February 7, 2001 to the Director Charitable Award Plan
(Exhibit 10.L.1 to our 2001 First Quarter Form 10-Q);
Amendment No. 2 effective as of December 4, 2003 to
the Director Charitable Award Plan (Exhibit 10.Q.1 to our
2003 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.Q |
|
Strategic Stock Plan Amended and Restated effective as of
December 3, 1999 (Exhibit 10.1 to our Form S-8,
Registration No. 333-94717, filed January 14, 2000);
Amendment No. 1 effective as of February 7, 2001 to
the Strategic Stock Plan (Exhibit 10.M.1 to our 2001 First
Quarter Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 2 effective as of
November 7, 2002 to the Strategic Stock Plan; Amendment
No. 3 effective as of December 6, 2002 to the
Strategic Stock Plan and Amendment No. 4 effective as of
January 29, 2003 to the Strategic Stock Plan
(Exhibit 10.P.1 to our 2002 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.R |
|
Domestic Relocation Policy effective November 1, 1996
(Exhibit 10.R to our 2004 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.S |
|
Executive Award Plan of Sonat Inc. Amended and Restated
effective as of July 23, 1998, as amended May 27, 1999
(Exhibit 10.S to our 2004 Form 10-K); Termination of the
Executive Award Plan of Sonat Inc. (Exhibit 10.K.1 to our
2000 Second Quarter Form 10-Q) |
II-5
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No. |
|
Exhibit |
|
|
|
|
+10 |
.T |
|
Omnibus Plan for Management Employees Amended and Restated
effective as of December 3, 1999 (Exhibit 10.A to
our Form S-8, Registration No. 333-52100, filed
December 18, 2000); Amendment No. 1 effective as of
December 1, 2000 to the Omnibus Plan for Management
Employees (Exhibit 10.A to our Form S-8, Registration
No. 333-52100, filed December 18, 2000); Amendment
No. 2 effective as of February 7, 2001 to the Omnibus
Plan for Management Employees (Exhibit 10.U.1 to our 2001
First Quarter Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 3 effective as
of December 7, 2001 to the Omnibus Plan for Management
Employees (Exhibit 10.1 to our Form S-8, Registration
No. 333-82506, filed February 11, 2002); Amendment
No. 4 effective as of December 6, 2002 to the Omnibus
Plan for Management Employees (Exhibit 10.T.1 to our 2002
Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.U |
|
El Paso Production Companies Long-Term Incentive Plan
effective as of January 1, 2003 (Exhibit 10.AA to our
2003 First Quarter Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 1
effective as of June 6, 2003 to the El Paso Production
Companies Long-Term Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10.AA.1 to our
2003 Second Quarter Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 2
effective as of December 31, 2003 to the El Paso
Production Companies Long-Term Incentive Plan
(Exhibit 10.V.1 to our 2003 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.V |
|
Severance Pay Plan Amended and Restated effective as of
October 1, 2002; Supplement No. 1 to the Severance Pay
Plan effective as of January 1, 2003; and Amendment
No. 1 to Supplement No. 1 effective as of
March 21, 2003 (Exhibit 10.Z to our 2003 First Quarter
Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 2 to Supplement No. 1
effective as of June 1, 2003 (Exhibit 10.Z.1 to our
2003 Second Quarter Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 3 to
Supplement No. 1 effective as of September 2, 2003
(Exhibit 10.Z.1 to our 2003 Third Quarter Form 10-Q);
Amendment No. 4 to Supplement No. 1 effective as of
October 1, 2003 (Exhibit 10.W.1 to our 2003
Form 10-K); Amendment No. 5 to Supplement No. 1
effective as of February 2, 2004 (Exhibit 10.W.2 to
our 2003 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.W |
|
Employment Agreement Amended and Restated effective as of
February 1, 2001 between El Paso and William A. Wise
(Exhibit 10.O to our 2000 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.X |
|
Letter Agreement dated July 16, 2004 between El Paso
Corporation and D. Dwight Scott. (Exhibit 10.VV to our 2003
Third Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
+10 |
.Y |
|
Letter Agreement dated July 15, 2003 between El Paso
and Douglas L. Foshee (Exhibit 10.U to our 2003 Third
Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
+10 |
.Y.1 |
|
Letter Agreement dated December 18, 2003 between
El Paso and Douglas L. Foshee (Exhibit 10.BB.1 to our
2003 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.Z |
