Back to GetFilings.com
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 10-K
(Mark One)
þ
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004
OR
o
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period
from to .
Commission File Number 1-14365
El Paso Corporation
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
76-0568816
|
(State or Other Jurisdiction of
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer
|
Incorporation or Organization)
|
|
Identification No.)
|
|
El Paso Building
1001 Louisiana Street
Houston, Texas
(Address of Principal Executive Offices) |
|
77002
(Zip Code)
|
Telephone Number: (713) 420-2600
Internet Website: www.elpaso.com
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of
the Act:
|
|
|
|
|
Name of Each Exchange |
Title of Each Class |
|
on which Registered |
|
|
|
Common Stock, par value $3 per share
|
|
New York Stock Exchange
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of
the Act: None
Indicate by check mark whether the
registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by
Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter
period that the registrant was required to file such
reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing
requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes þ No o.
Indicate by check mark if
disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be
contained, to the best of registrants knowledge, in
definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by
reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to
this
Form 10-K. þ
Indicate by check mark whether the
registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in
Rule 12b-2 of the Act).
Yes þ No o.
State the aggregate market
value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by
non-affiliates of the registrant.
Aggregate market value of
the voting stock (which consists solely of shares of common
stock) held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of
June 30, 2004 computed by reference to the closing sale
price of the registrants common stock on the New York
Stock Exchange on such date: $5,066,348,130.
Indicate the number of shares
outstanding of each of the registrants classes of common
stock, as of the latest practicable date.
Common Stock, par value
$3 per share. Shares outstanding on March 23, 2005:
642,934,481
Documents Incorporated by Reference
List hereunder the
following documents if incorporated by reference and the part of
the Form 10-K (e.g., Part I, Part II, etc.) into
which the document is incorporated: Portions of our definitive
proxy statement for the 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are
incorporated by reference into Part III of this report.
These will be filed no later than April 30, 2005.
EL PASO CORPORATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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 |
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.
When we refer to us, we,
our, ours, or El Paso,
we are describing El Paso Corporation and/or our
subsidiaries.
i
PART I
ITEM 1. 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.
1
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.
2
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
Part II, Item 7, Managements Discussion and
Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. For
our segment operating results and identifiable assets, see
Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Note 21, which is incorporated herein
by reference.
Regulated Business Pipelines Segment
Our Pipelines segment provides natural gas transmission,
storage, liquefied natural gas (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.
3
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) | |
Transmission |
|
Supply and |
|
Miles of | |
|
Design | |
|
Storage | |
|
| |
System |
|
Market Region |
|
Pipeline | |
|
Capacity | |
|
Capacity | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(MMcf/d) | |
|
(Bcf) | |
|
|
|
(BBtu/d) | |
|
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Average Throughput(1) | |
Transmission |
|
Supply and |
|
Miles of | |
|
Design | |
|
Storage | |
|
| |
System |
|
Market Region |
|
Pipeline | |
|
Capacity | |
|
Capacity | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(MMcf/d) | |
|
(Bcf) | |
|
|
|
(BBtu/d) | |
|
|
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. |
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 |
|
|
EastLeg 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
NorthLeg 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 |
|
5
Partially Owned Interstate Transmission Systems
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2004 | |
|
Average | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Throughput(3) | |
Transmission |
|
Supply and |
|
Ownership | |
|
Miles of | |
|
Design | |
|
| |
System(2) |
|
Market Region |
|
Interest | |
|
Pipeline(3) | |
|
Capacity(3) | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
(Percent) | |
|
|
|
(MMcf/d) | |
|
(BBtu/d) | |
Florida Gas
Transmission(4)
|
|
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) |
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. |
(2) |
These systems are accounted for as equity investments. |
(3) |
Miles, volumes and average throughput represent the
systems totals and are not adjusted for our ownership
interest. |
(4) |
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.
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. |
LNG Facility
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.
6
Regulatory Environment
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 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.
Markets and Competition
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.
7
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.
Contract Expirations
8
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
Major Customers: None of which individually
represents more than 10 percent of revenues |
|
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.
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. |
|
|
ANR
|
|
Approximately 259 firm and interruptible customers
Major Customer: We
Energies (909 BBtu/d) |
|
Approximately 570 firm contracts
Weighted average remaining contract term of approximately three
years.
Contract terms expire in 2005-2010. |
|
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. |
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
|
|
|
|
System |
|
Customer Information |
|
Contract Information |
|
Competition |
|
EPNG
|
|
Approximately 155 firm and interruptible
customers
Major Customer: Southern California
Gas Company(2) (475 BBtu/d) (82 BBtu/d) (768
BBtu/d) |
|
Approximately 213 firm contracts
Weighted average remaining contract term of approximately five
years
(1)(2).
Contract terms expire in 2006.
Contract terms expire in 2005 and 2007.
Contract terms expire in 2009-2011. |
|
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. |
|
(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. |
|
|
SNG
|
|
Approximately 230 firm and
interruptible 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) |
|
Approximately 203 firm contracts
Weighted average remaining contract term of approximately five
years.
Contract terms expire in 2005-2007.
Contract terms expire in 2010-2018.
Contract terms expire in 2006-2013.
Contract terms expire in 2005-2019. |
|
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. |
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
|
|
|
|
System |
|
Customer Information |
|
Contract Information |
|
Competition |
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transmission |
|
|
|
|
|
|
System |
|
Customer Information |
|
Contract Information |
|
Competition |
|
|
CPG
|
|
Approximately 15 firm and interruptible
customers.
Major Customers: Oneok Energy
Services Company
L.P. (195 BBtu/d) Anadarko
Energy
Service Company (100
BBtu/d) Kerr McGee (83
BBtu/d) |
|
Approximately 14 firm contracts
Weighted average remaining
contract term of approximately 10 years.
Contract term expires in 2015.
Contract term expires in 2015.
Contract term expires in 2015. |
|
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. |
|
12
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 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
13
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. |
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
14
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
Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, under the heading Supplemental Natural Gas
and Oil Operations.
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.
15
The following table details our working interests in natural gas
and oil wells at December 31, 2004:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Productive | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas | |
|
Productive Oil | |
|
Total Productive | |
|
Number of Wells | |
|
|
Wells | |
|
Wells | |
|
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.
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. |
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
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 |
|
|
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). |
17
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
18
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.
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
19
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
Markets and Competition
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
20
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.
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 |
|
21
|
|
(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 Part II, Item 8, Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 17 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. |
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
22
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.
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
23
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.
Corporate Activities
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, including those related to our financial
services, petroleum ship charter and LNG operations, all of
which are insignificant to our results in 2004.
Discontinued Operations
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
Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Note 17, and is incorporated herein by
reference.
Employees
As of March 23, 2005, we had approximately
6,400 full-time employees, of which 362 employees in Brazil
are subject to collective bargaining arrangements.
Executive Officers of the Registrant
Our executive officers as of March 23, 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 | |
|
|
Name |
|
Office |
|
Since | |
|
Age | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Douglas L. Foshee
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer of El Paso |
|
|
2003 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
D. Dwight Scott
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
El Paso |
|
|
2002 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
Robert W. Baker
|
|
Executive Vice President and General Counsel of El Paso |
|
|
1996 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
John W. Somerhalder II
|
|
Executive Vice President of El Paso and President of
El Paso Pipeline Group |
|
|
1990 |
|
|
|
48 |
|
Lisa A. Stewart
|
|
Executive Vice President of El Paso and President of
El Paso Production and Non-Regulated Operations |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
|
47 |
|
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.
24
D. Dwight Scott has been Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of El Paso since October 2002.
Mr. Scott served as Senior Vice President of Finance and
Planning for El Paso from July 2002 to
September 2002. Mr. Scott was Executive Vice President
of Power for El Paso Merchant Energy from
December 2001 to June 2002, and he served as Chief
Financial Officer of El Paso Global Networks from
October 2000 to November 2001. Prior to that, he
served as a managing director in the energy investment banking
practice of Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette.