|
Letter Agreement dated January 6, 2004 between El Paso
and Lisa A. Stewart (Exhibit 10.CC to our 2003
Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.AA |
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement of each member of the Board of
Directors effective November 7, 2002 or the effective date
such director was elected to the Board of Directors, whichever
is later (Exhibit 10.FF to our 2002 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.BB |
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement executed by El Paso for
the benefit of each officer listed in Schedule A thereto,
effective December 17, 2004 (Exhibit 10.WW to our 2003
Third Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
+10 |
.CC |
|
Indemnification Agreement executed by El Paso for the
benefit of Douglas L. Foshee, effective December 17, 2004
(Exhibit 10.XX to our 2003 Third Quarter Form 10-Q) |
II-6
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No. |
|
Exhibit |
|
|
|
|
10 |
.DD |
|
Master Settlement Agreement dated as of June 24, 2003, by
and between, on the one hand, El Paso Corporation,
El Paso Natural Gas Company, and El Paso Merchant
Energy, L.P.; and, on the other hand, the Attorney General of
the State of California, the Governor of the State of
California, the California Public Utilities Commission, the
California Department of Water Resources, the California Energy
Oversight Board, the Attorney General of the State of
Washington, the Attorney General of the State of Oregon, the
Attorney General of the State of Nevada, Pacific Gas &
Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, the City
of Los Angeles, the City of Long Beach, and classes consisting
of all individuals and entities in California that purchased
natural gas and/or electricity for use and not for resale or
generation of electricity for the purpose of resale, between
September 1, 1996 and March 20, 2003, inclusive,
represented by class representatives Continental Forge Company,
Andrew Berg, Andrea Berg, Gerald J. Marcil, United Church
Retirement Homes of Long Beach, Inc., doing business as Plymouth
West, Long Beach Brethren Manor, Robert Lamond, Douglas Welch,
Valerie Welch, William Patrick Bower, Thomas L. French, Frank
Stella, Kathleen Stella, John Clement Molony, SierraPine, Ltd.,
John Frazee and Jennifer Frazee, John W.H.K. Phillip, and Cruz
Bustamante (Exhibit 10.HH to our 2003 Second Quarter
Form 10-Q) |
|
10 |
.EE |
|
Agreement With Respect to Collateral dated as of June 11,
2004, by and among El Paso Production Oil & Gas
USA, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, Bank of America,
N.A., acting solely in its capacity as Collateral Agent under
the Collateral Agency Agreement, and The Office of the Attorney
General of the State of California, acting solely in its
capacity as the Designated Representative under the Designated
Representative Agreement (Exhibit 10.HH to our 2003
Form 10-K) |
|
10 |
.FF |
|
Joint Settlement Agreement submitted and entered into by
El Paso Natural Gas Company, El Paso Merchant Energy
Company, El Paso Merchant Energy-Gas, L.P., the Public
Utilities Commission of the State of California, Pacific
Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison
Company and the City of Los Angeles (Exhibit 10.II to our
2003 Second Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
10 |
.GG |
|
Swap Settlement Agreement dated effective as of August 16,
2004, among the Company, El Paso Merchant Energy, L.P.,
East Coast Power Holding Company L.L.C. and ECTMI Trutta
Holdings LP (Exhibit 10.A to our Form 8-K filed
October 15, 2004, and terminated as described in our
Form 8-K filed December 3, 2004) |
|
10 |
.HH |
|
Purchase Agreement dated April 11, 2005, by and among
El Paso Corporation and the Initial Purchasers party
thereto (Exhibit 10.A to our Form 8-K filed April 15,
2005) |
|
+10 |
.II |
|
Agreement and General Release dated May 4, 2005, by and
between El Paso Corporation and John W. Somerhalder II
(Exhibit 10.A to our Form 8-K filed May 4, 2005) |
|
10 |
.JJ |
|
El Paso Corporation 2005 Compensation Plan for Non-Employee
Directors (Exhibit 10.A to our Form 8-K filed on
May 31, 2005). |
|
10 |
.KK |
|
El Paso Corporation 2005 Omnibus Incentive Compensation
Plan (Exhibit 10.B to our Form 8-K filed on
May 31, 2005). |
|
10 |
.LL |
|
El Paso Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Amended
and Restated Effective as of July 1, 2005.
(Exhibit 10.E to our 2005 Second Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
10 |
.MM |
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement executed by El Paso for the
benefit of each officer listed in Schedule A thereto,
effective August 4, 2005. (Exhibit 10.G to our 2005
Second Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
*12 |
|
|
Statement re: computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges |
|
21 |
|
|
Subsidiaries of El Paso (Exhibit 21 to our 2004
Form 10-K) |
|
*23 |
.A |
|
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Houston, Texas) |
|
*23 |
.B |
|
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Detroit, Michigan) |
|
*23 |
.C |
|
Consent of Ryder Scott Company, L.P. |
|
*23 |
.D |
|
Consent of Andrews Kurth LLP (included in Exhibit 5.A) |
|
*24 |
.A |
|
Powers of Attorney (included on signature page) |
II-7
A. The undersigned registrants hereby undertake:
|
|
|
(1) To file, during any period in which offers or sales are
being made, a post-effective amendment to this registration
statement: |
|
|
|
(a) To include any prospectus required by
Section 10(a)(3) of the Securities Act; |
|
|
(b) To reflect in the prospectus any facts or events
arising after the effective date of the registration statement
(or the most recent post-effective amendment thereof) which,
individually or in the aggregate, represent a fundamental change
in the information set forth in the registration
statement; and |
|
|
(c) To include any material information with respect to the
plan of distribution not previously disclosed in the
registration statement or any material change to such
information in this registration statement; |
|
|
|
provided, however, that paragraphs A(l)(a) and A(l)(b)
above do not apply if the information required to be included in
a post-effective amendment by those paragraphs is contained in
periodic reports filed with or furnished to the SEC by the
registrant pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 that are incorporated by
reference in the Registration Statement. |
|
|
|
(2) That, for the purpose of determining any liability
under the Securities Act, each such post-effective amendment
shall be deemed to be a new registration statement relating to
the securities offered therein, and the offering of such
securities at that time shall be deemed to be the initial
bona fide offering thereof. |
|
|
(3) To remove from registration by means of a
post-effective amendment any of the securities being registered
which remain unsold at the termination of the offering. |
B. Insofar as indemnification for liabilities arising under
the Securities Act may be permitted to directors, officers, and
controlling persons of the Registrants pursuant to the
provisions described in Item 15 above, or otherwise, the
Registrants have been advised that in the opinion of the
Commission such indemnification is against public policy as
expressed in the Securities Act and is, therefore,
unenforceable. In the event that a claim for indemnification
against such liabilities (other than the payment by the
Registrants of expenses incurred or paid by a director, officer,
or controlling person of the Registrants in the successful
defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such
director, officer, or controlling person in connection with the
securities being registered, the Registrants will, unless in the
opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by
controlling precedent, submit to a court of appropriate
jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification by it is
against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act and
will be governed by the final adjudication of such issue.
II-8
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, the registrant has duly caused this registration
statement to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized, in the City of Houston, State of
Texas, on this 23rd day of August, 2005.
|
|
|
|
By: |
/s/ Douglas L. Foshee
|
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas L. Foshee |
|
President and Chief Executive Officer |
POWER OF ATTORNEY
Each person whose individual signature appears below hereby
authorizes Robert W. Baker, D. Mark Leland and
David L. Siddall, and each of them, as attorneys-in-fact
with full power of substitution, to execute in the name and on
behalf of such person, individually and in each capacity stated
below, and to file, any and all amendments to this registration
statement, including any and all post-effective amendments.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, this registration statement has been signed by the
following persons in the capacities and on the dates as
indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Title |
|
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Ronald L.
Kuehn, Jr.
Ronald
L. Kuehn, Jr. |
|
Chairman of the Board, Director |
|
August 23, 2005 |
|
/s/ Douglas L. Foshee
Douglas
L. Foshee |
|
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer) |
|
August 23, 2005 |
|
/s/ D. Mark Leland
D.
Mark Leland |
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) |
|
August 23, 2005 |
|
/s/ Jeffrey I. Beason
Jeffrey
I. Beason |
|
Senior Vice President and Controller (Principal Accounting
Officer) |
|
August 23, 2005 |
|
/s/ Juan Carlos Braniff
Juan
Carlos Braniff |
|
Director |
|
August 23, 2005 |
|
/s/ James L. Dunlap
James
L. Dunlap |
|
Director |
|
August 23, 2005 |
|
/s/ Robert W. Goldman
Robert
W. Goldman |
|
Director |
|
August 23, 2005 |
|
/s/ Anthony W.
Hall, Jr.
Anthony
W. Hall, Jr. |
|
Director |
|
August 23, 2005 |
II-9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Title |
|
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Thomas R. Hix
Thomas
R. Hix |
|
Director |
|
August 23, 2005 |
|
/s/ William H. Joyce
William
H. Joyce |
|
Director |
|
August 23, 2005 |
|
/s/ J. Michael Talbert
J.
Michael Talbert |
|
Director |
|
August 23, 2005 |
|
/s/ Robert F. Vagt
Robert
F. Vagt |
|
Director |
|
August 23, 2005 |
|
/s/ John L. Whitmire
John
L. Whitmire |
|
Director |
|
August 23, 2005 |
|
/s/ Joe B. Wyatt
Joe
B. Wyatt |
|
Director |
|
August 23, 2005 |
II-10
EXHIBIT LIST
Each exhibit identified below is filed as part of this
registration statement. Exhibits not incorporated by reference
to a prior filing or previously filed are designated by an
*; all exhibits not so designated are incorporated
herein by reference to a prior filing as indicated. Exhibits
designated with a + constitute a management contract
or compensatory plan or arrangement required to be filed as an
exhibit to this registration statement pursuant to
Item 601(b)(10) of Regulation S-K.