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.
John W. Somerhalder II has been an Executive Vice
President of El Paso since April 2000, and President
of the Pipeline Group since January 2001. He has been
Chairman of the Board of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,
El Paso Natural Gas Company and Southern Natural Gas
Company since January 2000 and Chairman of the Board of ANR
Pipeline Company and Colorado Interstate Gas Company since
January 2001. Prior to that, he was President of Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Company and worked in other executive positions in El
Paso since 1996.
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.
Available Information
Our website is http://www.elpaso.com. We make available, free of
charge on or through our website, our annual, quarterly and
current reports, and any amendments to those reports, as soon as
is reasonably possible after these reports are filed with the
SEC. Information about each of our Board members, as well as
each of our Boards standing committee charters, our
Corporate Governance Guidelines and our Code of Business Conduct
are also available, free of charge, through our website.
Information contained on our website is not part of this report.
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
A description of our properties is included in Item 1,
Business, and is incorporated herein by reference.
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.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Details of the cases listed below, as well as a description of
our other legal proceedings are included in Part II,
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,
Note 17, and is incorporated herein by reference.
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
25
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 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.
26
Toca Air Permit Violation. In June 2003, SNG notified the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) that it had
discovered possible compliance issues with respect to operations
at its Toca Compressor Station. In December 2003, LDEQ issued a
Consolidated Compliance Order and Notice of Potential Penalty.
SNGs Toca Compressor Station will invest an estimated
$6 million to upgrade the stations environmental
controls in 2005. SNG filed a revised permit application and
plan for compliance in January 2004 and paid a penalty of
$66,000, resolving the matter.
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 NOE and seeking a penalty of $419,650. We have answered the
Petition, disputing the alleged violations and the proposed
penalty.
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, 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.
St. Helens. On November 11, 2003, our
St. Helens, Oregon chemical plant discovered a release of
ammonia at the facility and reported the release to the National
Response Center and state and local contacts on
November 12, 2003. On December 3, 2003, the
St. Helens plant was sold to Dyno Nobel, Inc. On
April 21, 2004, the EPA issued a demand to El Paso
Merchant Energy Petroleum Company for penalties for
alleged reporting violations. We responded to the EPAs
demand, and we have fully resolved the alleged violations by
paying a penalty of $50,345 and conducting a supplemental
project costing $59,581.
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. The hearing has been stayed
by agreement to allow El Paso Production Company and LDEQ
time to possibly settle this matter. Negotiations are on-going
for resolving this matter.
27
|
|
ITEM 4. |
SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS |
We held our annual meeting of stockholders on November 18,
2004. Proposals presented for a stockholders vote included
the election of twelve directors, ratification of the
appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as independent
certified public accountants for the fiscal year 2004, and two
stockholder proposals.
Each of the twelve incumbent directors nominated by El Paso was
elected with the following voting results:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nominee |
|
For | |
|
Withheld | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
John M. Bissell
|
|
|
484,639,859 |
|
|
|
101,741,034 |
|
Juan Carlos Braniff
|
|
|
485,212,690 |
|
|
|
101,168,202 |
|
James L. Dunlap
|
|
|
503,715,688 |
|
|
|
82,665,204 |
|
Douglas L. Foshee
|
|
|
564,694,430 |
|
|
|
21,686,462 |
|
Robert W. Goldman
|
|
|
503,086,283 |
|
|
|
83,294,609 |
|
Anthony W. Hall, Jr.
|
|
|
490,112,165 |
|
|
|
96,268,727 |
|
Thomas R. Hix
|
|
|
563,913,752 |
|
|
|
22,467,140 |
|
William H. Joyce
|
|
|
564,050,375 |
|
|
|
22,330,518 |
|
Ronald L. Kuehn, Jr.
|
|
|
483,437,462 |
|
|
|
102,943,431 |
|
J. Michael Talbert
|
|
|
503,779,161 |
|
|
|
82,601,731 |
|
John L. Whitmire
|
|
|
502,420,108 |
|
|
|
83,960,784 |
|
Joe B. Wyatt
|
|
|
487,881,511 |
|
|
|
98,499,382 |
|
The appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as El Pasos
independent certified public accountants for the fiscal year
2004 was ratified with the following voting results:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For | |
|
Against | |
|
Abstain | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Proposal to ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
as independent certified public accountants
|
|
|
512,328,324 |
|
|
|
68,245,737 |
|
|
|
5,806,831 |
|
There were no broker non-votes for the ratification of
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
Two proposals submitted by stockholders were presented for a
stockholder vote. One proposal called for stockholder approval
of expensing the costs of all future stock options in the annual
income statement. The second proposal called for stockholder
approval regarding Commonsense Executive Compensation. The first
stockholder proposal was approved and the second stockholder
proposal was not approved with the following voting results:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For | |
|
Against | |
|
Abstain | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Stockholder proposal regarding expensing stock options
|
|
|
303,127,387 |
|
|
|
125,027,119 |
|
|
|
12,236,275 |
|
Stockholder proposal regarding Commonsense Executive Compensation
|
|
|
50,700,938 |
|
|
|
379,536,201 |
|
|
|
10,153,643 |
|
We are currently working toward the adoption of an accounting
standard on July 1, 2005 that, once adopted, will result in
the expensing of all stock options and other stock based
compensation. For a further discussion of this standard, see
Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Note 1.
28
PART II
|
|
ITEM 5. |
MARKET FOR REGISTRANTS COMMON EQUITY, RELATED
STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES |
Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under
the symbol EP. As of March 23, 2005, we had
48,629 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) | |
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 |
|
On February 18, 2005, we declared a quarterly dividend of
$0.04 per share of our common stock, payable on
April 5, 2005, to shareholders of record as of
March 4, 2005. Future dividends will depend on business
conditions, earnings, our cash requirements and other relevant
factors.
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 Fleet National Bank,
care of EquiServe, our exchange agent at 1-877-453-1503.
29
ITEM 6. 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 Item 7, Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of
Operations and Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements
and Supplementary Data included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K. These selected historical results are not
necessarily indicative of results to be expected in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of or for the Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
(Restated)(1) | |
|
(Restated)(1) | |
|
2001 | |
|
2000(2) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except per common share amounts) | |
Operating Results Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating revenues
|
|
$ |
5,874 |
|
|
$ |
6,668 |
|
|
$ |
6,881 |
|
|
$ |
10,186 |
|
|
$ |
6,179 |
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations available to common
stockholders(3)
|
|
$ |
(802 |
) |
|
$ |
(523 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,242 |
) |
|
$ |
(223 |
) |
|
$ |
481 |
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(948 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,928 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,875 |
) |
|
$ |
(447 |
) |
|
$ |
665 |
|
|
Basic income (loss) per common share from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(1.25 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.87 |
) |
|
$ |
(2.22 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.44 |
) |
|
$ |
0.98 |
|
|
Diluted income (loss) per common share from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(1.25 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.87 |
) |
|
$ |
(2.22 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.44 |
) |
|
$ |
0.95 |
|
|
Cash dividends declared per common
share(4)
|
|
$ |
0.16 |
|
|
$ |
0.16 |
|
|
$ |
0.87 |
|
|
$ |
0.85 |
|
|
$ |
0.82 |
|
|
Basic average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
639 |
|
|
|
597 |
|
|
|
560 |
|
|
|
505 |
|
|
|
494 |
|
|
Diluted average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
639 |
|
|
|
597 |
|
|
|
560 |
|
|
|
505 |
|
|
|
506 |
|
Financial Position Data:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
assets(5)
|
|
$ |
31,383 |
|
|
$ |
36,942 |
|
|
$ |
41,923 |
|
|
$ |
44,271 |
|
|
$ |
43,992 |
|
|
Long-term financing
obligations(6)
|
|
|
18,241 |
|
|
|
20,275 |
|
|
|
16,106 |
|
|
|
12,840 |
|
|
|
11,206 |
|
|
Securities of
subsidiaries(6)
|
|
|
367 |
|
|
|
447 |
|
|
|
3,420 |
|
|
|
4,013 |
|
|
|
3,707 |
|
|
Stockholders equity
|
|
|
3,439 |
|
|
|
4,352 |
|
|
|
5,749 |
|
|
|
6,666 |
|
|
|
6,145 |
|
|
|
|
(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
Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Note 1 for a further discussion of the
restatement. |
|
(2) |
|
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. |
|
(3) |
|
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 |
30
|
|
|
|
|
this merger that totaled approximately $1.5 billion. For
further discussions of events affecting comparability of our
results in 2004, 2003 and 2002, see Part II, Item 8,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,
Notes 2 through 5. |
|
(4) |
|
Cash dividends declared per share of common stock represent the
historical dividends declared by El Paso for all periods
presented. |
|
(5) |
|
Decreases in 2002, 2003 and 2004 were a result of asset sales
activities during these periods. See Part II, Item 8,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 3. |
(6) |
|
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. |
31
ITEM 7. 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 76.