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No. |
|
Exhibit |
|
|
|
|
2 |
.A |
|
Merger Agreement, dated as of December 15, 2003, by
and among Enterprise Products Partners L.P., Enterprise Products
GP, LLC, Enterprise Products Management LLC, GulfTerra Energy
Partners, L.P. and GulfTerra Energy Company, L.L.C. (including
the form of Assumption Agreement to be entered into in
connection with the merger, attached as an exhibit thereto)
(Exhibit 2.1 to our Form 8-K filed
December 15, 2003) |
|
2 |
.B |
|
Parent Company Agreement, dated as of
December 15, 2003, by and among Enterprise Products
Partners L.P., Enterprise Products GP, LLC, Enterprise Products
GTM, LLC, El Paso Corporation, Sabine River
Investors I, L.L.C., Sabine River Investors II,
L.L.C., El Paso EPN Investments, L.L.C. and GulfTerra GP
Holding Company (including the form of Second Amended and
Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Enterprise
Products GP, LLC, to be entered into in connection with the
merger, attached as an exhibit thereto) (Exhibit 2.2 to our
Form 8-K filed December 15, 2003); Amendment
No. 1 to Parent Company Agreement, dated as of
December 15, 2003, by and among Enterprise Products
Partners L.P., Enterprise Products GP, LLC, Enterprise Products
GTM, LLC, El Paso Corporation, Sabine River
Investors I, L.L.C., Sabine River Investors II,
L.L.C., El Paso EPN Investments, L.L.C. and GulfTerra GP
Holding Company, dated as of April 19, 2004 (including
the forms of Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability
Company Agreement of Enterprise Products GP, LLC, Exchange and
Registration Rights Agreement and Performance Guaranty, to be
entered into by the parties named therein in connection with the
merger of Enterprise and GulfTerra, attached as Exhibits 1,
2 and 3, respectively, thereto) (Exhibit 2.1 to our
Form 8-K filed April 21, 2004); Second Amended
and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of GulfTerra
Energy Company, L.L.C., adopted by GulfTerra GP Holding Company,
a Delaware corporation, and Enterprise Products GTM, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, as of
December 15, 2003 (Exhibit 2.3 to our
Form 8-K filed December 15, 2003); Purchase and
Sale Agreement (Gas Plants), dated as of
December 15, 2003, by and between El Paso
Corporation, El Paso Field Services Management, Inc.,
El Paso Transmission, L.L.C., El Paso Field Services
Holding Company and Enterprise Products Operating L.P.
(Exhibit 2.4 to our Form 8-K filed
December 15, 2003) |
|
2 |
.B.1 |
|
Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated as of
January 14, 2005, by and among Enterprise GP Holdings,
L.P., Sabine River Investors I, L.L.C., Sabine River
Investors II, L.L.C., El Paso Corporation and
GulfTerra GP Holding Company (Exhibit 2.B.1 to our 2004
Form 10-K) |
|
3 |
.A |
|
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation effective as
of May 26, 2005 (Exhibit 3.A to our Current
Report on Form 8-K filed May 27, 2005) |
|
3 |
.B |
|
By-Laws effective as of July 31, 2003
(Exhibit 3.B to our 2003 Second Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
4 |
.A |
|
Indenture dated as of May 10, 1999, by and between
El Paso and HSBC Bank USA, National Association (as
successor-in-interest to JPMorgan Chase Bank (formerly The Chase
Manhattan Bank)), as Trustee (Exhibit 4.A to our 2004
Form 10-K) |
|
4 |
.B |
|
Certificate of Designations of 4.99% Convertible Perpetual
Preferred Stock (included in Exhibit 3.A to our Current
Report on Form 8-K filed May 27, 2005) |
|
4 |
.C |
|
Registration Rights Agreement, dated April 15, 2005,
by and among El Paso Corporation and the Initial Purchasers
party thereto (Exhibit 4.A to our Current Report on
Form 8-K filed April 15, 2005) |
|
*5 |
.A |
|
Opinion of Andrews Kurth LLP as to the legality of the common
stock (to be filed by amendment) |
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No. |
|
Exhibit |
|
|
|
|
10 |
.A |
|
Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of
November 23, 2004, among El Paso Corporation, ANR
Pipeline Company, Colorado Interstate Gas Company, El Paso
Natural Gas Company, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, the several
banks and other financial institutions from time to time parties
thereto and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as administrative agent
and as collateral agent (Exhibit 10.A to our Form 8-K
filed November 29, 2004); Amended and Restated
Subsidiary Guarantee Agreement dated as of