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 Seafarer and 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, improved drilling results
and helped us to begin the stabilization of our domestic
production. In addition, we have recently made
32
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 Part II, Item 8, Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 15. For a further
discussion of risks that can impact our liquidity, see our risk
factors beginning on page 83.
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. |
For a further discussion of our long-term debt, other financing
obligations and other credit facilities, see Part II,
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,
Note 15.
33
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 the filing date of this
Form 10-K). 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 in 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. So far, in
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 Part II, Item 8,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 15, 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 4.85 to 1 and our ratio of Consolidated EBITDA to
interest expense and dividends was 1.93 to 1.
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.
34
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 83.
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In billions) | |
Cash inflows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss before discontinued operations
|
|
$ |
(0.8 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.5 |
) |
|
|
Non-cash income adjustments
|
|
|
2.4 |
|
|
|
1.7 |
|
|
|
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 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
35
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 a party to one of these agreements for
$62 million. See Part II, Item 8, Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data, under the heading
Supplemental Natural Gas and Oil Operations, 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 Part I,
Item 1, Business and Part II, Item 8, Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 3, 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.
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
Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Note 15, for further detail of our
financing activities.
36
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
Guarantees
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.
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 Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Note 15. |
(2) |
See Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Note 17. |
(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 Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Note 17. |
37
|
|
(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.
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. |
38
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
Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements, Notes 3
and 5 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 Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Notes 3 and 5 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.
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
39
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 |
|
Floor |
|
Ceiling |
|
Ceiling |
|
|
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 contingences
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 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
40
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
(Restated)(1) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Regulated Business
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pipelines
|
|
$ |
1,331 |
|
|
$ |
1,234 |
|
|
$ |
828 |
|
Non-regulated Businesses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
734 |
|
|
|
1,091 |
|
|
|
808 |
|
|
Marketing and Trading
|
|
|
(547 |
) |
|
|
(809 |
) |
|
|
(1,977 |
) |
|
Power
|
|
|
(569 |
) |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
12 |
|
|
Field Services
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
289 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segment EBIT
|
|
|
1,069 |
|
|
|
1,621 |
|
|
|
(40 |
) |
Corporate and other
|
|
|
(214 |
) |
|
|
(852 |
) |
|
|
(387 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated EBIT
|
|
|
855 |
|
|
|
769 |
|
|
|
(427 |
) |
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
(1,607 |
) |
|
|
(1,791 |
) |
|
|
(1,297 |
) |
Distributions on preferred interests of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
|
(159 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
551 |
|
|
|
641 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
|
(802 |
) |
|
|
(523 |
) |
|
|
(1,242 |
) |
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(146 |
) |
|
|
(1,396 |
) |
|
|
(425 |
) |
Cumulative effect of accounting changes, net of income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(208 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(948 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,928 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,875 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
See Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Note 1 for a discussion of the
restatement of our 2002 financial statements, which affected our
Pipelines segment results and the amounts reported as a
cumulative effect of accounting change in 2002. |
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
41
and other results included in Part II, Item 8,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Notes 3
through 5, and 21.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Segments | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Marketing | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
and | |
|
|
|
Field | |
|
Corporate | |
|
|
Pipelines | |
|
Production | |
|
Trading | |
|
Power | |
|
Services | |
|
& Other | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset and investment impairments, net of gain(loss) on
sales(1)
|
|
$ |
20 |
|
|
$ |
(8 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(973 |
) |
|
$ |
(7 |
) (2) |
|
$ |
3 |
|
Restructuring charges
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
(91 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
15 |
|
|
$ |
(22 |
) |
|
$ |
(2 |
) |
|
$ |
(978 |
) |
|
$ |
(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 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.
42
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 $2.0 billion (including $1.4 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
The results for 2002 of our Pipelines segment presented and
discussed below have been restated for errors resulting from a
misinterpretation of the provisions of SFAS Nos. 141 and
142 upon the adoption of these standards. See Part II,
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,
Note 1 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 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
43
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. |
Operating Results
Below are the operating results and analysis of these results
for our Pipelines segment for each of the three years ended
December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002 | |
Pipelines Segment Results |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
(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. |
44
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 transportation contracts on its Southeast Leg as well as a
related gathering contract. In March 2005, this
45
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, and (iii) have filed an application with
the FERC for authority to construct and operate the
U.S. portion of the proposed Seafarer natural gas |
|
46
|
|
|
|
pipeline, which will transport natural gas from an LNG facility
in the Bahamas to southern Florida. |
|
|
|
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 ConneXion
Expansions in the Northeast market area and ANR is proceeding
with its Eastleg and Northleg 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.
47
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 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 Part II, Item 8, Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data, under the heading
Supplemental Natural Gas and Oil Operations 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 Part I,
Item 1, Business, Non- regulated Business
Production Segment, Part I, Item 7, Critical
Accounting Policies and Risk Factors, and Part II,
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, under
the heading Supplemental Natural Gas and Oil Operations.
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
48
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 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 |
|
Oil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
Commodity-based Derivative Contracts beginning on page 38.
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. |
49
|
|
|
|
|
Sale of Canadian and other international operations.
These operations were sold in order to focus our operations in
the United States and Brazil. |
Operating Results
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
50
|
|
(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 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.
51
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.
|
|
|
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
52
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.
Outlook for 2005
Based on our strategy to develop a more balanced portfolio of
natural gas and oil production and allocate more capital to
longer life, slower decline projects and development projects in
longer reserve life areas, we anticipate in 2005:
|
|
|
|
|
A total capital expenditure budget, including acquisitions, of
approximately $900 million. |
|
|
|
Daily production volumes to average in excess of
800 MMcfe/d. |
|
|
|
A focus on cost control, operating efficiencies, and process
improvements to keep our per unit cash operating costs between
$1.25/ MMcfe and $1.40/ MMcfe. |
|
|
|
Industry-wide increases in drilling costs and oilfield service
costs that will require constant monitoring of capital spending
programs. |
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
53
discussion of the significant types of contracts used by our
Marketing and Trading segment and how they impact our financial
results:
Natural Gas Contracts
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. |
|
|
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. |
54
Storage contracts
|
|
|
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. |
Power Contracts
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.
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.
Operating Results
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 | |
|
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
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
(547 |
) |
|
$ |
(809 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,977 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
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. |
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.
56
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:
Natural Gas Contracts
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
57
|
|
|
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. |
Power Contracts
|
|
|
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
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. |
58
Operating Expenses
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 Part II, Item 8,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 17. 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 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 Part II, Item 8, Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 17. |
|
|
|
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 |
59
|
|
|
|
|
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
Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Note 17. |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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
60
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.
Operating Results
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 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Overall EBIT:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
margin(1)
|
|
$ |
643 |
|
|
$ |
865 |
|
|
$ |
1,103 |
|
|
Operating expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
(583 |
) |
|
|
(185 |
) |
|
|
(160 |
) |
|
|
Other operating expenses
|
|
|
(468 |
) |
|
|
(693 |
) |
|
|
(591 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
(408 |
) |
|
|
(13 |
) |
|
|
352 |
|
|
Earnings from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairments and net losses on sale
|
|
|
(390 |
) |
|
|
(347 |
) |
|
|
(426 |
) |
|
|
Equity in earnings
|
|
|
154 |
|
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
170 |
|
|
Other income (expense)
|
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
(84 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
(569 |
) |
|
$ |
(28 |
) |
|
$ |
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT by Area:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
International power
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brazilian operations
|
|
$ |
69 |
|
|
$ |
177 |
|
|
$ |
78 |
|
|
|
Asian operations
|
|
|
(140 |
) |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
(243 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(59 |
) |
|
|
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
|
|
$ |
(569 |
) |
|
$ |
(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. |
(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. |
61
International Power. The following table shows
significant factors impacting EBIT in our international power
business in 2004, 2003 and 2002:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Brazil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings from consolidated and unconsolidated plant operations
|
|
$ |
236 |
|
|
$ |
177 |
|
|
$ |
97 |
|
|
Manaus and Rio Negro impairment
|
|
|
(167 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contract termination fee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Brazil
|
|
|
69 |
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Asia
|
|
|
(140 |
) |
|
|
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
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Other
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
(243 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
(59 |
) |
|
$ |
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. |
Macae
and Porto Velho
|
|
|
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 operational capacity in mid-2003. In
the fourth quarter of 2004, our Porto Velho plant |
62
|
|
|
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 Part II, Item, 8,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 17. |
Manaus
and Rio Negro
|
|
|
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
$167 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. |
South
American Pipelines
|
|
|
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 |
63
|
|
|
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
Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Note 22 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 |
64
|
|
|
fuel costs. We will continue to assess our ability to recover
our investment in MCV and its related operations in the future. |
|
|
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
Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Notes 2, 3, and 22 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 Part II,
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,
Note 10.
|
|
|
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 |
65
|
|
|
$90 million contract termination fee to terminate a steam
contract between our Eagle Point power plant and the Eagle Point
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 Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Note 22.
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 Part II, Item 8,
Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 17.
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66
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. |
67
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 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. |
68
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(47 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total EBIT
|
|
$ |
(214 |
) |
|
$ |
(852 |
) |
|
$ |
(387 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
69
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 Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements
and Supplementary Information, Note 4, 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.
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.
70
For a further discussion of our borrowings and other financing
activities related to our consolidated subsidiaries, see
Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Notes 15 and 16.
Income Taxes
Income taxes for the years ended December 31, 2004, 2003
and 2002 were $25 million, ($551) million and
($641) million resulting in effective tax rates of
(3) percent, 51 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 Part II, Item 8, Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 7.
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 Part II,
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,
Note 22 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 primarily to $124 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 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
Part II, in Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Note 7, we have not
71
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 Part II, Item 8, Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 7. 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
For the year ended December 2004, the loss from our discontinued
operations was $146 million compared to a loss of
$1,396 million during 2003. In 2004, $76 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
$70 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.
Commitments and Contingencies
For a discussion of our commitments and contingencies, see
Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Note 17, 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
72
management activities to changes in fair values arising from
immediate selected potential changes in quoted market prices:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 Percent Increase | |
|
10 Percent Decrease | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Fair Value | |
|
Fair Value | |
|
Change | |
|
Fair 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 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
73
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.
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
74
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 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Projected | |
|
|
|
Accumulated | |
|
|
Net Benefit | |
|
Benefit | |
|
Net Benefit | |
|
Postretirement | |
|
|
Expense (Income) | |
|
Obligation | |
|
Expense (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.
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.
New Accounting Pronouncements Issued But Not Yet Adopted
See Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Note 1 under New Accounting
Pronouncements Issued But Not Yet Adopted which is
incorporated herein by reference.
75
RISK FACTORS AND CAUTIONARY STATEMENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE
SAFE HARBOR
PROVISIONS OF THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF
1995
This report contains or incorporates by reference
forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Where any
forward-looking statement includes a statement of the
assumptions or bases underlying the forward-looking statement,
we caution that, while we believe these assumptions or bases to
be reasonable and in good faith, assumed facts or bases almost
always vary from the actual results, and differences between
assumed facts or bases and actual results can be material,
depending upon the circumstances. Where, in any forward-looking
statement, we or our management express an expectation or belief
as to future results, that expectation or belief is expressed in
good faith and is believed to have a reasonable basis. We cannot
assure you, however, that the statement of expectation or belief
will result or be achieved or accomplished. The words
believe, expect, estimate,
anticipate and similar expressions will generally
identify forward-looking statements. All of our forward-looking
statements, whether written or oral, are expressly qualified by
these cautionary statements and any other cautionary statements
that may accompany such forward-looking statements. In addition,
we disclaim any obligation to update any forward-looking
statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of
this report.
With this in mind, you should consider the risks discussed
elsewhere in this report and other documents we file with the
SEC from time to time and the following important factors that
could cause actual results to differ materially from those
expressed in any forward-looking statement made by us or on our
behalf.
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; |
76
|
|
|
|
|
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 that
we will be able to 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
77
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 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.
78
|
|
|
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, 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; |
|
|
|
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.
79
Our reserve data represents an estimate. You should not assume
that the present values referred to in this report 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; |
|
|
|
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
80
our derivative financial instruments, see Item 7A,
Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk and
Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Note 10.
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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 may become the
subject of a separate inquiry by 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
81
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 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 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.
Compliance with environmental laws and regulations can require
significant costs, such as costs of clean-up and 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
Part I, Item 3, Legal Proceedings, and Part II,
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,
Note 17.
|
|
|
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
82
material. For additional information concerning our litigation
matters and other contingent liabilities, see Part I,
Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,
Note 17.
Our
system of internal controls ensure 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, 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
discussed in Item 9A, we identified several deficiencies in
internal control over financial reporting that management has
concluded constitute material weaknesses. Although we have taken
steps to remediate some of these deficiencies, additional steps
must be taken to remediate the remaining control deficiencies.
If we are unable to remediate our identified internal control
deficiencies over financial reporting by the end of 2005, 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 suffer a loss of public confidence in the
reliability of our financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles, 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 to the risk of not completing the remediation of all
deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting,
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.
In addition, the applicable regulations and literature are
relatively new. As a result, they are potentially subject to
change in the future, which could include changes in the
interpretation of the existing regulations and literature as
well as the issuance of more detailed rules and procedures.
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 of approximately $19 billion as of
December 31, 2004 and have 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
CCC+ 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 Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements
and Supplementary Data, Note 15, for a further discussion
of our debt.
83
|
|
|
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 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 TGP, ANR, EPNG, CIG, WIC, 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 January 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. |
84
ITEM 7A. 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; |
|
|
|
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 Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and
Supplementary Data, Notes 1 and 10.
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.
85
Marketing and Trading
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.
Production
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 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
86
associated with these contracts are not included in the
sensitivity analysis, but rather are included in our
Value-at-Risk calculation discussed above.
Field Services
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
Debt
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 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
Debt
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
87
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.
Power Contracts
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.