November 23, 2004, made by each of the Subsidiary
Guarantors, as defined therein, in favor of JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., as collateral agent (Exhibit 10.C to our
Form 8-K filed November 29, 2004); Amended and
Restated Parent Guarantee Agreement dated as of
November 23, 2004, made by El Paso Corporation,
in favor of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Collateral Agent
(Exhibit 10.D to our Form 8-K filed
November 29, 2004) |
|
10 |
.B |
|
Amended and Restated Security Agreement dated as of
November 23, 2004, among El Paso Corporation, ANR
Pipeline Company, Colorado Interstate Gas Company, El Paso
Natural Gas Company, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, the
Subsidiary Grantors and certain other credit parties thereto and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., not in its individual capacity, but
solely as collateral agent for the Secured Parties and as the
depository bank (Exhibit 10.B to our Form 8-K filed
November 29, 2004) |
|
10 |
.C |
|
$3,000,000,00 Revolving Credit Agreement dated as of
April 16, 2003 among El Paso Corporation,
El Paso Natural Gas Company, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
and ANR Pipeline Company, as Borrowers, the Lenders Party
thereto, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Administrative Agent, ABN
AMRO Bank N.V. and Citicorp North America, Inc., as Co-Document
Agents, Bank of America, N.A. and Credit Suisse First Boston, as
Co-Syndication Agents, J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. and
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., as Joint Bookrunners and Co-Lead
Arrangers (Exhibit 99.1 to our Form 8-K filed
April 18, 2003); First Amendment to the $3,000,000,000
Revolving Credit Agreement and Waiver dated as of
March 17, 2004 among El Paso Corporation,
El Paso Natural Gas Company, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company, ANR Pipeline Company and Colorado Interstate Gas
Company, as Borrowers, the Lender and JPMorgan Chase Bank, as
Administrative Agent, ABN AMRO Bank N.V. and Citicorp North
America, Inc., as Co-Documentation Agents, Bank of America, N.A.
and Credit Suisse First Boston, as Co-Syndication Agents
(Exhibit 10.A.1 to our 2003 Form 10-K); Second Waiver
to the $3,000,000,000 Revolving Credit Agreement dated as of
June 15, 2004 among El Paso Corporation,
El Paso Natural Gas Company, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company, ANR Pipeline Company and Colorado Interstate Gas
Company, as Borrowers, the Lenders party thereto and JPMorgan
Chase Bank, as Administrative Agent, ABN AMRO Bank N.V. and
Citicorp North America, Inc., as Co-Documentation Agents, Bank
of America, N.A. and Credit Suisse First Boston, as
Co-Syndication Agents (Exhibit 10.A.2 to our 2003
Form 10-K); Second Amendment to the $3,000,000,000
Revolving Credit Agreement and Third Waiver dated as of
August 6, 2004 among El Paso Corporation,
El Paso Natural Gas Company, Tennessee Gas Pipeline
Company, ANR Pipeline Company and Colorado Interstate Gas
Company, as Borrowers, the Lenders party thereto and JPMorgan
Chase Bank, as Administrative Agent, ABN AMRO Bank N.V. and
Citicorp North America, Inc., as Co-Documentation Agents, Bank
of America, N.A. and Credit Suisse First Boston, as
Co-Syndication Agents (Exhibit 99.B to our Form 8-K
filed August 10, 2004) |
|
10 |
.D |
|
$1,000,000,000 Amended and Restated 3-Year Revolving Credit
Agreement dated as of April 16, 2003 among
El Paso Corporation, El Paso Natural Gas Company and
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, as Borrowers, The Lenders Party
Thereto, and JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Administrative Agent, ABN
AMRO Bank N.V. and Citicorp North America, Inc., as Co-Document
Agents, Bank of America, N.A., as Syndication Agent,
J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. and Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., as Joint Bookrunners and Co-Lead Arrangers.
(Exhibit 99.2 to our Form 8-K filed
April 18, 2003) |
|
10 |
.E |
|
Security and Intercreditor Agreement dated as of
April 16, 2003 Among El Paso Corporation, the
Persons Referred to therein as Pipeline Company Borrowers, the
Persons Referred to therein as Grantors, Each of the
Representative Agents, JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Credit Agreement
Administrative Agent and JPMorgan Chase Bank, as Collateral
Agent, Intercreditor Agent, and Depository Bank.