88
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY
DATA
Index to Financial Statements and Related Reports
Below is an index to the financial statements and notes
contained in Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary
Data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page | |
|
|
| |
Consolidated Statements of Income
|
|
|
90 |
|
Consolidated Balance Sheets
|
|
|
91 |
|
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
|
|
|
93 |
|
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders Equity
|
|
|
95 |
|
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income
|
|
|
96 |
|
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
1. Basis of Presentation and Significant
Accounting Policies
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
2. Acquisitions and Consolidations
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
3. Divestitures
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
4. Restructuring Costs
|
|
|
116 |
|
|
5. Loss on Long-Lived Assets
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
6. Other Income and Other Expenses
|
|
|
119 |
|
|
7. Income Taxes
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
8. Earnings Per Share
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
9. Fair Value of Financial Instruments
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
10. Price Risk Management Activities
|
|
|
123 |
|
|
11. Inventory
|
|
|
129 |
|
|
12. Regulatory Assets and Liabilities
|
|
|
129 |
|
|
13. Other Assets and Liabilities
|
|
|
130 |
|
|
14. Property, Plant and Equipment
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
15. Debt, Other Financing Obligations and Other
Credit Facilities
|
|
|
131 |
|
|
16. Preferred Interests of Consolidated Subsidiaries
|
|
|
138 |
|
|
17. Commitments and Contingencies
|
|
|
139 |
|
|
18. Retirement Benefits
|
|
|
149 |
|
|
19. Capital Stock
|
|
|
153 |
|
|
20. Stock-Based Compensation
|
|
|
153 |
|
|
21. Business Segment Information
|
|
|
155 |
|
|
22. Investments in, Earnings from and Transactions
with Unconsolidated Affiliates
|
|
|
160 |
|
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
|
|
|
168 |
|
Supplemental Financial Information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Selected Quarterly
Financial Information (Unaudited)
|
|
|
171 |
|
|
Supplemental Natural Gas and Oil
Operations (Unaudited)
|
|
|
172 |
|
|
Schedule II
Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
|
|
|
181 |
|
89
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME
(In millions, except per common share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
2002 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
(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
|
|
|
1,092 |
|
|
|
860 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
Western Energy Settlement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
899 |
|
|
Taxes, other than income taxes
|
|
|
253 |
|
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
254 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,668 |
|
|
|
6,263 |
|
|
|
7,052 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
206 |
|
|
|
405 |
|
|
|
(171 |
) |
Earnings (losses) from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
559 |
|
|
|
363 |
|
|
|
(214 |
) |
Other income
|
|
|
189 |
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
(777 |
) |
|
|
(1,074 |
) |
|
|
(1,883 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
(551 |
) |
|
|
(641 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
|
(802 |
) |
|
|
(523 |
) |
|
|
(1,242 |
) |
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(146 |
) |
|
|
(1,396 |
) |
|
|
(425 |
) |
Cumulative effect of accounting changes, net of income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(208 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(948 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,928 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,875 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted loss per common share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(1.25 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.87 |
) |
|
$ |
(2.22 |
) |
|
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(0.23 |
) |
|
|
(2.34 |
) |
|
|
(0.76 |
) |
|
Cumulative effect of accounting changes, net of income taxes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
(0.37 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(1.48 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.23 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.35 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted average common shares outstanding
|
|
|
639 |
|
|
|
597 |
|
|
|
560 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
90
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(In millions, except share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
(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 |
|
|
|
592 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
179 |
|
|
|
210 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total current assets
|
|
|
5,632 |
|
|
|
8,922 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
1,534 |
|
|
|
1,660 |
|
|
Gathering and processing systems
|
|
|
171 |
|
|
|
334 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
882 |
|
|
|
998 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36,973 |
|
|
|
36,244 |
|
|
Less accumulated depreciation, depletion and amortization
|
|
|
18,161 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
$ |
36,942 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
91
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (Continued)
(In millions, except share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
(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
|
|
|
1,311 |
|
|
|
1,551 |
|
|
Western Energy Settlement
|
|
|
351 |
|
|
|
415 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2,076 |
|
|
|
2,047 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,764 |
|
|
|
4,794 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
(2,855 |
) |
|
|
(1,907 |
) |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
3,439 |
|
|
|
4,352 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and stockholders equity
|
|
$ |
31,383 |
|
|
$ |
36,942 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
92
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(In millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
2002 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
(Restated)(1) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Cash flows from operating activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(948 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,928 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,875 |
) |
|
Less loss from discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(146 |
) |
|
|
(1,396 |
) |
|
|
(425 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss before discontinued operations
|
|
|
(802 |
) |
|
|
(532 |
) |
|
|
(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
|
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
(686 |
) |
|
|
(685 |
) |
|
|
Cumulative effect of accounting changes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
1,092 |
|
|
|
785 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
|
Losses (earnings) from unconsolidated affiliates, adjusted for
cash distributions
|
|
|
(224 |
) |
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
521 |
|
|
|
Other non-cash income items
|
|
|
451 |
|
|
|
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 restatement. |
See accompanying notes.
93
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Continued)
(In millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
2002 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
(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 restatement. |
See accompanying notes.
94
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY
(In millions except for per share amounts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Years Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,907 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,387 |
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(948 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,928 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,875 |
) |
|
Dividends ($0.87 per share)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(491 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,855 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,907 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at beginning of year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(235 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
Other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
246 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(217 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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 |
|
|
$ |
3,439 |
|
|
|
632 |
|
|
$ |
4,352 |
|
|
|
599 |
|
|
$ |
5,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
95
EL PASO CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME
(In millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
2002 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Net loss
|
|
$ |
(948 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,928 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,875 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foreign currency translation adjustments (net of income tax of
$10 in 2004)
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
159 |
|
|
|
(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)
|
|
|
37 |
|
|
|
246 |
|
|
|
(217 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive loss
|
|
$ |
(911 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,682 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,092 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes.
96
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.
Restatement
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 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
97
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.
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 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.
98
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.
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
99
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.
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
100
between capitalized costs and proved reserves. We treat sales
proceeds on non-significant sales as an adjustment to the cost
of our properties.
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 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,
101
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
102
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 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
103
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 $17 million,
$100 million and $91 million primarily
104
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 recorded in accumulated other comprehensive
income was $52 million and $45 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, | |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
2002 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except per common | |
|
|
share amounts) | |
Net loss, as reported
|
|
$ |
(948 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,928 |
) |
|
$ |
(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
|
|
$ |
(969 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,978 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,997 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted, as reported
|
|
$ |
(1.48 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.23 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.35 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted, pro forma
|
|
$ |
(1.52 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.31 |
) |
|
$ |
(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.
105
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,
106
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
107
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.
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 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
108
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
109
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 approximately
$127 million representing the difference between the
facilitys estimated fair value and the
110
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).
111
|
|
|
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. |
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 |
112
See Note 5 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 power 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 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
$99 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
113
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.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
|
|
$ |
787 |
|
|
$ |
31 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
818 |
|
Costs and expenses
|
|
|
(839 |
) |
|
|
(53 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(892 |
) |
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
(36 |
) |
|
|
(99 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(135 |
) |
Other income
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23 |
|
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income taxes
|
|
|
(68 |
) |
|
|
(120 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(188 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
(44 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(42 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
$ |
(70 |
) |
|
$ |
(76 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(146 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
114
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
International | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Oil | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petroleum | |
|
Production | |
|
Coal | |
|
|
|
|
Markets | |
|
Operations | |
|
Mining | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Year Ended December 31, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
) |
|
|
(33 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(290 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (loss) from discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
$ |
(1,304 |
) |
|
$ |
(93 |
) |
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
$ |
(1,396 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
115
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
International | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Natural Gas | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
and Oil | |
|
|
|
|
Petroleum | |
|
Production | |
|
|
|
|
Markets | |
|
Operations | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
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 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:
116
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.
117
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
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
|
|
|
197 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
1,108 |
|
|
|
791 |
|
|
|
440 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on long-lived assets
|
|
|
1,092 |
|
|
|
860 |
|
|
|
181 |
|
|
(Gain) loss on investments in unconsolidated affiliates
(1)
|
|
|
(129 |
) |
|
|
176 |
|
|
|
612 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Gain) loss on assets and investments
|
|
$ |
963 |
|
|
$ |
1,036 |
|
|
$ |
793 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
See Note 22 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). 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
for a further discussion of these divestitures.
118
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 $167 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), 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. For additional discussion on goodwill and other
intangibles, see Note 1.
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 | |
|
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
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Favorable resolution of non-operating contingent obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
Gain on early extinguishment of debt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
43 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
189 |
|
|
$ |
203 |
|
|
$ |
197 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
119
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 | |
|
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
Our pretax loss from continuing operations is composed of the
following for each of the three years ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
U.S.
|
|
$ |
(698 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,330 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,282 |
) |
Foreign
|
|
|
(79 |
) |
|
|
256 |
|
|
|
399 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(777 |
) |
|
$ |
(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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Current
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
|
$ |
36 |
|
|
$ |
(15 |
) |
|
State
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
Foreign
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
41 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63 |
|
|
|
135 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal
|
|
|
(63 |
) |
|
|
(636 |
) |
|
|
(679 |
) |
|
State
|
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
Foreign
|
|
|
30 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(38 |
) |
|
|
(686 |
) |
|
|
(685 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total income taxes
|
|
$ |
25 |
|
|
$ |
(551 |
) |
|
$ |
(641 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
120
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions, except rates) | |
Income taxes at the statutory federal rate of 35%
|
|
$ |
(272 |
) |
|
$ |
(376 |
) |
|
$ |
(659 |
) |
Increase (decrease)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abandonments and sales of foreign investments
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
(124 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
Valuation allowances
|
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
(57 |
) |
|
|
44 |
|
|
Foreign income taxed at different rates
|
|
|
155 |
|
|
|
(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 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
Non-conventional fuel tax credits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
Non-deductible goodwill impairments
|
|
|
139 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income taxes
|
|
$ |
25 |
|
|
$ |
(551 |
) |
|
$ |
(641 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effective tax rate
|
|
|
(3 |
)% |
|
|
51 |
% |
|
|
34 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following are the components of our net deferred tax
liability related to continuing operations as of
December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Deferred tax liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property, plant and equipment
|
|
$ |
2,590 |
|
|
$ |
2,147 |
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
3,223 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net operating loss and tax credit carryovers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. federal
|
|
|
1,196 |
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
387 |
|
|
|
276 |
|
|
Valuation allowance
|
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total deferred tax asset
|
|
|
2,434 |
|
|
|
2,333 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax liability
|
|
$ |
893 |
|
|
$ |
890 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
121
Settlement and could result in a write-off of some or all of the
associated tax benefits. In such event, our tax 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 $551 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 $4 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 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3,118 |
|
|
$ |
3,125 |
|
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
122
related to state net operating loss carryovers, $1 million
related to foreign deferred tax assets for ceiling test 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 for further information). For a further
discussion of these instruments, see Notes 15 and 20.
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 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
123
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.
124
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
$52 million and $45 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
125
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
126
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 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
127
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. |
128
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 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
129
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
$ |
933 |
|
|
$ |
962 |
|
|
Notes receivable from affiliates
|
|
|
287 |
|
|
|
349 |
|
|
Restricted cash (Note 1)
|
|
|
180 |
|
|
|
349 |
|
|
Unamortized debt expenses
|
|
|
192 |
|
|
|
246 |
|
|
Regulatory assets (Note 12)
|
|
|
155 |
|
|
|
143 |
|
|
Long-term receivables
|
|
|
343 |
|
|
|
108 |
|
|
Notes receivable
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
113 |
|
|
Turbine inventory (Note 11)
|
|
|
76 |
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
Other investments
|
|
|
48 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
Assets of discontinued operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
405 |
|
|
Other
|
|
|
53 |
|
|
|
163 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
2,313 |
|
|
$ |
2,996 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
130
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
Deposits
|
|
|
39 |
|
|
|
67 |
|
|
Obligations under swap agreement (Note 15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
Other postretirement benefits (Note 18)
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
Asset retirement obligations (Note 1)
|
|
|
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)
|
|
$ |
763 |
|
|
$ |
450 |
|
|
Other postretirement and employment benefits (Note 18)
|
|
|
248 |
|
|
|
272 |
|
|
Obligations under swap agreement (Note 15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
Regulatory liabilities (Note 12)
|
|
|
228 |
|
|
|
203 |
|
|
Asset retirement obligations (Note 1)
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
Deferred compensation
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
Pipeline integrity liability (Note 22)
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
131
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 |
|
132
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
133
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 date of filing |
|
$ |
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 date of filing |
|
$ |
5,919 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
This debt was consolidated as a result of adopting FIN
No. 46 (see Note 2). |
|
(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 for additional
information on the repurchase of the derivative contracts. |
134
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 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
135
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
136
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 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 lenders on
137
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) 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 |
) |
138
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
139
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
140
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
141
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
142
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
143
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.
144
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. |
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.
145
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
146
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
147
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 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
148
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.
149
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
150
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
151
|
|
(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. |
152
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). 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).
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.
153
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) 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% |
|
154
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 |
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
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
155
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 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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2002 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(In millions) | |
Total EBIT
|
|
$ |
855 |
|
|
$ |
769 |
|
|
$ |
(427 |
) |
Interest and debt expense
|
|
|
(1,607 |
) |
|
|
(1,791 |
) |
|
|
(1,297 |
) |
Distributions on preferred interests of consolidated subsidiaries
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
|
(159 |
) |
Income taxes
|
|
|
(25 |
) |
|
|
551 |
|
|
|
641 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(802 |
) |
|
$ |
(523 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,242 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
156
The following tables reflect our segment results as of and for
each of the three years ended December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segments | |
|
|
As of or for the Year Ended December 31, 2004 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Regulated | |
|
Non-regulated | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marketing | |
|
|
|
Field | |
|
|
|
|
Pipelines | |
|
Production | |
|
and Trading | |
|
Power | |
|
Services | |
|
Corporate(1) | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
583 |
|
|
|
508 |
|
|
|
(6 |
) |
|
|
1,092 |
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
$ |
1,129 |
|
|
$ |
726 |
|
|
$ |
(562 |
) |
|
$ |
(408 |
) |
|
$ |
(465 |
) |
|
$ |
(214 |
) |
|
$ |
206 |
|
Earnings from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
173 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(236 |
) |
|
|
618 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
559 |
|
Other income
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
189 |
|
Other expense
|
|
|
(4 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
(51 |
) |
|
|
(99 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EBIT
|
|
$ |
1,331 |
|
|
$ |
734 |
|
|
$ |
(547 |
) |
|
$ |
(569 |
) |
|
$ |
120 |
|
|
$ |
(214 |
) |
|
$ |
855 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(76 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(70 |
) |
|
$ |
(146 |
) |
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 of
$308 million. Our intersegment revenues, along with our
intersegment operating expenses, were incurred in the normal
course of business between our operating segments. We record an
intersegment revenue and 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). |
(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. |
157
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segments | |
|
|
As of or for the Year Ended December 31, 2003 | |
|
|
| |
|
|
Regulated | |
|
Non-regulated | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marketing | |
|
|
|
Field | |
|
|
|
|
Pipelines | |
|
Production | |
|
and Trading | |
|
Power | |
|
Services | |
|
Corporate(1) | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(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
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(93 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
(1,303 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,396 |
) |
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 |
|
|
|
3,889 |
|
|
|
31,555 |
|
|
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 of
$316 million. Our intersegment revenues, along with our
intersegment operating expenses, were incurred in the normal
course of business between our operating segments. We record an
intersegment revenue and 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). |
(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). |
158
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Segments | |
|
|
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 of
$213 million. Our intersegment revenues, along with our
intersegment operating expenses, were incurred in the normal
course of business between our operating segments. We record an
intersegment revenue and 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). |
(5) |
Amounts are net of third party reimbursements of our capital
expenditures and returns of invested capital. |
159
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 | |
|
|
|
2002 | |
|
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2004 | |
|
(Restated) | |
|
2004 | |
|
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 |
|
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total foreign
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,080 |
|
|
|
1,253 |
|
|
|
(46 |
) |
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
(285 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total investments in unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,614 |
|
|
$ |
3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total earnings (losses) from unconsolidated affiliates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
559 |
|
|
$ |
362 |
|
|
$ |
(214 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
160
|
|
(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 165. |
(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. |
161
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$ |
129 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 165. |
(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. |
162
|
|
(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 |
|
|
|
|
|
163
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, 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.