(Exhibit 99.3 to our Form 8-K filed
April 18, 2003) |
|
+10 |
.F |
|
1995 Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors Amended and
Restated effective as of December 4, 2003
(Exhibit 10.F to our 2003 Form 10-K) |
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No. |
|
Exhibit |
|
|
|
|
+10 |
.G |
|
Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors Amended and
Restated effective as of January 20, 1999 (Exhibit 10.G to
our 2004 Form 10-K); Amendment No. 1 effective as of
July 16, 1999 to the Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee
Directors (Exhibit 10.G.1 to our 2004 Form 10-K); Amendment
No. 2 effective as of February 7, 2001 to the
Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors
(Exhibit 10.F.1 to our 2001 First Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
+10 |
.H |
|
2001 Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors effective as
of January 29, 2001 (Exhibit 10.1 to our
Form S-8, Registration No. 333-64240, filed
June 29, 2001); Amendment No. 1 effective as of
February 7, 2001 to the 2001 Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors (Exhibit 10.G.1 to our 2001
Form 10-K); Amendment No. 2 effective as of
December 4, 2003 to the 2001 Stock Option Plan for
Non-Employee Directors (Exhibit 10.H.1 to our 2003
Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.I |
|
1995 Omnibus Compensation Plan Amended and Restated effective as
of August 1, 1998 (Exhibit 10.I to our 2004
Form 10-K); Amendment No. 1 effective as of
December 3, 1998 to the 1995 Omnibus Compensation Plan
(Exhibit 10.I.1 to our 2004 Form 10-K); Amendment
No. 2 effective as of January 20, 1999 to the 1995
Omnibus Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10.I.2 to our 2004
Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.J |
|
1999 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan dated January 20,
1999 (Exhibit 10.1 to our Form S-8, Registration
No. 333-78979, filed May 20, 1999); Amendment
No. 1 effective as of February 7, 2001 to the
1999 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10.V.1 to
our 2001 First Quarter Form 10-Q); Amendment
No. 2 effective as of May 1, 2003 to the 1999
Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10.I.1 to our
2003 Second Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
+10 |
.K |
|
2001 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan effective as of
January 29, 2001 (Exhibit 10.1 to our
Form S-8, Registration No. 333-64236, filed
June 29, 2001); Amendment No. 1 effective as of
February 7, 2001 to the 2001 Omnibus Incentive
Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10.J.1 to our 2001
Form 10-K); Amendment No. 2 effective as of
April 1, 2001 to the 2001 Omnibus Incentive
Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10.J.1 to our 2002
Form 10-K); Amendment No. 3 effective as of
July 17, 2002 to the 2001 Omnibus Incentive
Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10.J.1 to our 2002 Second
Quarter Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 4 effective as of
May 1, 2003 to the 2001 Omnibus Incentive Compensation
Plan (Exhibit 10.J.1 to our 2003 Second Quarter
Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 5 effective as of
March 8, 2004 to the 2001 Omnibus Incentive
Compensation Plan (Exhibit 10.K.1 to our 2003
Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.L |
|
Supplemental Benefits Plan Amended and Restated effective
December 7, 2001 (Exhibit 10.K to our 2001
Form 10-K); Amendment No. 1 effective as of
November 7, 2002 to the Supplemental Benefits Plan
(Exhibit 10.K.1 to our 2002 Form 10-K); Amendment
No. 3 effective December 17, 2004 to the
Supplemental Benefits Plan (Exhibit 10.UU to our 2004 Third
Quarter Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 2 effective as of
June 1, 2004 to the Supplemental Benefits Plan (Exhibit
10.L.1 to our 2004 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.M |
|
Senior Executive Survivor Benefit Plan Amended and Restated
effective as of August 1, 1998 (Exhibit 10.M to our 2004
Form 10-K); Amendment No. 1 effective as of
February 7, 2001 to the Senior Executive Survivor
Benefit Plan (Exhibit 10.I.1 to our 2001 First Quarter
Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 2 effective as of
October 1, 2002 to the Senior Executive Survivor
Benefit Plan (Exhibit 10.L.1 to our 2002 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.N |
|
Key Executive Severance Protection Plan Amended and Restated
effective as of August 1, 1998 (Exhibit 10.N to our
2004 Form 10-K); Amendment No. 1 effective as of
February 7, 2001 to the Key Executive Severance
Protection Plan (Exhibit 10.K.1 to our 2001 First Quarter
Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 2 effective as of
November 7, 2002 to the Key Executive Severance
Protection Plan (Exhibit 10.N.1 to our 2002
Form 10-K); Amendment No. 3 effective as of
December 6, 2002 to the Key Executive Severance
Protection Plan (Exhibit 10.N.1 to our 2002
Form 10-K); Amendment No. 4 effective as of
September 2, 2003 to the Key Executive Severance Protection
Plan (Exhibit 10.N.1 to our 2003 Third Quarter
Form 10-Q) |
|
+10 |
.O |
|
2004 Key Executive Severance Protection Plan effective as of
March 9, 2004 (Exhibit 10.P to our 2003
Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.P |
|
Director Charitable Award Plan Amended and Restated effective as
of August 1, 1998 (Exhibit 10.P to our 2004
Form 10-K); Amendment No. 1 effective as of
February 7, 2001 to the Director Charitable Award Plan
(Exhibit 10.L.1 to our 2001 First Quarter Form 10-Q);
Amendment No. 2 effective as of December 4, 2003
to the Director Charitable Award Plan (Exhibit 10.Q.1 to
our 2003 Form 10-K) |
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No. |
|
Exhibit |
|
|
|
|
+10 |
.Q |
|
Strategic Stock Plan Amended and Restated effective as of
December 3, 1999 (Exhibit 10.1 to our Form S-8,
Registration No. 333-94717, filed
January 14, 2000); Amendment No. 1 effective as
of February 7, 2001 to the Strategic Stock Plan
(Exhibit 10.M.1 to our 2001 First Quarter Form 10-Q);
Amendment No. 2 effective as of November 7, 2002
to the Strategic Stock Plan; Amendment No. 3 effective as
of December 6, 2002 to the Strategic Stock Plan and
Amendment No. 4 effective as of January 29, 2003
to the Strategic Stock Plan (Exhibit 10.P.1 to our 2002
Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.R |
|
Domestic Relocation Policy effective November 1, 1996
(Exhibit 10.R to our 2004 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.S |
|
Executive Award Plan of Sonat Inc. Amended and Restated
effective as of July 23, 1998, as amended May 27, 1999
(Exhibit 10.S to our 2004 Form 10-K); Termination of the
Executive Award Plan of Sonat Inc. (Exhibit 10.K.1 to our
2000 Second Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
+10 |
.T |
|
Omnibus Plan for Management Employees Amended and Restated
effective as of December 3, 1999 (Exhibit 10.A to
our Form S-8, Registration No. 333-52100, filed
December 18, 2000); Amendment No. 1 effective as
of December 1, 2000 to the Omnibus Plan for Management
Employees (Exhibit 10.A to our Form S-8, Registration
No. 333-52100, filed December 18, 2000);
Amendment No. 2 effective as of February 7, 2001
to the Omnibus Plan for Management Employees
(Exhibit 10.U.1 to our 2001 First Quarter Form 10-Q);
Amendment No. 3 effective as of December 7, 2001
to the Omnibus Plan for Management Employees (Exhibit 10.1
to our Form S-8, Registration No. 333-82506, filed
February 11, 2002); Amendment No. 4 effective as of
December 6, 2002 to the Omnibus Plan for Management
Employees (Exhibit 10.T.1 to our 2002 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.U |
|
El Paso Production Companies Long-Term Incentive Plan
effective as of January 1, 2003 (Exhibit 10.AA to
our 2003 First Quarter Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 1
effective as of June 6, 2003 to the El Paso
Production Companies Long-Term Incentive Plan
(Exhibit 10.AA.1 to our 2003 Second Quarter
Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 2 effective as of
December 31, 2003 to the El Paso Production
Companies Long-Term Incentive Plan (Exhibit 10.V.1 to our
2003 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.V |
|
Severance Pay Plan Amended and Restated effective as of
October 1, 2002; Supplement No. 1 to the
Severance Pay Plan effective as of January 1, 2003;
and Amendment No. 1 to Supplement No. 1 effective as
of March 21, 2003 (Exhibit 10.Z to our 2003 First
Quarter Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 2 to Supplement
No. 1 effective as of June 1, 2003
(Exhibit 10.Z.1 to our 2003 Second Quarter Form 10-Q);
Amendment No. 3 to Supplement No. 1 effective as of
September 2, 2003 (Exhibit 10.Z.1 to our 2003
Third Quarter Form 10-Q); Amendment No. 4 to
Supplement No. 1 effective as of October 1, 2003
(Exhibit 10.W.1 to our 2003 Form 10-K); Amendment
No. 5 to Supplement No. 1 effective as of
February 2, 2004 (Exhibit 10.W.2 to our 2003
Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.W |
|
Employment Agreement Amended and Restated effective as of
February 1, 2001 between El Paso and William A.
Wise (Exhibit 10.O to our 2000 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.X |
|
Letter Agreement dated July 16, 2004 between
El Paso Corporation and D. Dwight Scott.