164
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. |
165
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.
For contingent matters that could impact our investments in
Brazil, see Note 17.
For a discussion of non-recourse project financing, see
Note 15.
166
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.
167
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 discussed in Note 1, the 2002 consolidated financial
statements have been restated.
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 under Item 9A, 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).
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
168
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.
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 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.
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
169
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.
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 divestiture of assets. These control
deficiencies resulted in the restatement of the 2002 financial
statements as reflected in this annual report as well as
adjustments to the aforementioned accounts impacting 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.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Houston Texas
March 25, 2004
170
Supplemental Selected Quarterly Financial Information
(Unaudited)
Financial information by quarter, is summarized below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarters Ended | |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
March 31 | |
|
June 30 | |
|
September 30 | |
|
December 31 | |
|
Total | |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
(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
|
|
|
222 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
582 |
|
|
|
271 |
|
|
|
1,092 |
|
|
Operating income (loss)
|
|
|
205 |
|
|
|
370 |
|
|
|
(355 |
) |
|
|
(14 |
) |
|
|
206 |
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(97 |
) |
|
$ |
45 |
|
|
$ |
(202 |
) |
|
$ |
(548 |
) |
|
$ |
(802 |
) |
|
Discontinued operations, net of income
taxes(1)
|
|
|
(109 |
) |
|
|
(29 |
) |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
(146 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(206 |
) |
|
$ |
16 |
|
|
$ |
(214 |
) |
|
$ |
(544 |
) |
|
$ |
(948 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted earnings per common share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(0.15 |
) |
|
$ |
0.07 |
|
|
$ |
(0.31 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.86 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.25 |
) |
|
|
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(0.17 |
) |
|
|
(0.04 |
) |
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
0.01 |
|
|
|
(0.23 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(0.32 |
) |
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
|
$ |
(0.33 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.85 |
) |
|
$ |
(1.48 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
$ |
(84 |
) |
|
$ |
(523 |
) |
|
Discontinued operations, net of income
taxes(1)
|
|
|
(215 |
) |
|
|
(939 |
) |
|
|
(41 |
) |
|
|
(201 |
) |
|
|
(1,396 |
) |
|
Cumulative effect of accounting changes, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(431 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,236 |
) |
|
$ |
24 |
|
|
$ |
(285 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,928 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted earnings per common share
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations
|
|
$ |
(0.34 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.50 |
) |
|
$ |
0.11 |
|
|
$ |
(0.14 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.87 |
) |
|
|
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(0.36 |
) |
|
|
(1.57 |
) |
|
|
(0.07 |
) |
|
|
(0.33 |
) |
|
|
(2.34 |
) |
|
|
Cumulative effect of accounting changes, net of income taxes
|
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.02 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$ |
(0.72 |
) |
|
$ |
(2.07 |
) |
|
$ |
0.04 |
|
|
$ |
(0.47 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.23 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(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 for further discussion). |
171
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. 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
172
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 178. |
(2) |
In January 2003, we adopted SFAS No. 143, which is
further discussed in Note 1. 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. |
173
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 178. |
174
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 178. |
175
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
176
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.
177
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. 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. |
178
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.
179
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.
180
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. |
181
|
|
ITEM 9. |
CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING
AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE |
None.
ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
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
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.
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
182
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 would not be prevented or detected.
Accordingly, management has determined that these control
deficiencies constitute a material weakness.
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 of 2004
financial statements. 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.
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 the restatement of our 2002 financial
statements, as reflected in this annual report on
Form 10-K, as well as adjustments impacting the fourth
quarter of our 2004 financial statements. 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.
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 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 |
183
|
|
|
|
|
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.
ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION
None.
184
PART III
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE
REGISTRANT
The information included under the captions, Proposal
No. 1 Election of Directors and
Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting
Compliance in our Proxy Statement for the 2005 Annual
Meeting of Stockholders is incorporated herein by reference.
Information regarding our executive officers is presented in
Part I, Item 1, Business, of this Form 10-K under
the caption Executive Officers of the Registrant.
As a result of the promulgation of Rule 10b5-1, we allow
certain officers and directors to establish pre-established
trading plans. Rule 10b5-1 allows certain officers and
directors to establish written programs that permit an
independent person who is not aware of inside information at the
time of the trade to execute pre-established trades of our
securities for the officer or director according to fixed
parameters. As of March 10, 2005, no officer or director
has a current trading plan. However, we intend to disclose the
existence of any trading plan in compliance with
Rule 10b5-1 in future filings with the SEC.
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Information appearing under the caption Executive
Compensation in our proxy statement for the 2005 Annual
Meeting of Stockholders is incorporated herein by reference.
|
|
ITEM 12. |
SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND
MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS |
Information appearing under the caption Security Ownership
of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management in our proxy
statement for the 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders is
incorporated herein by reference.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED
TRANSACTIONS
Information appearing under the caption Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions in our proxy
statement for the 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders is
incorporated herein by reference.
ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES
Information appearing under the caption Principal
Accountant Fees and Services in our proxy statement for
the 2005 Annual Meeting of Stockholders is incorporated herein
by reference.
185
PART IV
|
|
ITEM 15. |
EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES, AND REPORTS ON
FORM 8-K |
(a) The following documents are filed as a part of this
report:
1. Financial statements.
The following consolidated financial statements are included in
Part II, Item 8 of this report:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page | |
|
|
| |
|
Consolidated Statements of Income
|
|
|
90 |
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheets
|
|
|
91 |
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
|
|
|
93 |
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders Equity
|
|
|
95 |
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income
|
|
|
96 |
|
|
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
|
|
|
168 |
|
2. Financial statement schedules and supplementary
information required to be submitted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schedule II Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
|
|
|
181 |
|
Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership
|
|
|
|
|
|
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
|
|
|
187 |
|
|
Consolidated Balance Sheets
|
|
|
189 |
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Operations
|
|
|
190 |
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Partners Equity
|
|
|
191 |
|
|
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
|
|
|
192 |
|
|
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
|
|
|
193 |
|
3. Exhibit list
|
|
|
209 |
|
186
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 under Item 9(a), 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.
187
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
188
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.
189
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.
190
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.
191
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.
192
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
193
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.
194
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.
195
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
196
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
197
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.
198
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.
199
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.
200
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.
201
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.
202
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.
203
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,
204
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.
205
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 |
|
206
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.
|
|
(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
207
MIDLAND COGENERATION VENTURE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS (Continued)
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. |
208
EL PASO CORPORATION
EXHIBIT LIST
December 31, 2004
Each exhibit identified below is filed as part of this report.
Exhibits not incorporated by reference to a prior filing 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 report pursuant to
Item 14(c) of Form 10-K.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
3 |
.A |
|
Restated Certificate of Incorporation effective as of
August 11, 2003 (Exhibit 3.A to our 2003 Second
Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
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 JPMorgan Chase Bank (formerly The Chase Manhattan Bank), as
Trustee |
209
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 8K filed
April 18, 2003) |
210
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
*+10 |
.G.1 |
|
Amendment No. 1 effective as of July 16, 1999 to the
Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors |
|
+10 |
.G.2 |
|
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
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 |
|
*+10 |
.I.1 |
|
Amendment No. 1 effective as of December 3, 1998 to
the 1995 Omnibus Compensation Plan |
|
*+10 |
.I.2 |
|
Amendment No. 2 effective as of January 20, 1999 to
the 1995 Omnibus Compensation Plan |
|
+10 |
.J |
|
1999 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan dated January 20,
1999 (Exhibit 10.1 to our Form S-8 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
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) |
|
*+10 |
.L.1 |
|
Amendment No. 2 effective as of June 1, 2004 to the
Supplemental Benefits Plan |
|
*+10 |
.M |
|
Senior Executive Survivor Benefit Plan Amended and Restated
effective as of August 1, 1998 |
|
+10 |
.M.1 |
|
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) |
211
|
|
|
|
|
|
*+10 |
.N |
|
Key Executive Severance Protection Plan Amended and Restated
effective as of August 1, 1998 |
|
+10 |
.N.1 |
|
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 |
|
+10 |
.P.1 |
|
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
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 |
|
*+10 |
.S |
|
Executive Award Plan of Sonat Inc. Amended and Restated
effective as of July 23, 1998, as amended May 27, 1999 |
|
+10 |
.S.1 |
|
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 10.1 to our
Form S-8 filed December 18, 2000); Amendment
No. 1 effective as of December 1, 2000 to the Omnibus
Plan for Management Employees (Exhibit 10.1 to our
Form S-8 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 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) |
212
|
|
|
|
|
|
+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.1 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 10.0 to our 2000 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.X |
|
Letter Agreement dated September 22, 2000 between El Paso
and D. Dwight Scott (Exhibit 10.W to our 2002 Third Quarter
Form 10-Q) |
|
+10 |
.X.1 |
|
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) |
|
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) |
213
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
*21 |
|
|
Subsidiaries of El Paso |
|
*23 |
.A |
|
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Houston) |
|
*23 |
.B |
|
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Detroit) |
|
*23 |
.C |
|
Consent of Ryder Scott Company, L.P. |
|
*31 |
.A |
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to sec. 302 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
|
*31 |
.B |
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to sec. 302 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
|
*32 |
.A |
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
sec. 1350 as adopted pursuant to sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 |
|
*32 |
.B |
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
sec. 1350 as adopted pursuant to sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 |
Undertaking
We hereby undertake, pursuant to Regulation S-K,
Item 601(b), paragraph (4) (iii), to furnish to
the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request all
constituent instruments defining the rights of holders of our
long-term debt and consolidated subsidiaries not filed herewith
for the reason that the total amount of securities authorized
under any of such instruments does not exceed 10 percent of
our total consolidated assets.
214
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, El Paso
Corporation has duly caused this report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized on the
[ ]th day of March 2005.
|
|
|
EL PASO CORPORATION |
|
Registrant |
|
|
|
|
|
Douglas L. Foshee |
|
President and Chief Executive Officer |
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, this report has been signed below by the
following persons on behalf of El Paso Corporation and in
the capacities and on the dates indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Title |
|
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Douglas L. Foshee
(Douglas
L. Foshee) |
|
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
(Principal Executive Officer) |
|
March 25, 2005 |
|
|
/s/ D. Dwight Scott
(D.
Dwight Scott) |
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer) |
|
March 25, 2005 |
|
|
/s/ Jeffrey I. Beason
(Jeffrey
I. Beason) |
|
Senior Vice President and Controller
(Principal Accounting Officer) |
|
March 25, 2005 |
|
/s/ Ronald L. Kuehn,
Jr.
(Ronald
L. Kuehn, Jr.) |
|
Chairman of the Board and Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
|
/s/ John M. Bissell
(John
M. Bissell) |
|
Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
|
/s/ Juan Carlos Braniff
(Juan
Carlos Braniff) |
|
Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
|
/s/ James L. Dunlap
(James
L. Dunlap) |
|
Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
|
/s/ Robert W. Goldman
(Robert
W. Goldman) |
|
Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
|
/s/ Anthony W. Hall,
Jr.
(Anthony
W. Hall, Jr.) |
|
Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
215
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Title |
|
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Thomas R. Hix
(Thomas
R. Hix) |
|
Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
|
/s/ William H. Joyce
(William
H. Joyce) |
|
Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
/s/ J. Michael Talbert
(J.
Michael Talbert) |
|
Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
/s/ John L. Whitmire
(John
L. Whitmire) |
|
Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
|
/s/ Joe B. Wyatt
(Joe
B. Wyatt) |
|
Director |
|
March 25, 2005 |
216
EL PASO CORPORATION
EXHIBIT INDEX
December 31, 2004
Each exhibit identified below is filed as part of this report.
Exhibits not incorporated by reference to a prior filing 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 report pursuant to
Item 14(c) of Form 10-K.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
3 |
.A |
|
Restated Certificate of Incorporation effective as of
August 11, 2003 (Exhibit 3.A to our 2003 Second
Quarter Form 10-Q) |
|
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 JPMorgan Chase Bank (formerly The Chase Manhattan Bank), as
Trustee |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 8K 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 |
|
*+10 |
.G.1 |
|
Amendment No. 1 effective as of July 16, 1999 to the
Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors |
|
+10 |
.G.2 |
|
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
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 |
|
*+10 |
.I.1 |
|
Amendment No. 1 effective as of December 3, 1998 to
the 1995 Omnibus Compensation Plan |
|
*+10 |
.I.2 |
|
Amendment No. 2 effective as of January 20, 1999 to
the 1995 Omnibus Compensation Plan |
|
+10 |
.J |
|
1999 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan dated January 20,
1999 (Exhibit 10.1 to our Form S-8 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
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) |
|
*+10 |
.L.1 |
|
Amendment No. 2 effective as of June 1, 2004 to the
Supplemental Benefits Plan |
|
*+10 |
.M |
|
Senior Executive Survivor Benefit Plan Amended and Restated
effective as of August 1, 1998 |
|
+10 |
.M.1 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
+10 |
.N.1 |
|
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 |
|
+10 |
.P.1 |
|
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
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 |
|
*+10 |
.S |
|
Executive Award Plan of Sonat Inc. Amended and Restated
effective as of July 23, 1998, as amended May 27, 1999 |
|
+10 |
.S.1 |
|
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 10.1 to our
Form S-8 filed December 18, 2000); Amendment
No. 1 effective as of December 1, 2000 to the Omnibus
Plan for Management Employees (Exhibit 10.1 to our
Form S-8 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 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.1 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 10.0 to our 2000 Form 10-K) |
|
+10 |
.X |
|
Letter Agreement dated September 22, 2000 between El Paso
and D. Dwight Scott (Exhibit 10.W to our 2002 Third Quarter
Form 10-Q) |
|
+10 |
.X.1 |
|
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) |
|
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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*21 |
|
|
Subsidiaries of El Paso |
|
*23 |
.A |
|
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Houston) |
|
*23 |
.B |
|
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Detroit) |
|
*23 |
.C |
|
Consent of Ryder Scott Company, L.P. |
|
*31 |
.A |
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to sec. 302 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
|
*31 |
.B |
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to sec. 302 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
|
*32 |
.A |
|
Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
sec. 1350 as adopted pursuant to sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 |
|
*32 |
.B |
|
Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
sec. 1350 as adopted pursuant to sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 |