(Exhibit 10.VV to our 2004 Third Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
+10 |
.Y |
|
Letter Agreement dated July 15, 2003 between
El Paso and Douglas L. Foshee (Exhibit 10.U to our
2003 Third Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
+10 |
.Y.1 |
|
Letter Agreement dated December 18, 2003 between
El Paso and Douglas L. Foshee (Exhibit 10.BB.1 to our
2003 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.Z |
|
Letter Agreement dated January 6, 2004 between
El Paso and Lisa A. Stewart (Exhibit 10.CC to our 2003
Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.AA |
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement of each member of the Board of
Directors effective November 7, 2002 or the effective
date such director was elected to the Board of Directors,
whichever is later (Exhibit 10.FF to our 2002
Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.BB |
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement executed by El Paso for
the benefit of each officer listed in Schedule A thereto,
effective December 17, 2004 (Exhibit 10.WW to our
2003 Third Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
+10 |
.CC |
|
Indemnification Agreement executed by El Paso for the
benefit of Douglas L. Foshee, effective
December 17, 2004 (Exhibit 10.XX to our 2003
Third Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No. |
|
Exhibit |
|
|
|
|
10 |
.DD |
|
Master Settlement Agreement dated as of June 24, 2003,
by and between, on the one hand, El Paso Corporation,
El Paso Natural Gas Company, and El Paso Merchant
Energy, L.P.; and, on the other hand, the Attorney General of
the State of California, the Governor of the State of
California, the California Public Utilities Commission, the
California Department of Water Resources, the California Energy
Oversight Board, the Attorney General of the State of
Washington, the Attorney General of the State of Oregon, the
Attorney General of the State of Nevada, Pacific Gas &
Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, the City
of Los Angeles, the City of Long Beach, and classes consisting
of all individuals and entities in California that purchased
natural gas and/or electricity for use and not for resale or
generation of electricity for the purpose of resale, between
September 1, 1996 and March 20, 2003, inclusive,
represented by class representatives Continental Forge Company,
Andrew Berg, Andrea Berg, Gerald J. Marcil, United Church
Retirement Homes of Long Beach, Inc., doing business as Plymouth
West, Long Beach Brethren Manor, Robert Lamond, Douglas Welch,
Valerie Welch, William Patrick Bower, Thomas L. French, Frank
Stella, Kathleen Stella, John Clement Molony, SierraPine, Ltd.,
John Frazee and Jennifer Frazee, John W.H.K. Phillip, and Cruz
Bustamante (Exhibit 10.HH to our 2003 Second Quarter
Form 10-Q) |
|
10 |
.EE |
|
Agreement With Respect to Collateral dated as of
June 11, 2004, by and among El Paso Production
Oil & Gas USA, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership,
Bank of America, N.A., acting solely in its capacity as
Collateral Agent under the Collateral Agency Agreement, and The
Office of the Attorney General of the State of California,
acting solely in its capacity as the Designated Representative
under the Designated Representative Agreement
(Exhibit 10.HH to our 2003 Form 10-K) |
|
10 |
.FF |
|
Joint Settlement Agreement submitted and entered into by
El Paso Natural Gas Company, El Paso Merchant Energy
Company, El Paso Merchant Energy-Gas, L.P., the Public
Utilities Commission of the State of California, Pacific
Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison
Company and the City of Los Angeles (Exhibit 10.II to our
2003 Second Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
10 |
.GG |
|
Swap Settlement Agreement dated effective as of
August 16, 2004, among the Company, El Paso
Merchant Energy, L.P., East Coast Power Holding Company L.L.C.
and ECTMI Trutta Holdings LP (Exhibit 10.A to our
Form 8-K filed October 15, 2004, and terminated
as described in our Form 8-K filed
December 3, 2004) |
|
10 |
.HH |
|
Purchase Agreement dated April 11, 2005, by and among
El Paso Corporation and the Initial Purchasers party
thereto (Exhibit 10.A to our Form 8-K filed
April 15, 2005) |
|
+10 |
.II |
|
Agreement and General Release dated May 4, 2005, by
and between El Paso Corporation and John W.
Somerhalder II (Exhibit 10.A to our Form 8-K filed
May 4, 2005) |
|
10 |
.JJ |
|
El Paso Corporation 2005 Compensation Plan for Non-Employee
Directors (Exhibit 10.A to our Form 8-K filed on
May 31, 2005). |
|
10 |
.KK |
|
El Paso Corporation 2005 Omnibus Incentive Compensation
Plan (Exhibit 10.B to our Form 8-K filed on
May 31, 2005). |
|
10 |
.LL |
|
El Paso Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Amended
and Restated Effective as of July 1, 2005.
(Exhibit 10.E to our 2005 Second Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
10 |
.MM |
|
Form of Indemnification Agreement executed by El Paso for the
benefit of each officer listed in Schedule A thereto,
effective August 4, 2005. (Exhibit 10.G to our
2005 Second Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
*12 |
|
|
Statement re: computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges |
|
21 |
|
|
Subsidiaries of El Paso (Exhibit 21 to our 2004
Form 10-K) |
|
*23 |
.A |
|
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Houston, Texas) |
|
*23 |
.B |
|
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Detroit, Michigan) |
|
*23 |
.C |
|
Consent of Ryder Scott Company, L.P. |
|
*23 |
.D |
|
Consent of Andrews Kurth LLP (included in Exhibit 5.A) |
|
*24 |
.A |
|
Powers of Attorney (included on signature page) |